12020-08-11T00:00:02 *** fimp has quit IRC
22020-08-11T00:02:18 *** watersnake1 has quit IRC
32020-08-11T00:16:58 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
42020-08-11T00:21:00 *** Criggie1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52020-08-11T00:44:45 *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62020-08-11T00:50:49 *** diogorsergio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
72020-08-11T01:05:41 *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
82020-08-11T01:06:22 *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92020-08-11T01:06:34 *** mdunnio has quit IRC
102020-08-11T01:07:29 *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112020-08-11T01:18:47 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
122020-08-11T01:19:42 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132020-08-11T01:25:41 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142020-08-11T01:25:41 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/85fa648c857f...cb1ee1551cf3
152020-08-11T01:25:42 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dac7a11 Sebastian Falbesoner: refactor: test: use _ variable for unused loop counters
162020-08-11T01:25:43 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cb1ee15 fanquake: Merge #19674: refactor: test: use throwaway _ variable for unused loop cou...
172020-08-11T01:25:44 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
182020-08-11T01:26:00 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192020-08-11T01:26:00 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #19674: refactor: test: use throwaway _ variable for unused loop counters (master...20200804-refactor-test-use-underscore-variable) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19674
202020-08-11T01:26:01 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
212020-08-11T01:35:37 *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222020-08-11T01:37:25 *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
232020-08-11T01:45:12 *** mdunnio has quit IRC
242020-08-11T02:21:45 *** trash_mapache has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252020-08-11T02:23:43 *** jb55 has quit IRC
262020-08-11T02:36:50 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272020-08-11T02:40:04 *** proofofkeags has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282020-08-11T02:40:13 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
292020-08-11T02:40:37 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302020-08-11T02:59:37 *** Criggie1 has quit IRC
312020-08-11T03:03:33 *** adam3us has quit IRC
322020-08-11T03:04:13 *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332020-08-11T03:04:41 *** K4TJANG has quit IRC
342020-08-11T03:04:41 *** Cory has quit IRC
352020-08-11T03:04:41 *** kanzure has quit IRC
362020-08-11T03:06:09 *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372020-08-11T03:11:03 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382020-08-11T03:17:25 *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392020-08-11T03:18:37 *** trash_mapache22 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
402020-08-11T03:20:04 *** Highway61 has quit IRC
412020-08-11T03:21:22 *** trash_mapache has quit IRC
422020-08-11T03:21:57 *** zeromus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432020-08-11T03:22:25 *** proofofkeags has quit IRC
442020-08-11T03:41:12 *** bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452020-08-11T03:43:48 *** jarthur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462020-08-11T03:44:07 *** jarthur has quit IRC
472020-08-11T03:49:02 *** PaulTroo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482020-08-11T03:54:05 *** PaulTroo_ has quit IRC
492020-08-11T03:55:47 *** mdunnio has quit IRC
502020-08-11T04:01:12 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
512020-08-11T04:01:44 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522020-08-11T04:04:43 *** bitdex has quit IRC
532020-08-11T04:08:45 *** bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
542020-08-11T04:43:07 *** Mercury_Vapor has quit IRC
552020-08-11T04:43:31 *** Mercury_Vapor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
562020-08-11T04:48:30 *** trash_mapache22 has quit IRC
572020-08-11T04:55:22 *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
582020-08-11T05:33:10 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
592020-08-11T05:33:34 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
602020-08-11T06:00:01 *** zeromus1 has quit IRC
612020-08-11T06:19:03 *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622020-08-11T06:21:41 *** Mark_Cockrell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
632020-08-11T06:25:20 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
642020-08-11T06:30:37 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
652020-08-11T06:37:41 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
662020-08-11T06:39:23 *** bitdex has quit IRC
672020-08-11T06:41:41 *** bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682020-08-11T06:45:14 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
692020-08-11T06:49:38 *** andreacab has quit IRC
702020-08-11T06:50:48 <fanquake> Review beg for #19025. I'd like to get that merged, as it now also contains the fixes required for Appveyor & CI on the 0.19 branch.
712020-08-11T06:50:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19025 | [0.19] Backports by fanquake · Pull Request #19025 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
722020-08-11T06:51:01 <fanquake> That way we can avoid polluting backport PRs like #19681 with unrelated changes & discussion.
732020-08-11T06:51:03 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19681 | 0.19: Add txids with non-standard inputs to reject filter by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19681 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
742020-08-11T06:54:41 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
752020-08-11T07:09:29 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
762020-08-11T07:21:40 *** PaulTroo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
772020-08-11T07:26:43 *** jonatack has quit IRC
782020-08-11T07:28:15 *** davec has quit IRC
792020-08-11T07:42:25 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802020-08-11T07:54:14 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
812020-08-11T08:14:09 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
822020-08-11T08:14:32 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
832020-08-11T08:29:58 *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
842020-08-11T08:32:36 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
852020-08-11T08:42:27 *** Mark_Cockrell has quit IRC
862020-08-11T08:43:05 <jnewbery> fanquake: I've reviewed. Looks good to me.
872020-08-11T09:02:42 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
882020-08-11T09:04:18 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
892020-08-11T09:07:23 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
902020-08-11T09:11:34 *** jonasschnelli has quit IRC
912020-08-11T09:11:34 *** jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
922020-08-11T09:12:37 <jonasschnelli> can someone unban me in #bitcoin #bitcoin-dev?
