12020-10-23T00:00:01 *** jmp-TOK1 has quit IRC
22020-10-23T00:12:35 *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
32020-10-23T00:19:45 *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
42020-10-23T00:21:56 *** edunham1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52020-10-23T00:42:18 *** landakram has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62020-10-23T00:45:41 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
72020-10-23T00:46:37 *** mrostecki_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
82020-10-23T00:46:38 *** mrostecki has quit IRC
92020-10-23T01:47:47 *** k3tan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102020-10-23T01:48:41 *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112020-10-23T01:53:04 *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
122020-10-23T02:11:56 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132020-10-23T02:11:57 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9453fbf5a022...9af7c1993b35
142020-10-23T02:11:57 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 56a461f Sebastian Falbesoner: wallet: fix buffer over-read in SQLite file magic check
152020-10-23T02:11:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9af7c19 fanquake: Merge #20216: wallet: fix buffer over-read in SQLite file magic check
162020-10-23T02:12:00 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
172020-10-23T02:12:16 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182020-10-23T02:12:16 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #20216: wallet: fix buffer over-read in SQLite file magic check (master...20201022-wallet-fix-sqlite-magic-buffer-overread) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20216
192020-10-23T02:12:17 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
202020-10-23T02:42:21 *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
212020-10-23T02:46:32 *** landakram has quit IRC
222020-10-23T03:00:01 *** edunham1 has quit IRC
232020-10-23T03:06:11 *** Ga1aCt1Cz00__ has quit IRC
242020-10-23T03:07:35 *** visage_ has quit IRC
252020-10-23T03:22:07 *** johanna has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262020-10-23T03:23:34 *** prayank has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272020-10-23T03:36:39 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282020-10-23T03:39:50 *** prayank has quit IRC
292020-10-23T03:41:38 *** prayank has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302020-10-23T03:43:00 *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312020-10-23T03:58:00 *** davterra has quit IRC
322020-10-23T04:02:28 *** prayank has quit IRC
332020-10-23T04:10:58 *** prayank has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342020-10-23T04:12:17 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
352020-10-23T04:16:42 *** a5m0 has quit IRC
362020-10-23T04:21:39 *** kristapsk has quit IRC
372020-10-23T04:32:01 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382020-10-23T04:32:01 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] S3RK opened pull request #20226: wallet, rpc: add listdescriptors command (master...listdescriptors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20226
392020-10-23T04:32:02 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
402020-10-23T06:00:01 *** johanna has quit IRC
412020-10-23T06:09:49 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422020-10-23T06:11:54 *** prayank23 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432020-10-23T06:16:17 *** prayank has quit IRC
442020-10-23T06:23:32 *** prayank23 has quit IRC
452020-10-23T06:45:23 *** vasild has quit IRC
462020-10-23T06:46:28 *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472020-10-23T06:56:08 *** kephra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482020-10-23T07:06:08 <fanquake> Have queried GitHub in regards to CODEOWNERS and it's write permissions requirement. re #20200. https://0bin.net/paste/ZYpiRX9U#s67wu+CndcC5mYMooLlnvzqN5SrKW8119sQOKLa+Ju3
492020-10-23T07:06:09 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20200 | doc: revert #18949 since CODEOWNERS require write permission by adamjonas · Pull Request #20200 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
502020-10-23T07:32:45 *** EagleTM has quit IRC
512020-10-23T07:33:57 *** AdulrunaRedviva has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522020-10-23T07:35:52 *** kabaum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532020-10-23T07:44:37 *** jonatack has quit IRC
542020-10-23T07:47:06 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
552020-10-23T07:51:57 *** mrostecki_ has quit IRC
562020-10-23T08:02:28 *** landakram has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572020-10-23T08:08:15 *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
582020-10-23T08:12:54 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
592020-10-23T08:19:48 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
602020-10-23T08:22:31 *** wxss has quit IRC
612020-10-23T08:23:02 *** wxss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622020-10-23T08:29:37 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
632020-10-23T08:31:36 *** belcher_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
642020-10-23T08:35:06 *** belcher has quit IRC
652020-10-23T08:36:27 *** kephra has quit IRC
662020-10-23T08:47:21 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
672020-10-23T08:49:34 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682020-10-23T08:52:00 *** andreacab has quit IRC
692020-10-23T08:52:10 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
702020-10-23T08:52:40 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
712020-10-23T09:10:24 *** andreacab has quit IRC
722020-10-23T09:10:51 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732020-10-23T09:13:28 *** prayank23 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
742020-10-23T09:14:55 *** andreacab has quit IRC
752020-10-23T09:16:38 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
762020-10-23T09:22:19 *** DuncanT1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
772020-10-23T09:26:04 <jonasschnelli> achow101: I guess your answer for https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/43 would be welcome.