932020-08-11T09:14:20 *** andreacab has quit IRC
942020-08-11T09:14:28 *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
952020-08-11T09:14:34 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
962020-08-11T09:14:35 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
972020-08-11T09:20:57 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
982020-08-11T09:21:51 *** nerdboy1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
992020-08-11T09:38:02 <jnewbery> wumpus, fanquake: I think it might be time to merge #19070. It has 5 ACKs/concept ACKs
1002020-08-11T09:38:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19070 | p2p: Signal support for compact block filters with NODE_COMPACT_FILTERS by jnewbery · Pull Request #19070 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1012020-08-11T09:38:35 <jnewbery> It's opt-in and very self-contained, so if there are any problems with it, then it'll be very easy to revert
1022020-08-11T09:44:50 * aj misparses "compact block" filters
1032020-08-11T09:48:21 <jnewbery> filters of blocks which are compact
1042020-08-11T09:49:11 *** belcher_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052020-08-11T09:50:05 <aj> yeah, i said /mis/parses
1062020-08-11T09:52:43 *** Guest76530 has quit IRC
1072020-08-11T09:52:48 *** belcher has quit IRC
1082020-08-11T09:55:21 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1092020-08-11T09:56:13 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102020-08-11T09:57:50 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1112020-08-11T09:57:56 *** andreaca_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122020-08-11T10:00:03 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132020-08-11T10:00:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 12 commits to 0.19: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/05f5dd96c71e...28a9df7d76a6
1142020-08-11T10:00:06 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 0d0dd6a Andrew Chow: Update with new Windows code signing certificate
1152020-08-11T10:00:08 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 e422f65 Hennadii Stepanov: build: Set libevent minimum version to 2.0.21
1162020-08-11T10:00:09 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 bde6a5a Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Include "csv","!segwit" in "rules"
1172020-08-11T10:00:11 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1182020-08-11T10:00:28 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1192020-08-11T10:00:28 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19025: [0.19] Backports (0.19...0_19_2_backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19025
1202020-08-11T10:00:29 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1212020-08-11T10:01:31 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222020-08-11T10:03:18 *** Bertha4Jacobson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232020-08-11T10:03:46 *** andreaca_ has quit IRC
1242020-08-11T10:04:33 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252020-08-11T10:05:32 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262020-08-11T10:08:49 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1272020-08-11T10:10:11 *** Bertha4Jacobson has quit IRC
1282020-08-11T10:10:32 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292020-08-11T10:11:30 *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302020-08-11T10:20:32 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1312020-08-11T10:32:08 *** promag has quit IRC
1322020-08-11T10:43:09 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
1332020-08-11T10:43:34 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342020-08-11T10:43:35 *** bitdex has quit IRC
1352020-08-11T10:46:07 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362020-08-11T10:46:08 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] naumenkogs opened pull request #19697: Minor improvements on ADDR caching (master...2020-08-addr-cache-follow-up) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19697
1372020-08-11T10:46:08 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1382020-08-11T10:47:09 *** behradkhodayar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392020-08-11T10:48:28 *** behradkhodayar has quit IRC
1402020-08-11T10:51:24 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1412020-08-11T10:53:03 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422020-08-11T10:53:42 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432020-08-11T10:54:56 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1442020-08-11T10:55:04 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452020-08-11T10:55:27 *** behradkhodayar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462020-08-11T10:55:41 *** vasild_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472020-08-11T10:58:23 *** vasild has quit IRC
1482020-08-11T10:58:24 *** vasild_ is now known as vasild
1492020-08-11T11:09:00 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1502020-08-11T11:09:14 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
1512020-08-11T11:09:24 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522020-08-11T11:11:18 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532020-08-11T11:15:03 *** mrostecki has quit IRC
1542020-08-11T11:15:07 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1552020-08-11T11:15:41 *** PaulTroo_ has quit IRC
1562020-08-11T11:15:59 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572020-08-11T11:18:42 *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
1582020-08-11T11:20:01 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
1592020-08-11T11:20:50 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1602020-08-11T11:25:58 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612020-08-11T11:27:41 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1622020-08-11T11:28:09 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632020-08-11T11:28:58 *** PaulTroo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642020-08-11T11:32:25 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652020-08-11T11:32:43 *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
1662020-08-11T11:36:31 *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672020-08-11T11:42:14 *** promag has quit IRC
1682020-08-11T11:43:27 *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692020-08-11T11:52:15 *** jonatack has quit IRC
1702020-08-11T11:54:43 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1712020-08-11T11:57:39 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722020-08-11T12:00:02 *** nerdboy1 has quit IRC
1732020-08-11T12:03:48 *** gzhao408 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742020-08-11T12:05:06 *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752020-08-11T12:05:31 *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1762020-08-11T12:07:43 *** shesek has quit IRC
1772020-08-11T12:12:00 *** promag has quit IRC
1782020-08-11T12:18:10 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
1792020-08-11T12:18:28 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1802020-08-11T12:20:00 *** armin76 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812020-08-11T12:21:23 *** jb55 has quit IRC
1822020-08-11T12:34:23 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832020-08-11T12:35:48 *** InflationHedge has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1842020-08-11T12:38:38 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1852020-08-11T12:38:54 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862020-08-11T12:40:28 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1872020-08-11T12:40:59 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
1882020-08-11T12:41:17 *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892020-08-11T12:41:20 *** InflationHedge has quit IRC
1902020-08-11T12:46:26 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1912020-08-11T13:04:13 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
1922020-08-11T13:04:35 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1932020-08-11T13:06:14 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
1942020-08-11T13:06:36 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952020-08-11T13:07:15 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
1962020-08-11T13:07:37 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1972020-08-11T13:08:12 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
1982020-08-11T13:08:32 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992020-08-11T13:09:11 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2002020-08-11T13:09:31 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012020-08-11T13:11:12 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2022020-08-11T13:11:30 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2032020-08-11T13:12:10 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2042020-08-11T13:12:28 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052020-08-11T13:13:10 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2062020-08-11T13:13:28 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072020-08-11T13:16:05 *** jnewbery has quit IRC
2082020-08-11T13:16:14 *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092020-08-11T13:20:09 *** behradkhodayar has quit IRC
2102020-08-11T13:23:16 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2112020-08-11T13:23:40 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122020-08-11T13:24:08 *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2132020-08-11T13:24:50 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
2142020-08-11T13:26:21 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2152020-08-11T13:26:39 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162020-08-11T13:35:00 *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172020-08-11T13:39:30 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182020-08-11T13:39:57 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
2192020-08-11T13:45:21 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2202020-08-11T13:45:41 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212020-08-11T13:49:28 *** fox2p has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2222020-08-11T13:57:40 <jnewbery> hi folks. Reminder that we have the inaugural p2p irc meeing in one hour. Feel free to add any proposed discussion topics here: https://gist.github.com/jnewbery/dfaf34706f93a0608bb24869f13abcbf
2232020-08-11T13:58:31 <jnewbery> only topic so far is priorities/focus. Please come prepared with one or two sentences about what your current priority/focus is to share with the group. Thanks!
2242020-08-11T14:01:05 * fanquake wonders if he should attend to achieve back to back to back bitcoin meetings ð¤
2252020-08-11T14:02:35 <aj> jnewbery: maybe make the agenda a wiki on https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki ?
2262020-08-11T14:18:37 <jnewbery> aj: good idea. I'll move it there for the next meeting
2272020-08-11T14:21:16 <aj> jnewbery: great, now i don't need to feel guilty about spamming a comment
2282020-08-11T14:21:59 *** theStack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2292020-08-11T14:24:19 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302020-08-11T14:26:40 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312020-08-11T14:26:40 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322020-08-11T14:26:48 *** shesek has quit IRC
2332020-08-11T14:27:01 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342020-08-11T14:27:01 *** shesek has quit IRC
2352020-08-11T14:27:01 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362020-08-11T14:27:01 *** theStack has quit IRC
2372020-08-11T14:27:27 *** theStack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382020-08-11T14:32:05 *** jonatack has quit IRC
2392020-08-11T14:34:58 *** mrostecki has quit IRC
2402020-08-11T14:37:56 *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412020-08-11T14:39:07 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2422020-08-11T14:39:33 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432020-08-11T14:41:13 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
2442020-08-11T14:41:34 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2452020-08-11T14:43:14 <jnewbery> aj: oh, is everyone able to update that wiki, or just people in the bitcoin org on github?
2462020-08-11T14:45:29 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472020-08-11T14:56:45 <aj> jnewbery: no idea
2482020-08-11T14:57:08 <aj> also, yay, replied to 19498 with *multiple* minutes to spare before the meeting
2492020-08-11T14:58:46 <jonatack> jnewbery: i think anyone can edit
2502020-08-11T14:59:34 <jonatack> edited release notes there a year ago ;p
2512020-08-11T15:00:02 *** armin76 has quit IRC
2522020-08-11T15:00:07 <jnewbery> #startmeeting
2532020-08-11T15:00:07 <lightningbot> Meeting started Tue Aug 11 15:00:07 2020 UTC. The chair is jnewbery. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
2542020-08-11T15:00:07 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
2552020-08-11T15:00:15 <jnewbery> #bitcoin-core-dev P2P Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james
2562020-08-11T15:00:15 <jonatack> hola
2572020-08-11T15:00:21 <jnewbery> amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
2582020-08-11T15:00:21 <troygiorshev> hi
2592020-08-11T15:00:24 <jnewbery> Hi folks! Welcome to the first p2p IRC meeting.