782020-10-23T09:26:09 <jonasschnelli> (trying to close that PR)
792020-10-23T09:40:16 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
802020-10-23T09:43:26 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
812020-10-23T09:43:26 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #20228: [addrman] Make addrman a top-level component (master...2020-10-addrman) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20228
822020-10-23T09:43:27 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
832020-10-23T09:50:48 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
842020-10-23T09:55:18 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
852020-10-23T09:55:19 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9af7c1993b35...49984b44cfcd
862020-10-23T09:55:19 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8071c75 Hennadii Stepanov: qt, refactor: Limit scope of QPainter object
872020-10-23T09:55:20 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6954156 Hennadii Stepanov: qt: Fix visual quality of text in QR image
882020-10-23T09:55:20 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 49984b4 Jonas Schnelli: Merge bitcoin-core/gui#71: Fix visual quality of text in QR image
892020-10-23T09:55:22 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
902020-10-23T10:11:23 *** vasild has quit IRC
912020-10-23T10:12:59 *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
922020-10-23T10:14:03 *** davterra has quit IRC
932020-10-23T10:20:53 *** Cathrine21Kuhic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
942020-10-23T10:24:26 *** kyoo[m] has quit IRC
952020-10-23T10:24:29 *** awesome_doge has quit IRC
962020-10-23T10:24:30 *** icota[m] has quit IRC
972020-10-23T10:24:30 *** Pasta[m] has quit IRC
982020-10-23T10:24:37 *** snowkeld[m] has quit IRC
992020-10-23T10:24:38 *** rCapital-Surpris has quit IRC
1002020-10-23T10:24:38 *** RaphalBentgeac[m has quit IRC
1012020-10-23T10:24:38 *** tianshi[m] has quit IRC
1022020-10-23T10:24:42 *** TheFuzzStone[m] has quit IRC
1032020-10-23T10:28:25 *** Cathrine21Kuhic has quit IRC
1042020-10-23T10:32:49 *** tianshi[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052020-10-23T10:37:11 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062020-10-23T10:37:27 <jonasschnelli> I'm again banned in #bitcoin-dev and #bitcoin and #bitcoin-wizards ... if anyone know how to unban: thanks.
1072020-10-23T10:40:18 *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082020-10-23T10:46:07 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1092020-10-23T10:47:37 *** willcl_ark has quit IRC
1102020-10-23T10:48:00 *** snowkeld[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112020-10-23T10:48:01 *** icota[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122020-10-23T10:48:01 *** TheFuzzStone[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132020-10-23T10:48:01 *** awesome_doge has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142020-10-23T10:48:01 *** kyoo[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152020-10-23T10:48:01 *** rCapital-Surpris has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162020-10-23T10:48:07 *** Pasta[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172020-10-23T10:48:07 *** RaphalBentgeac[m has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182020-10-23T10:54:34 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
1192020-10-23T10:54:48 *** ghost43_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202020-10-23T10:55:03 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212020-10-23T10:58:35 *** willcl_ark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222020-10-23T11:12:56 *** jonatack has quit IRC
1232020-10-23T11:18:27 *** Monty47Hintz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242020-10-23T11:20:16 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1252020-10-23T11:20:43 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262020-10-23T11:23:47 *** shesek has quit IRC
1272020-10-23T11:25:27 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1282020-10-23T11:30:51 *** andreacab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292020-10-23T11:36:30 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302020-10-23T11:39:02 *** andreacab has quit IRC
1312020-10-23T11:50:40 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
1322020-10-23T12:00:01 *** DuncanT1 has quit IRC
1332020-10-23T12:00:25 *** Monty47Hintz has quit IRC
1342020-10-23T12:01:50 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352020-10-23T12:03:22 <jtimon> is activation being discussed somewhere else beyond the thread "Modern Soft Fork Activation" ?