2602020-08-11T15:00:26 <dongcarl> hi
2612020-08-11T15:00:27 <ajonas> hi
2622020-08-11T15:00:28 <amiti> hi!
2632020-08-11T15:00:28 <fanquake> hi
2642020-08-11T15:00:30 <jnewbery> Please say hi to let everyone know you're here and planning to participate.
2652020-08-11T15:00:31 <pinheadmz> hi
2662020-08-11T15:00:35 <sdaftuar> hi
2672020-08-11T15:00:43 <jnewbery> We have a one suggested topics at https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings (and aj has added his priorities as well - thanks!)
2682020-08-11T15:00:44 <ariard> hi
2692020-08-11T15:00:57 <theStack> hi
2702020-08-11T15:00:57 <aj> hi
2712020-08-11T15:01:12 <jnewbery> (please don't use the gist any more. I've moved the notes to the bitcoin-core wiki)
2722020-08-11T15:01:24 <elichai2> Hi
2732020-08-11T15:01:48 <jnewbery> I suggest we start with priorities/focus as a topic
2742020-08-11T15:01:49 <sipa> hi
2752020-08-11T15:02:03 *** Lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762020-08-11T15:02:19 <jnewbery> #topic priority/focus
2772020-08-11T15:02:47 <jnewbery> aj: would you like to start. You've listed what you're working on https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings but do you have anything else to add?
2782020-08-11T15:03:03 *** Lightlike has quit IRC
2792020-08-11T15:03:27 <aj> i'm mostly caring about taproot-critical-path-things, which i think is now mostly not p2p stuff
2802020-08-11T15:03:53 <aj> but copied stuff off my whiteboard in case it's missing anything interesting or important
2812020-08-11T15:04:01 <adiabat> hi
2822020-08-11T15:04:43 <jnewbery> sdaftuar: any priorities?
2832020-08-11T15:04:51 <sdaftuar> i've got a bunch of things i am thinking about...
2842020-08-11T15:05:17 <sdaftuar> i'd say my current priorities are to get the transaction download stuff (sipa's 19184 i think) reviewed. and erlay is on my mind right after that
2852020-08-11T15:05:45 <sdaftuar> but i'm also thinking about a bunch of other things that i want to mention, because if others are interested in any then maybe we can make progress on other fronts as well
2862020-08-11T15:06:08 <jnewbery> do you want to list them now?
2872020-08-11T15:06:10 <sdaftuar> some stuff is related to network-topology improvements:
2882020-08-11T15:06:34 <sdaftuar> more block-relay only peers (which is probably gated on negotiating block-relay connections at connect-time)
2892020-08-11T15:07:11 <sdaftuar> more improvements to syncing our tips with more peers (possibly including tx-relay-peer rotation, which can help here as well)
2902020-08-11T15:07:23 <sdaftuar> improved eviction logic (pr open)
2912020-08-11T15:07:45 <sdaftuar> and other stuff is related to transaction relay policy, particularly package relay, which is a whole beast of a topic by itself
2922020-08-11T15:07:58 <sdaftuar> but also rbf pinning (which may be a related problem)
2932020-08-11T15:08:01 <aj> #19670 ?
2942020-08-11T15:08:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19670 | Protect localhost and block-relay-only peers from eviction by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19670 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2952020-08-11T15:08:08 <sdaftuar> yep
2962020-08-11T15:08:37 <sdaftuar> so that's a lot of stuff, and depending on what others view as priorities, that will influence where i focus my time
2972020-08-11T15:08:56 <jnewbery> thanks sdaftuar
2982020-08-11T15:09:02 <jnewbery> jonatack: priorities?
2992020-08-11T15:09:57 <jonatack> review
3002020-08-11T15:10:02 <jonatack> refactoring/cleanup
3012020-08-11T15:10:15 <jonatack> for a couple of weeks i was working on inbound eviction policy
3022020-08-11T15:10:19 <jonatack> methodology was (1) an observation dashboard (#19643), 2) test coverage, and 3) optimisation
3032020-08-11T15:10:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19643 | Add `-netinfo` peer connections dashboard by jonatack · Pull Request #19643 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3042020-08-11T15:10:32 <jonatack> i didn't realize that suhas was working on it as well
3052020-08-11T15:11:01 <jonatack> i was then asked by a few devs to consider picking up bip324 implementation
3062020-08-11T15:11:19 <jonatack> talked with jonas schnelli today and he will be back on it soon
3072020-08-11T15:11:32 <jonatack> he needs help with one sticking point
3082020-08-11T15:12:08 <jonatack> i don't have the gist handy, will provide a bit later, we were discussing this with ariard, warren, moneyball, wumpus and jonasschnelli
3092020-08-11T15:12:31 <jonatack> atm i need to do some work on #11413 followups
3102020-08-11T15:12:34 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11413 | [wallet] [rpc] sendtoaddress/sendmany: Add explicit feerate option by kallewoof · Pull Request #11413 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3112020-08-11T15:12:45 <dongcarl> jonatack: do you have link to bip324 discussion?
3122020-08-11T15:13:23 <jonatack> so will stick with review and p2p refactoring on the side until that's done: we need a universal explicit feerate rpc
3132020-08-11T15:13:33 <jnewbery> ok, thanks jonatack
3142020-08-11T15:13:42 <jonatack> dongcarl: yes, will post, that's it for now
3152020-08-11T15:13:45 <jnewbery> troygiorshev: priorities?
3162020-08-11T15:13:56 <troygiorshev> two p2p things I've been focusing on
3172020-08-11T15:14:07 <troygiorshev> big refactor: #19107, moving header verification from net_processing to net. came out of a PR review club of a jonasschnelli pr. it's not flashy, but cleaning up this interface will make everything easier going forward.
3182020-08-11T15:14:10 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19107 | p2p: Move all header verification into the network layer, extend logging by troygiorshev · Pull Request #19107 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3192020-08-11T15:14:23 <troygiorshev> feature: #19031 addrv2. tor v2 deprecation and obsolescence is quickly approaching, addrv2 is needed before we can update to tor v3.
3202020-08-11T15:14:27 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19031 | Implement ADDRv2 support (part of BIP155) by vasild · Pull Request #19031 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3212020-08-11T15:14:36 <jonatack> +1
3222020-08-11T15:15:02 <jnewbery> ok, thanks troy
3232020-08-11T15:15:02 <jonatack> 15 sept tor v2 deprecation begins, obsolete next july
3242020-08-11T15:15:12 <jnewbery> dongcarl: priorities?
3252020-08-11T15:15:31 <dongcarl> mostly review
3262020-08-11T15:15:40 <dongcarl> focused on the PRs populating the Peer struct
3272020-08-11T15:15:55 <dongcarl> also, waiting on Shadow simulator v2 from Tor project
3282020-08-11T15:16:05 <dongcarl> which I think will be the best way to test our P2P
3292020-08-11T15:16:12 <dongcarl> Link: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/sponsors/Sponsor38
3302020-08-11T15:16:17 <dongcarl> that's it!
3312020-08-11T15:16:23 <jnewbery> (Peer struct is #19607)
3322020-08-11T15:16:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19607 | [p2p] Add Peer struct for per-peer data in net processing by jnewbery · Pull Request #19607 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3332020-08-11T15:16:28 <jnewbery> thanks carl!
3342020-08-11T15:16:36 <jnewbery> ajonas: priorities?
3352020-08-11T15:17:00 <ajonas> I can wait until we move onto the next topic
3362020-08-11T15:17:12 <jnewbery> ok
3372020-08-11T15:17:16 <jnewbery> amiti: priorities?
3382020-08-11T15:17:28 <amiti> My main focus has been 19316- simplifying how we track different types of connections. Got some reviews yesterday & hopefully its getting close to merge, so planning to address outstanding review comments in a follow up.
3392020-08-11T15:17:43 <amiti> (ps @dongcarl, @jnewbery if you wanna take another look :))
3402020-08-11T15:17:49 <amiti> After that Iâm excited about #19315 to enable more p2p testing. And I want to make my way back to the rebroadcast work!
3412020-08-11T15:17:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19315 | [tests] Allow outbound & block-relay-only connections in functional tests. by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #19315 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3422020-08-11T15:18:21 <amiti> In terms of review, thereâs a lot of PRs Iâm excited about and slowly making my way through. Currently reviewing #19670. Also on my list are #17428 (anchors), #19184 (tx logic overhaul). and the per-peer stuff #19509 & #19607 is also interesting
3432020-08-11T15:18:23 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19670 | Protect localhost and block-relay-only peers from eviction by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19670 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3442020-08-11T15:18:28 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17428 | p2p: Try to preserve outbound block-relay-only connections during restart by hebasto · Pull Request #17428 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3452020-08-11T15:18:28 <jonatack> dongcarl: https://gist.github.com/jonasschnelli/c530ea8421b8d0e80c51486325587c52
3462020-08-11T15:18:31 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19184 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19184 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3472020-08-11T15:18:34 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19509 | Per-Peer Message Logging by troygiorshev · Pull Request #19509 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3482020-08-11T15:18:38 <jnewbery> I left my ACK on 19316 this morning :)
3492020-08-11T15:18:39 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19607 | [p2p] Add Peer struct for per-peer data in net processing by jnewbery · Pull Request #19607 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3502020-08-11T15:18:55 <amiti> oh I didn't see that yet. awesome thanks!!
3512020-08-11T15:18:58 <jnewbery> thanks amiti
3522020-08-11T15:19:18 <jnewbery> fanquake: priorities?
3532020-08-11T15:19:56 <fanquake> Nothing I am/have been working on is really p2p related. Can probably skip me.
3542020-08-11T15:20:05 <jnewbery> ok
3552020-08-11T15:20:10 <jnewbery> pinheadmz: priorities?
3562020-08-11T15:20:25 <pinheadmz> sorry not much to contribute today
3572020-08-11T15:20:33 <jnewbery> no problem
3582020-08-11T15:20:43 <jnewbery> ariard: priorities?
3592020-08-11T15:21:15 <ariard> yes so AltNet (#18988) is pending on Russ multiprocess
3602020-08-11T15:21:18 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18988 | RFC: Introducing AltNet, a pluggable framework for alternative transports by ariard · Pull Request #18988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3612020-08-11T15:21:35 <ariard> it would make it far easier to leverage the new multiprocess framework introduced
3622020-08-11T15:21:55 <ariard> also spend a bit of time evaluating which package relay/RBF pinning flavor would solve pinning
3632020-08-11T15:22:12 *** frankie1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3642020-08-11T15:22:32 <ariard> I'm also interested in tx-relay peer rotation, to improve transaction propagation wrt to pinning/mempool obstruction
3652020-08-11T15:22:55 *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3662020-08-11T15:23:20 <ariard> I would be glad to get #19645, even if utility is reduced until further mempool/transaction relay policy changes, that's a first step to solve wtxid-pinning issues
3672020-08-11T15:23:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19645 | Allow wtxid-acceptance to the mempool by ariard · Pull Request #19645 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3682020-08-11T15:23:45 <ariard> and I'm staying available to review transaction request overhaul/erlay/others
3692020-08-11T15:23:53 <ariard> that's it
3702020-08-11T15:24:07 <jnewbery> thanks ariard!
3712020-08-11T15:24:12 <jnewbery> theStack: priorities?
3722020-08-11T15:25:06 <jnewbery> elichai2: priorites?
3732020-08-11T15:25:55 <jnewbery> sipa: priorities?
3742020-08-11T15:26:13 <jnewbery> (if you missed your turn you can jump in again later)
3752020-08-11T15:26:37 <sipa> so
3762020-08-11T15:27:02 <sipa> the next thing on my list is addressing some feedback in 19184 (tx overhaul), and rebasing on top of wtxid relay
3772020-08-11T15:27:45 <sipa> i'm also interested in helping with bip324 efforts and addrv2, though i haven't found much time for that
3782020-08-11T15:28:17 <sipa> outbound peer rotation also sounds interesting; i wasn't aware there was recent interest in that
3792020-08-11T15:29:04 <aj> jnewbery: (priorities?)
3802020-08-11T15:29:19 <elichai2> I don't work on anything p2p related right now, but I do plan to review a bunch of stuff, so if there'll be a high priority for review out of this it would be great
3812020-08-11T15:29:32 <jnewbery> we haven't done adiabat and vasild yet, but I can go next
3822020-08-11T15:29:45 <jnewbery> My short-term focus is on the backports. I've reviewed #19680 and 19681. I've also backported wtxid relay in #19606, which I still think we should backport to v0.20.
3832020-08-11T15:29:47 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19680 | 0.20: Add txids with non-standard inputs to reject filter by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19680 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3842020-08-11T15:29:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19606 | Backport wtxid relay to v0.20 by jnewbery · Pull Request #19606 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3852020-08-11T15:29:58 <jnewbery> I also have a branch that backports the orphan relay stuff on top of that, which I think makes sense to PR separately, but I can add to v0.20 if that makes it easier for reviewers.
3862020-08-11T15:30:02 *** b10c has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3872020-08-11T15:30:44 <jnewbery> I'd advocate for people to bump reviewing backports up their priority list (both for these backports and in general inBitcoin Core)
3882020-08-11T15:30:55 <jnewbery> Longer-term, I want to make progress on #19398, where the main goal is to clarify the interface between net and net_processing, while not expanding the scope of cs_main (and then eventually reduce the scope of cs_main by moving data into the new Peer struct).
3892020-08-11T15:30:56 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19398 | Move remaining application layer data to net processing · Issue #19398 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3902020-08-11T15:31:06 <jnewbery> The first PR is #19607. theuni left some review comments last week which I need to respond to.
3912020-08-11T15:31:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19607 | [p2p] Add Peer struct for per-peer data in net processing by jnewbery · Pull Request #19607 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3922020-08-11T15:31:16 <jnewbery> that's me
3932020-08-11T15:31:25 <jnewbery> adiabat: anything you want to add/share?
3942020-08-11T15:32:00 <jnewbery> vasild: priorities?
3952020-08-11T15:32:26 <vasild> my priority is to get BIP155 / addrv2 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19031 merged.
3962020-08-11T15:32:39 <jnewbery> great. Thanks
3972020-08-11T15:32:45 <jnewbery> Thanks everyone! I hope that topic wasn't too slow. I just wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to share what they're working on/prioritizing.