1362020-10-23T12:03:35 <jtimon> or is the discussion stuck? I'll re-read, but I remember feeling like my points weren't being addressed
1372020-10-23T12:04:01 <fanquake> There is ##taproot-activation if you aren't in there already
1382020-10-23T12:04:20 <jtimon> I asked questions that I'm pretty sure were ignored
1392020-10-23T12:04:28 <jtimon> fanquake: awesome, thanks
1402020-10-23T12:05:51 *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412020-10-23T12:19:34 *** EagleTM has quit IRC
1422020-10-23T12:20:51 *** oerjan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432020-10-23T12:27:43 *** morcos has quit IRC
1442020-10-23T12:34:32 *** sr_gi has quit IRC
1452020-10-23T12:35:11 *** sr_gi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462020-10-23T12:36:12 *** kabaum has quit IRC
1472020-10-23T12:38:21 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482020-10-23T12:42:31 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492020-10-23T12:44:45 *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502020-10-23T12:47:54 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512020-10-23T12:47:54 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bitcoin-foundation-admin opened pull request #20229: Adding a new Bitcoin logo, and release it under the public domain license. (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20229
1522020-10-23T12:47:55 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1532020-10-23T12:48:29 *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
1542020-10-23T12:54:09 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552020-10-23T12:54:09 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #20229: Adding a new Bitcoin logo, and release it under the public domain license. (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20229
1562020-10-23T12:54:21 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1572020-10-23T12:54:42 <jonasschnelli> Lol #20229
1582020-10-23T12:54:43 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20229 | Adding a new Bitcoin logo, and release it under the public domain license. by bitcoin-foundation-admin · Pull Request #20229 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1592020-10-23T12:55:16 <jonasschnelli> On the other hand... they are right about the metadata in my original SVG
1602020-10-23T12:56:18 <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: not sure if removing the description text helps much... now they certainly claim censorship
1612020-10-23T12:57:02 <queip> that's the joke there? png version looks normal
1622020-10-23T12:57:45 <queip> btw lol at what ever SVG editor: rgb(96.862745%, that's really precise RGB :o
1632020-10-23T12:58:31 <jonasschnelli> I guess my SVG is bad because I think I used Adobe Illustrator to create it and haven't cleand it.
1642020-10-23T12:59:21 <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: good point about the website... probably good you have removed that text
1652020-10-23T12:59:53 <jonasschnelli> The SV people recently started foundation activity in Switzerland.... I think its them. The webpage also links to bitcoin.com.