3982020-08-11T15:32:57 <jnewbery> we had one other topic suggestion from ajonas
3992020-08-11T15:33:07 <ajonas> hi
4002020-08-11T15:33:10 <jnewbery> #topic Opt-in review begging experiment
4012020-08-11T15:33:30 <vasild> so, I address review suggestions as quickly as possible and rebase it to resolve conflicts. But mostly it is in the hands of reviewers. While waiting on that I am reviewing some randomly picked PRs.
4022020-08-11T15:33:43 <ajonas> Let me start with the priorities I'm tracking: https://gist.github.com/adamjonas/85137e2623f12450f1978d291a28d680. I think there are some things on there that weren't mentioned or that other people who care about, but weren't here today to mention.
4032020-08-11T15:34:38 <ajonas> Please ping me if I got something wrong or there are things that you'd like to add
4042020-08-11T15:34:44 <vasild> maybe I can improve on what I pick to review. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 is the correct place to pick "important" PRs to review?
4052020-08-11T15:35:26 <ajonas> Ok. A few months ago, I was reading over https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2018-03-07-priorities/, which articulates some possibilities for how to better coordinate review. Since then, I've been experimenting with asking for reviews directly. (This was also the motivation of #18949).
4062020-08-11T15:35:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18949 | doc: Add CODEOWNERS file to automatically nominate PR reviewers by adamjonas · Pull Request #18949 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4072020-08-11T15:36:03 <ajonas> Right now the sample size and the circle I feel comfortable bothering is small. Here are the results so far: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1INEN1RrZTsu-V4GH6kr0aVhFOVY8nGgx0ajHf3NEYlc/.
4082020-08-11T15:36:29 <jnewbery> vasild: importance is subjective. Being on that list doesn't necessarily mean that other people think it's important, but everyone is allowed to add one PR to the list, so you can see what each author is prioritizing.
4092020-08-11T15:36:38 <ajonas> To date, I've cherry picked the PRs that I think I have a chance to help out with so while the numbers look good, there are some notable exceptions where I couldn't move the needle.
4102020-08-11T15:36:58 <ajonas> And on some of those I just got lucky I think,
4112020-08-11T15:37:20 <jonatack> ajonas: some of those are merged
4122020-08-11T15:37:37 <jonatack> e.g. 16756
4132020-08-11T15:38:06 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4142020-08-11T15:38:17 <ajonas> Right. Column J shows the time from PR open to merge
4152020-08-11T15:38:33 <troygiorshev> ajonas: how did you define "review" in "review to merged (days)". first ACK, first ACK on the current rebase, when you felt that there was enough review that it was RFM?
4162020-08-11T15:38:39 <ajonas> Sorry that's column I
4172020-08-11T15:38:46 <jonatack> ajonas: oic
4182020-08-11T15:38:46 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4192020-08-11T15:38:46 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
4202020-08-11T15:39:26 <ajonas> yeah, that's misleading troygiorshev. I mean first nag to merge.
4212020-08-11T15:39:39 <vasild> Yes, importance is subjective. However, it would be convenient to have one place to look for important PRs, even if that place contains different people's lists.
4222020-08-11T15:39:42 <troygiorshev> ajonas: ah ok
4232020-08-11T15:39:55 <ajonas> Anyways, if anyone interested in p2p reviewing and would like to opt-in, I'd be interested in expanding my experiment that part of the code.
4242020-08-11T15:40:00 <jnewbery> I think there are so many other factors, that I
4252020-08-11T15:40:12 <sdaftuar> ajonas: you mean opt-in to being nagged by you, right?
4262020-08-11T15:40:16 <jnewbery> 'm not sure the numbers have much meaning
4272020-08-11T15:40:39 <aj> i had been maintaining https://github.com/users/ajtowns/projects/1 to track p2p/mempool PRs by category things, but hadn't automated it and slacked off this year, it's on my todo to try automating again
4282020-08-11T15:40:47 <ajonas> sdaftuar: yes
4292020-08-11T15:41:32 <jnewbery> aj: I found that project board useful to find p2p PRs
4302020-08-11T15:41:35 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4312020-08-11T15:41:48 <ajonas> jnewbery: fair enough. I'm just trying to track the work I've done. Not trying to claim credit for the merges. Just trying to help coordinate.
4322020-08-11T15:42:25 <jonatack> vasild: i think it's fine to define one's own list of important PRs to review. e.g. longer term for me would be: BIP155/addrv2, BIP324, BIPs340-342, BIP325
4332020-08-11T15:42:28 <troygiorshev> vasild: I plan on using this meeting log as a "one place to look" :)
4342020-08-11T15:42:56 <aj> jnewbery: maybe ajonas should opt me in to nags about it then
4352020-08-11T15:42:58 <jnewbery> ajonas: I understand! I'm just saying that you might not find much signal in the quantative data there
4362020-08-11T15:43:28 <vasild> ack
4372020-08-11T15:44:06 <ajonas> That's all I had.
4382020-08-11T15:44:18 <jnewbery> ajonas: are you asking people to opt-in now or should they message you?
4392020-08-11T15:44:31 <ajonas> Either works.
4402020-08-11T15:44:47 <jnewbery> ok, thanks
4412020-08-11T15:45:11 <sipa> i am open to nagging
4422020-08-11T15:45:28 <jnewbery> no more proposed topics. Was there anything else anyone wanted to discuss? sdaftuar: it sounded like you might have wanted to go into a bit more detail on some of your priorities?
4432020-08-11T15:45:33 <sdaftuar> topic suggestion: feature negotiation (new bip proposal from me)
4442020-08-11T15:45:37 <fanquake> One related comment I'd make is that the "ACK recap" comments can sometimes be misleading. I think there can also be confusion as to why a PR which looks like it has *lots* of ACKs, maybe after a review-club bomb, hasn't been merged.
4452020-08-11T15:45:39 <ajonas> sipa: great!
4462020-08-11T15:46:10 <troygiorshev> fanquake: ack recap?
4472020-08-11T15:46:11 <jnewbery> #topic feature negotiation
4482020-08-11T15:46:30 <aj> troygiorshev: ajonas sometimes posts a PR comment summarising previous acks
4492020-08-11T15:46:32 <sdaftuar> i was planning to send this to the mailing list today or tomorrow, so figured this would be a good place to mention it
4502020-08-11T15:46:34 <sdaftuar> https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/2020-08-generalized-feature-negotiation/bip-p2p-feature-negotiation.mediawiki
4512020-08-11T15:46:36 <amiti> fanquake: can you tell me more? I find those ACK recap comments helpful when there's lots of convo on the PR. is there something that can be done to make them more useful?
4522020-08-11T15:46:44 <troygiorshev> aj: thanks
4532020-08-11T15:47:02 <sdaftuar> basically wtxid-relay uses a new feature-negotiation method (exchanging messages between version and verack), that would be nice to codify as a method in the future
4542020-08-11T15:47:20 <jonatack> amiti: +1 i find them useful as well
4552020-08-11T15:47:29 <sdaftuar> however, i think we need to make sure software on the network knows to ignore unknown messages pre-verack to make this a possibility. bitcoin core historically has disallowed unknown messages pre-verack
4562020-08-11T15:47:57 <sdaftuar> so i think it would be nice to get this out there and hopefully make this a standard way we can do things going forward
4572020-08-11T15:48:02 <sdaftuar> (end)
4582020-08-11T15:48:43 <jnewbery> is the idea that each feature has its own p2p message for enabling the feature (like wtxidrelay)?