1662020-10-23T13:01:09 <MarcoFalke> The website asks for donations. Obviously don't send anything to their address
1672020-10-23T13:01:31 <MarcoFalke> I thought we blocked them already last time they spammed
1682020-10-23T13:01:38 <MarcoFalke> Maybe it's a new account
1692020-10-23T13:01:49 <fanquake> there's always a new account
1702020-10-23T13:03:45 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712020-10-23T13:04:29 *** jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722020-10-23T13:08:07 *** asoltys has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1732020-10-23T13:08:11 *** kljasdfvv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742020-10-23T13:25:02 *** kljasdfvv has quit IRC
1752020-10-23T13:25:29 *** kljasdfvv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1762020-10-23T13:28:18 *** sr_gi2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772020-10-23T13:28:59 *** sr_gi has quit IRC
1782020-10-23T13:29:00 *** corollari__ has quit IRC
1792020-10-23T13:29:03 *** alko89 has quit IRC
1802020-10-23T13:29:03 *** sr_gi2 is now known as sr_gi
1812020-10-23T13:29:45 *** justinmoon has quit IRC
1822020-10-23T13:30:06 *** corollari__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832020-10-23T13:31:02 *** justinmoon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1842020-10-23T13:31:50 *** alko89 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852020-10-23T13:38:36 <queip> MarcoFalke: probably that troll, now asks in #bitcoin with some fake DMCA I guess
1862020-10-23T13:40:08 <MarcoFalke> What a time sink. Best to ignore
1872020-10-23T13:41:22 *** andrewtoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882020-10-23T13:42:40 * queip thumbsup. recently some fake-DMCA abusers got counter sued and lost money, just to keep in mind
1892020-10-23T13:46:59 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902020-10-23T13:50:49 <kinlo> heh, it has been quite a while since I had someone using all the insults he can think of in my private windows :)
1912020-10-23T13:52:16 <queip> I am curious now, they commited some bitcoin.svg just to change git glame to them or something, got rejected, and now are DMCA-mad that their pressious bitcoin.svg sits there in PR? or smth? (besides that svg file is 404 anyway already)
1922020-10-23T13:52:17 <kinlo> do they really open dmca takedowns @ github?
1932020-10-23T13:52:25 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
1942020-10-23T13:53:33 *** oerjan has quit IRC
1952020-10-23T13:53:40 <queip> kinlo: if yes then great opportunity to ditch github. Or at least prepare to do so in future. if we distribute PRs, Issues, and maybe searching all servers for git remote modules, then we can ignore any such problems. anyway if bitcoin GH is officially mirrored to other gits, wouldn't hurt to promote that knowledge in places
1962020-10-23T13:54:08 *** mol has quit IRC
1972020-10-23T13:54:56 <kinlo> queip: surely github has experience with children trying to annoy their dmca department
1982020-10-23T13:55:11 <kinlo> given the talk he gave me in private, I don't think he's very mature
1992020-10-23T13:59:05 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2002020-10-23T14:01:43 *** b_b1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012020-10-23T14:29:04 *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2022020-10-23T14:37:29 *** darosior has quit IRC
2032020-10-23T14:39:20 *** xurzua has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042020-10-23T14:39:33 <jonasschnelli> For the one not following the GUI repository: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/108 (interactive mempool statistics). Ideas, reviews and testing welcome
2052020-10-23T14:42:21 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062020-10-23T14:44:52 <jonasschnelli> join #bitcoin-core-gui
2072020-10-23T14:47:21 *** andytoshi has quit IRC
2082020-10-23T14:47:39 *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092020-10-23T14:47:39 *** andytoshi has quit IRC
2102020-10-23T14:47:39 *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112020-10-23T14:53:02 *** andytoshi has quit IRC
2122020-10-23T14:53:13 *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2132020-10-23T14:53:13 *** andytoshi has quit IRC
2142020-10-23T14:53:13 *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152020-10-23T15:00:02 *** b_b1 has quit IRC
2162020-10-23T15:01:33 <jonasschnelli> ##bitcoin-core-gui
2172020-10-23T15:20:47 *** robotadam1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182020-10-23T15:24:08 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192020-10-23T15:28:16 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202020-10-23T15:28:48 *** xurzua has quit IRC
2212020-10-23T15:30:54 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
2222020-10-23T15:34:01 *** jesseposner has quit IRC
2232020-10-23T15:35:19 *** Pavlenex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242020-10-23T15:39:07 *** jesseposner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252020-10-23T15:40:19 *** Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2262020-10-23T15:45:08 *** kyoo[m] has quit IRC
2272020-10-23T15:48:56 *** kyoo[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282020-10-23T15:49:17 *** mrostecki has quit IRC
2292020-10-23T15:53:06 *** mrostecki has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302020-10-23T15:57:49 *** ni291187 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312020-10-23T15:57:53 *** ni291187 has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2322020-10-23T16:04:23 *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332020-10-23T16:09:35 *** mol has quit IRC
2342020-10-23T16:20:33 *** bosch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352020-10-23T16:28:23 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362020-10-23T16:28:24 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #20230: wallet: Fix bug when just created encrypted wallet cannot get address (master...201023-signal) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20230
2372020-10-23T16:28:24 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2382020-10-23T16:46:39 *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392020-10-23T16:50:27 *** nejon_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2402020-10-23T16:50:30 *** rich has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412020-10-23T16:51:08 *** ahmed__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2422020-10-23T16:51:48 *** harding_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432020-10-23T16:52:44 *** willcl_ark_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2442020-10-23T16:52:54 *** windsok_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2452020-10-23T16:57:32 *** willcl_ark has quit IRC
2462020-10-23T16:57:34 *** awesome_doge has quit IRC
2472020-10-23T16:57:34 *** icota[m] has quit IRC
2482020-10-23T16:57:34 *** ahmed_ has quit IRC
2492020-10-23T16:57:34 *** windsok has quit IRC
2502020-10-23T16:57:35 *** nejon has quit IRC
2512020-10-23T16:57:35 *** harding has quit IRC
2522020-10-23T16:57:35 *** Murch has quit IRC
2532020-10-23T16:57:35 *** paultroon has quit IRC
2542020-10-23T16:57:35 *** mrostecki has quit IRC
2552020-10-23T16:57:35 *** andrewtoth has quit IRC
2562020-10-23T16:57:35 *** davterra has quit IRC
2572020-10-23T16:57:35 *** morcos has quit IRC
2582020-10-23T16:57:35 *** ghost43_ has quit IRC
2592020-10-23T16:57:35 *** kristapsk has quit IRC
2602020-10-23T16:57:35 *** vasild has quit IRC
2612020-10-23T16:57:35 *** k3tan has quit IRC
2622020-10-23T16:57:35 *** jb55 has quit IRC
2632020-10-23T16:57:35 *** DeanGuss has quit IRC
2642020-10-23T16:57:35 *** braydonf has quit IRC
2652020-10-23T16:57:35 *** ares_ has quit IRC
2662020-10-23T16:57:35 *** sipa has quit IRC
2672020-10-23T16:57:35 *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
2682020-10-23T16:57:35 *** yanmaani has quit IRC
2692020-10-23T16:57:38 *** nejon_ is now known as nejon
2702020-10-23T16:57:40 *** ahmed__ is now known as ahmed_
2712020-10-23T17:04:49 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722020-10-23T17:05:25 *** awesome_doge has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732020-10-23T17:07:44 *** Pavlenex has quit IRC
2742020-10-23T17:10:04 *** ctrlbreak_MAD has quit IRC
2752020-10-23T17:10:14 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762020-10-23T17:10:29 *** ctrlbreak_MAD has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772020-10-23T17:13:34 *** icota[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782020-10-23T17:20:35 *** kabaum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2792020-10-23T17:29:38 *** k3tan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2802020-10-23T17:29:46 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2812020-10-23T17:33:05 *** ares_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2822020-10-23T17:33:07 *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832020-10-23T17:33:11 *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842020-10-23T17:34:34 *** harding_ is now known as harding
2852020-10-23T17:35:15 *** DeanGuss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2862020-10-23T17:35:41 *** yanmaani has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872020-10-23T17:36:07 *** braydonf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882020-10-23T17:36:34 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892020-10-23T17:36:41 *** landakram has quit IRC
2902020-10-23T17:37:53 *** sr_gi has quit IRC
2912020-10-23T17:38:26 *** sr_gi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922020-10-23T17:40:22 *** moneyball__ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2932020-10-23T17:41:33 *** moneyball has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2942020-10-23T17:42:26 *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2952020-10-23T17:47:03 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2962020-10-23T17:47:36 *** ctrlbreak_MAD has quit IRC
2972020-10-23T17:48:03 *** ctrlbreak_MAD has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2982020-10-23T17:49:12 *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992020-10-23T18:00:01 *** robotadam1 has quit IRC
3002020-10-23T18:10:20 *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
3012020-10-23T18:10:54 *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022020-10-23T18:18:25 *** bosma has quit IRC
3032020-10-23T18:19:01 *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3042020-10-23T18:19:16 *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
3052020-10-23T18:20:07 *** bosma has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062020-10-23T18:22:11 *** angvp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3072020-10-23T18:22:36 *** angvp is now known as Guest48991
3082020-10-23T18:23:46 *** kabaum has quit IRC
3092020-10-23T18:31:10 *** xurzua has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3102020-10-23T18:35:55 *** bosch has quit IRC
3112020-10-23T18:37:50 *** kabaum has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3122020-10-23T18:39:46 *** prayank23 has quit IRC
3132020-10-23T18:43:34 *** user___ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3142020-10-23T18:45:26 <dongcarl> What's the reason that enabling fuzz disables all other targets
3152020-10-23T18:46:46 <sipa> what else would it do?