4592020-08-11T15:48:55 <sdaftuar> features that need to negotiate at connection startup time.
4602020-08-11T15:48:56 <ariard> sdaftuar: I think that's good it was unclear between matt and I on bip339 implemn in rust-bitcoin about why 339 bumps both protocol version and wtxid-relay
4612020-08-11T15:48:57 <troygiorshev> (like addrv2)
4622020-08-11T15:49:01 <sdaftuar> so many features don't need that, which is fine
4632020-08-11T15:49:08 <fanquake> amiti: it depends on the PR. Concept ACKs from months ago, after the code has changed significantly are not always relevant. A large amount of ACKs from new/unknown contributors obviously don't hold as much weight as from contributors with more experience in that part of the code.
4642020-08-11T15:49:15 <sdaftuar> but the next time we want to negotiate something that is in place before a connection is fully setup, i think this is the best way to do it
4652020-08-11T15:49:27 <sdaftuar> in particular i'd like to leverage this method for negotiating block-relay only connections
4662020-08-11T15:49:40 <ajonas> fanquake: I have made an effort to stay away from review club PRs
4672020-08-11T15:50:08 <fanquake> It's also sometimes unclear what reviewers actually mean when they ACK. i.e if they've just run the functional tests after glancing at the diff on GH, that isn't necessarily meaningful.
4682020-08-11T15:50:32 <jnewbery> fanquake: can we discuss this next?
4692020-08-11T15:50:46 <aj> sdaftuar: i thought wtxid message made sense, so making it easily reusable makes sense
4702020-08-11T15:50:47 <amiti> sdaftuar: I'm a +1 to an explicit message/negotiation for block-relay only connections
4712020-08-11T15:51:00 <fanquake> jnewbery: sure. don't want to hijack.
4722020-08-11T15:51:06 <troygiorshev> sdaftuar: concept ACK
4732020-08-11T15:51:19 <jonatack> troygiorshev: i think vasild's addrv2 implementation can set itself anytime during the connection, not only at handshake
4742020-08-11T15:51:27 <sdaftuar> one point that occurred to me, is that might update the draft i pasted above to NOT further bump the version number to signal support
4752020-08-11T15:51:28 <ariard> if I understand well this bip is disentangling protocol version bump from feature negotiation by allowing feature signaling between version/verack
4762020-08-11T15:51:50 <sdaftuar> because software that chooses to not implement wtxid-relay should already be adopting this proposed bip, basically (if they bump their version number to 70016 or higher at any point)
4772020-08-11T15:52:06 <sdaftuar> that's a bit in the weeds though for there
4782020-08-11T15:52:08 <sdaftuar> here*
4792020-08-11T15:52:10 <jnewbery> I've always thought that extending the version message to include supported and required features would be a good way to negotiate features
4802020-08-11T15:52:56 <sdaftuar> ariard: yes. more importantly than that is that we're establishing that unknown messages should not cause peer disconnections, which could be problematic for network topology if we get this wrong in the future
4812020-08-11T15:53:05 <sdaftuar> even if those unknown messages are before VERACK
4822020-08-11T15:53:11 <troygiorshev> jonatack: right. I think I remember discussion as to whether that was the right choice though
4832020-08-11T15:53:40 <sipa> sdaftuar: this all sounds reasonable
4842020-08-11T15:53:44 <vasild> https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/2020-08-generalized-feature-negotiation/bip-p2p-feature-negotiation.mediawiki -- something like that came to my mind when doing the BIP155 sendaddrv2 message. Is every new feature going to add its own message sendfoowhatever? Not very nice.
4852020-08-11T15:53:45 <sdaftuar> wtxid-relay BIP implied that, i'm just now making that more explicit. this would require a change to bitocin core as well
4862020-08-11T15:54:21 <sdaftuar> vasild: that's basically how we've done every p2p protocol upgrade in the last 4-5 years i think?
4872020-08-11T15:54:28 <sipa> i find the reliance on protocol versions to enable feature-negotiability a bit ugly still - less so than the earlier feature negotiation through version numbers directly, but still
4882020-08-11T15:54:28 <sdaftuar> well either that or a service bit i guess
4892020-08-11T15:54:31 <sdaftuar> but service bits are rare
4902020-08-11T15:54:32 <troygiorshev> vasild: your point is the motivation for jnewbery's "extended version" iirc
4912020-08-11T15:54:49 <jnewbery> sdaftuar: do you know whether there are nodes that disconnect on unknown message types? Bitcoin Core just drops them (which I think is the only sensible behaviour)
4922020-08-11T15:55:14 <sdaftuar> jnewbery: it's been the de facto standard (not documneted anywhere to my knowledge) that unknonw messages after a connection is setup are ignored by software
4932020-08-11T15:55:23 <vasild> jonatack: troygiorshev: yes, the BIP155 sendaddrv2 can come any time, but we try to do it early so that when the peer is about to advertise his own address to us, he has the option to send us addrv2 - would be important if his address is torv3 because he wouldn't be able to advertise it to us with addr(v1)
4942020-08-11T15:55:26 <sdaftuar> it has not been the standard, to my knowledge, to allow unknown messages pre-verack
4952020-08-11T15:55:43 <jnewbery> ah ok. That's the difference
4962020-08-11T15:55:54 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
4972020-08-11T15:57:05 <jnewbery> ok, any final topics?
4982020-08-11T15:57:37 <jnewbery> that's a wrap then. Thanks everyone
4992020-08-11T15:57:39 <ariard> sdaftuar: what do you mean by broad agreement? we need this BIP to be widely deployed before using the new feature signaling mechanism ?
5002020-08-11T15:57:42 <jnewbery> Let me know if you liked the format of this meeting or if you want to change it up for next time.
5012020-08-11T15:57:42 <aj> sdaftuar: my thinking on big changes priority-wise is: tx relay overhaul up next, then erlay if we can get to it; but package relay is back to the drawing board. happy to think about ...
5022020-08-11T15:57:57 <troygiorshev> jnewbery: this was great, thanks for organizing it!
5032020-08-11T15:58:08 <sdaftuar> aj: yeah that's where i'm at as well on that side of things
5042020-08-11T15:58:11 <aj> sdaftuar: ... some of the topology type stuff, in before erlay i guess?
5052020-08-11T15:58:17 <sdaftuar> aj: i'm trying to figure out how to squeeze in topology work too
5062020-08-11T15:58:18 <jonatack> there was an irc discussion on the pre-verack messages here: https://bitcoincore.reviews/18044#l-159
5072020-08-11T15:58:48 <adiabat> maybe tangential but... any thoughts on port flexibilty
5082020-08-11T15:58:59 <adiabat> I've gotten servers shut down, and all they do is see that 8333 is open
5092020-08-11T15:59:25 <sdaftuar> ariard: well, if any software authors brought up concerns about why using unknown messages between version and verack is a problem, then we should factor that in--
5102020-08-11T15:59:44 <sdaftuar> if some software clients choose to not follow my proposal, that would create implications for us trying to use it down the road
5112020-08-11T15:59:47 <sdaftuar> as it could partition the network
5122020-08-11T16:00:06 <sdaftuar> i am not aware of any opposition; i brought this issue up with wtxid-relay and no one commented on it
5132020-08-11T16:00:20 <jnewbery> #endmeeting
5142020-08-11T16:00:20 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Tue Aug 11 16:00:20 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
5152020-08-11T16:00:20 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-11-15.00.html
5162020-08-11T16:00:20 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-11-15.00.txt
5172020-08-11T16:00:20 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-11-15.00.log.html
5182020-08-11T16:00:28 <sdaftuar> but it has to be communicated
5192020-08-11T16:02:05 <jonatack> fanquake: did you want to expand on the acking question
5202020-08-11T16:02:23 *** Highway62 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5212020-08-11T16:03:11 <aj> adiabat: i think the reason not to do other ports was to prevent bitcoin nodes being used as a primitive botnet that'll start connecting to arbitrary services (or to be mistaken for being part of a botnet if someone spams military.gov's rsh port as a thing to connect to for bitcoin p2p maybe. never been able to judge if that makes much sense these days
5222020-08-11T16:03:21 *** Highway61 has quit IRC
5232020-08-11T16:03:47 <instagibbs> adiabat, really
5242020-08-11T16:04:48 <adiabat> I guess it's tricky; with 8333 it sticks out a lot and is really easy to identify for any one on the network
5252020-08-11T16:05:04 *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5262020-08-11T16:05:08 <adiabat> maybe some kind of udp-port knocking or something? just an idea
5272020-08-11T16:05:21 *** Highway61 has quit IRC
5282020-08-11T16:05:37 <fanquake> jonatack: I might write up some thoughts and post them here tomorrow. The gist is that 1 ACK is not always equal to another (obviously). It's not always clear what people mean when they say they've reviewed something. Recapping ACKs from some previous head or a concept ACK from a previous implementation isn't always useful. You can just as easily open a buggy PR, as you can introduce a bug in the last rebase.
5292020-08-11T16:05:41 *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5302020-08-11T16:06:31 <ajonas> Some more feedback would be helpful
5312020-08-11T16:06:32 *** Highway62 has quit IRC
5322020-08-11T16:06:43 <troygiorshev> >it's not always clear ...
5332020-08-11T16:06:47 <troygiorshev> that's the issue, no?
5342020-08-11T16:06:58 <fanquake> It's not uncommon for a PR to have a few ACKs, and then an experienced contributor to turn up and start pointing out bugs. There's also no rush to merge things.
5352020-08-11T16:08:06 <ajonas> Understood. You don't have to do it now, but maybe we can talk about some of the ones that really stood out as unhelpful.
5362020-08-11T16:08:07 <fanquake> troygiorshev: sure; and comments like "I ran the functional tests" generally aren't useful unless you did it one some exotic machine/setup etc. In which case, you should point it out!
5372020-08-11T16:08:24 <fanquake> Obviously not referring to personally here.
5382020-08-11T16:08:49 <troygiorshev> didn't take it personally :)
5392020-08-11T16:09:50 <troygiorshev> certainly is difficult (i imagine) to distinguish between "this is a really clean PR and I really have no comments on it, it's RFM" and "I've done my best but I'm not familiar enough with bitcoin to really review this"
5402020-08-11T16:10:25 <jonatack> fanquake: agreed. contributing.md clearly states that all review is not equal. providing ack methodology is also pretty much inversely valuable to review experience, e.g. newer reviewers providing details on what they did and thought about and checked is probably more useful than if i more or less repeat the same process info on each review ack
5412020-08-11T16:10:42 <aj> troygiorshev: always seems best to qualify your ack if it's the latter
5422020-08-11T16:11:11 <sipa> yes, you are in no way restricted to just the word "ack" when leaving a review :)
5432020-08-11T16:11:34 <sipa> a one-line summary of what you did, or how qualified you feel about it, is very useful
5442020-08-11T16:12:03 <amiti> fanquake: ofc ACK review comments can't replace the job of the maintainer to make those more subtle judgments, but the reason I find them helpful is to maintain momentum on PRs with lots of comments. and give me (and other reviewers) a quick overview as a starting point. whether I already reviewed the PR or am just starting a review
5452020-08-11T16:13:14 <amiti> sipa: earlier you referred to a mention of outbound eviction, what was that in regards to?
5462020-08-11T16:13:51 <sipa> 08:07:11 < sdaftuar> more improvements to syncing our tips with more peers (possibly including tx-relay-peer rotation, which can help here as well)
5472020-08-11T16:14:17 <sipa> and apparently i misread; jonatack was talking about inbound eviction policy
5482020-08-11T16:15:08 <amiti> ah okay, thanks
5492020-08-11T16:15:54 <jonatack> i was specifically trying to observe and figure out how to test https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19500
5502020-08-11T16:16:38 <jonatack> which made me realise that i didn't know what was going on with my peer conns in enough detail
5512020-08-11T16:17:42 <jonatack> i'm running bitcoin locally with nLastBlockTime and nLastTXTime added to getpeerinfo for my peer connections dashboard
5522020-08-11T16:18:27 <jonatack> sipa: is there a good reason why that (eviction criteria) data is not exposed through getpeerinfo currently?
5532020-08-11T16:18:59 <sipa> jonatack: nope; i suspect just nobody ever added it
5542020-08-11T16:19:05 <phantomcircuit> adiabat, it has to be easy to identify a bitcoin node that's listening, and it's inherently going to be easy to identify a bitcoin node based on the network traffic
5552020-08-11T16:19:13 <jonatack> e.g. timestamp of last block and last txn for that peer
5562020-08-11T16:19:33 <phantomcircuit> without significantly delaying block relay, it's impossible to hide that you're running a bitcoin node from the network operator
5572020-08-11T16:19:40 <adiabat> phantomcircuit: right I guess this would only make sense in the context of bip 324 or similar
5582020-08-11T16:19:41 <jonatack> sipa: thanks. will propose.
5592020-08-11T16:19:49 *** vincenzopalazzo has quit IRC
5602020-08-11T16:20:08 <phantomcircuit> adiabat, no even then you can trivially detect that it's a bitcoin node
5612020-08-11T16:20:17 <jonatack> it looks like this ATM: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19643#issuecomment-671093420
5622020-08-11T16:20:45 <phantomcircuit> just observe the traffic patterns, if you consistently see a spike in bandwidth after a block is found, then it's a bitcoin node
5632020-08-11T16:21:09 <sipa> phantomcircuit: probably less the case now with compact blocks
5642020-08-11T16:21:19 <sipa> i'm sure traffic analysis is still possible
5652020-08-11T16:21:29 <sipa> but it may be more subtle
5662020-08-11T16:21:38 <sipa> if you don't want false positives
5672020-08-11T16:21:54 <phantomcircuit> sipa, it's still going to be super obvious over time
5682020-08-11T16:22:32 <adiabat> phantomcircuit: I agree that if you want to find out you can, but it gets a lot harder
5692020-08-11T16:23:05 <phantomcircuit> if you're listening it's always going to be trivial
5702020-08-11T16:23:06 <adiabat> it's not going to stop the NSA or whoever, but may well stop ISPs who just have something that looks for 8333 and blocks that port
5712020-08-11T16:23:51 <adiabat> or scripts that shut down servers or flag that port as meaning a host is compromised
5722020-08-11T16:25:46 <adiabat> we got free google cloud credits to run some bitcoin tests / research, and they kept shutting our VPSs down
5732020-08-11T16:26:04 <adiabat> even though we were like, yeah this is the research you gave us the free credits to do...