3162020-10-23T18:49:41 <dongcarl> I feel like I'm missing something cuz I expect it to just add targets instead of affecting other targets?
3172020-10-23T18:52:10 <sipa> dongcarl: ah, it needs a special compile flag (-fsanitize=fuz), which is incompatible with having a main function
3182020-10-23T18:52:20 *** user___ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3192020-10-23T18:52:58 <sipa> it's not --enable-fuzz itself that's incomaptible with it (that's just switching the targets), but because it needs a compiler flag that's mutually exclusive with normal code
3202020-10-23T18:52:59 <dongcarl> Haha I see!
3212020-10-23T18:53:32 <sipa> dongcarl: there is an issue somewhere to instead enable building the fuzz test *code* (but without fuzzing) even in normal build mode
3222020-10-23T18:54:04 <sipa> which would greatly improve my grievances about it, that it's so easy to break compilation of the fuzz tests when you're changing other code, and won't notice because it needs a special build
3232020-10-23T18:54:37 <sipa> however the fuzz tests started using C++17 a while ago, so we need to wait until the main code is built with that too
3242020-10-23T18:54:43 <dongcarl> sipa: Totally agree... That's exactly what happened to me...
3252020-10-23T18:54:46 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3262020-10-23T18:54:46 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #20231: wallet, rpc: universal feerate (sat/vB) param/option (master...universal-feerate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20231
3272020-10-23T18:54:47 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3282020-10-23T18:56:09 <sipa> dongcarl: i have a worktree set up for fuzz builds to test things in
3292020-10-23T18:56:21 <sipa> so i don't need to re-./configure and find the right flags every time
3302020-10-23T18:56:45 <dongcarl> Ah right, that's a good workaround for now
3312020-10-23T19:00:33 <achow101> wallet meeting?
3322020-10-23T19:00:55 <jonatack> yup
3332020-10-23T19:01:26 <achow101> #startmeeting
3342020-10-23T19:01:26 <lightningbot> Meeting started Fri Oct 23 19:01:26 2020 UTC. The chair is achow101. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
3352020-10-23T19:01:26 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
3362020-10-23T19:01:35 <jonatack> hi
3372020-10-23T19:01:37 <hebasto> hi
3382020-10-23T19:01:41 <michaelfolkson> hi
3392020-10-23T19:02:09 <achow101> #bitcoin-core-dev Wallet 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 ariard digi_james amiti fjahr jeremyrubin emilengler jonatack hebasto
3402020-10-23T19:02:10 <achow101> jb55 kvaciral ariard digi_james amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
3412020-10-23T19:02:18 <achow101> topics?
3422020-10-23T19:02:24 <meshcollider> Hi
3432020-10-23T19:02:33 <achow101> oh you're awake
3442020-10-23T19:02:52 <jonatack> hey meshcollider
3452020-10-23T19:02:53 <meshcollider> One topic proposal standardize feerate unit on sat/vB (or sat/kvB... or sat/sipa...) (jonatack)
3462020-10-23T19:03:02 <sipa> you were trying to cross the border
3472020-10-23T19:03:12 <meshcollider> Yes :) but glad you're hosting because my internet may be intermittent
3482020-10-23T19:04:11 <achow101> #topic standardize feerate unit on sat/vB (or sat/kvB... or sat/sipa...) (jonatack)
3492020-10-23T19:04:32 <jonatack> #11413 was merged in June
3502020-10-23T19:04:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11413 | [wallet] [rpc] sendtoaddress/sendmany: Add explicit feerate option by kallewoof · Pull Request #11413 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3512020-10-23T19:05:09 <jonatack> and introduced an explicit feerate option, that overloads conf_target and estimate_mode
3522020-10-23T19:05:20 <jonasschnelli> would this break the RPC API... I mean would we change existing RPC parameters?
3532020-10-23T19:05:43 <jonatack> which has the disadnvantage of being unsafe and confusing to use
3542020-10-23T19:05:57 <sipa> jonatack: it uses a different unit than other feerate RPC arguments?
3552020-10-23T19:06:23 <jonatack> 11413 allows a choice between 2 units:
3562020-10-23T19:06:31 <jonatack> BTC/kB and sat/B
3572020-10-23T19:06:36 *** jtimon has quit IRC
3582020-10-23T19:07:09 <jonatack> I've been using this IRL regularly... apart from bumpfee where it is not working (fix in #20220)
3592020-10-23T19:07:11 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20220 | wallet, rpc: explicit feerate follow-ups by jonatack · Pull Request #20220 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3602020-10-23T19:07:15 <jonatack> but it's scary
3612020-10-23T19:07:32 <sipa> how do you choose between them?
3622020-10-23T19:07:34 <jonatack> MarcoFalke created an issue at #19453
3632020-10-23T19:07:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19453 | refactor: reduce DefaultRequestHandler memory allocations by jonatack · Pull Request #19453 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3642020-10-23T19:07:42 <jonatack> ugh
3652020-10-23T19:07:49 <luke-jr> sipa: the unit is specified s a string
3662020-10-23T19:08:04 <jonatack> #19543
3672020-10-23T19:08:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19543 | Normalize fee units for RPC ("BTC/kB" and "sat/B) · Issue #19543 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3682020-10-23T19:08:15 <jonatack> discussion here ^
3692020-10-23T19:08:24 <luke-jr> in place of the conservative/etc fee estimate mode
3702020-10-23T19:08:38 <sipa> ok
3712020-10-23T19:08:43 *** davterra has quit IRC
3722020-10-23T19:08:44 <jonatack> the idea is to not release 0.21 with the overloaded conf_target and estimate_mode params
3732020-10-23T19:08:59 <jonasschnelli> 20231 would change the feeRate in fundrawtransaction from BTC/kB to sat/B. Isn't that potentially dangerous?
3742020-10-23T19:09:10 <luke-jr> jonatack: too late
3752020-10-23T19:09:49 <sipa> we can't change the interpretation of RPC arguments of existing RPCs in released versions
3762020-10-23T19:09:52 <jonatack> 6 RPCs are affected: sendtoaddress, sendmany, send, bumpfee, fundraw, and walletcreatefundedpsbt
3772020-10-23T19:10:16 <sipa> not without a command-line argument to opt into other semantics, at least
3782020-10-23T19:10:22 <jonasschnelli> I guess if we extend/add a feemode parameter in which the default is BTC/kB,.. its probably fine
3792020-10-23T19:10:31 <jonatack> per discussion, it's better to not avoid releasing as-is and fix it
3802020-10-23T19:10:32 <luke-jr> relevant #17356
3812020-10-23T19:10:34 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17356 | RPC: Internal named params by luke-jr · Pull Request #17356 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3822020-10-23T19:10:50 <sipa> jonatack: define 'fix it', what needs fixing?
3832020-10-23T19:10:57 <sipa> (just trying to understand the problem)
3842020-10-23T19:11:15 <jonatack> see #20220 and #19543
3852020-10-23T19:11:17 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20220 | wallet, rpc: explicit feerate follow-ups by jonatack · Pull Request #20220 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3862020-10-23T19:11:18 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19543 | Normalize fee units for RPC ("BTC/kB" and "sat