5742020-08-11T16:29:04 *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5752020-08-11T16:38:04 *** watersnake1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5762020-08-11T16:51:51 *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5772020-08-11T17:10:01 *** lightlike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5782020-08-11T17:12:29 *** baldur has quit IRC
5792020-08-11T17:13:05 *** theStack has quit IRC
5802020-08-11T17:16:47 <jnewbery> if any maintainers are around, I think #19316 is RFM. ACKs on latest commit from laanwj, sdaftuar, jnewbery and vasild
5812020-08-11T17:16:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19316 | [net] Cleanup logic around connection types by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #19316 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5822020-08-11T17:24:50 *** baldur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5832020-08-11T17:30:00 *** morcos has quit IRC
5842020-08-11T17:31:36 *** b10c has quit IRC
5852020-08-11T17:34:30 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
5862020-08-11T17:37:43 *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5872020-08-11T17:39:46 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5882020-08-11T17:51:31 *** mdunnio has quit IRC
5892020-08-11T17:51:45 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5902020-08-11T17:51:45 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gzhao408 opened pull request #19698: test: apply strict verification flags for transaction tests and assert backwards compatibility (master...test-verify-flags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19698
5912020-08-11T17:51:55 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5922020-08-11T17:52:09 *** shesek has quit IRC
5932020-08-11T17:54:12 *** mdunnio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5942020-08-11T18:00:02 *** frankie1 has quit IRC
5952020-08-11T18:02:40 <achow101> review beg for #18654. Has 2 acks, would be nice to have it merged soon
5962020-08-11T18:02:43 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18654 | rpc: separate bumpfees psbt creation function into psbtbumpfee by achow101 · Pull Request #18654 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5972020-08-11T18:04:54 *** gzhao408 has quit IRC
5982020-08-11T18:16:04 *** jarthur_ is now known as jarthur
5992020-08-11T18:21:53 *** davidfetter1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6002020-08-11T18:29:38 *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6012020-08-11T18:32:47 *** TallTim has quit IRC
6022020-08-11T18:38:02 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6032020-08-11T18:46:08 *** owowo has quit IRC
6042020-08-11T18:50:34 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
6052020-08-11T18:50:54 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6062020-08-11T18:52:15 *** vincenzopalazzo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6072020-08-11T18:54:06 *** greypw has quit IRC
6082020-08-11T18:54:13 *** BGL has quit IRC
6092020-08-11T18:55:15 *** greypw has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6102020-08-11T18:59:05 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
6112020-08-11T18:59:35 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6122020-08-11T19:13:59 *** ghost43_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6132020-08-11T19:14:43 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
6142020-08-11T19:27:38 <nehan> quick comment on the review nagging stuff from the p2p meeting: i think there is an implicit assumption in there that faster merges are better (by measuring time to merge and suggesting to optimize on it). i don't agree with that and want to point out it might not be great to encourage faster merges. i'd argue a better metric is quantity of high-quality review.
6152020-08-11T19:35:59 *** TallTim has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6162020-08-11T19:39:04 *** Davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6172020-08-11T19:53:28 *** mrostecki has quit IRC
6182020-08-11T20:00:39 *** arowser_ has quit IRC
6192020-08-11T20:01:06 *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6202020-08-11T20:13:36 *** Talkless has quit IRC
6212020-08-11T20:15:12 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
6222020-08-11T20:20:10 *** troygior1hev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6232020-08-11T20:22:25 *** PaulTroo_ has quit IRC
6242020-08-11T20:22:26 *** Highway61 has quit IRC
6252020-08-11T20:23:23 *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
6262020-08-11T20:26:21 *** PaulTroo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6272020-08-11T20:27:20 *** BGL has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6282020-08-11T20:34:07 *** Highway61 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6292020-08-11T20:50:43 *** Guyver2_ has quit IRC
6302020-08-11T20:54:20 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6312020-08-11T21:00:02 *** davidfetter1 has quit IRC
6322020-08-11T21:06:26 <sdaftuar> nehan: i think that's a fair point, but for a given amount of review from a given set of reviewers, the quality of that review is likely higher when not excessively drawn out over time. i think this is because people are more thoughtful in responding to other good review comments if their own thinking on how a PR works is fresh in their minds, and because errors can crop up due to rebases as the
6332020-08-11T21:06:27 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
6342020-08-11T21:06:28 <sdaftuar> underlying code base changes while a PR is open
6352020-08-11T21:07:13 <sdaftuar> so maybe it's not reasonable to expect merges to happen in very short periods of time and have that be a good thing... but 6-12 month review cycles strikes me as usually not very good outcomes for a PR
6362020-08-11T21:11:07 *** PaulTro__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6372020-08-11T21:13:33 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6382020-08-11T21:13:52 *** shesek has quit IRC
6392020-08-11T21:13:52 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6402020-08-11T21:14:35 *** PaulTroo_ has quit IRC
6412020-08-11T21:21:06 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6422020-08-11T21:21:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack closed pull request #18940: miner: fix off-by-ones in BlockAssembler::TestPackage (master...20200511-miner-fix-off-by-one-in-test-package) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18940
6432020-08-11T21:21:07 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6442020-08-11T21:31:48 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6452020-08-11T21:37:06 *** promag has quit IRC
6462020-08-11T21:38:30 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6472020-08-11T21:55:55 *** kwm1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6482020-08-11T21:58:46 *** Davterra has quit IRC
6492020-08-11T22:05:23 *** achow101 has quit IRC
6502020-08-11T22:06:41 *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6512020-08-11T22:08:00 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
6522020-08-11T22:14:21 *** lightlike has quit IRC
6532020-08-11T22:15:35 *** darosior has quit IRC
6542020-08-11T22:17:01 *** fox2p has quit IRC
6552020-08-11T22:19:03 *** fox2p has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6562020-08-11T22:25:22 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
6572020-08-11T22:28:07 *** darosior has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6582020-08-11T22:29:23 *** mdunnio has quit IRC
6592020-08-11T22:32:34 *** darosior has quit IRC
6602020-08-11T22:39:08 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6612020-08-11T22:53:17 <ajonas> nehan: Point well taken. To build on what sdaftuar mentioned, I've seen evidence that some are discouraged by month+ gaps in a review cycle or don't feel comfortable asking for review themselves. Each PR is different -- different complexity, different set of reviewers, etc. I don't think any apples to apples comparison on an individual PR basis makes sense.
6622020-08-11T22:53:40 <ajonas> In aggregate, however, I think there is the possibility of seeing some signal in those numbers by coordinating reviews or a designated entity to do the nagging. The goal is to allow authors to focus more on their contributions rather than rebasing. Time to merge is a first bad metric that I thought might be a decent proxy, but I'd certainly be open to other ways to measure progress.
6632020-08-11T22:59:03 *** vasild has quit IRC
6642020-08-11T23:00:31 *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6652020-08-11T23:04:05 *** diogorsergio has quit IRC
6662020-08-11T23:10:05 *** darosior has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6672020-08-11T23:16:00 *** sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6682020-08-11T23:39:06 *** promag has quit IRC
6692020-08-11T23:39:48 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6702020-08-11T23:41:17 *** darosior has quit IRC
6712020-08-11T23:42:35 *** darosior has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6722020-08-11T23:42:35 *** darosior has quit IRC
6732020-08-11T23:42:49 *** darosior has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6742020-08-11T23:52:25 *** sipsorcery has quit IRC
6752020-08-11T23:58:05 *** promag has quit IRC
6762020-08-11T23:59:16 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev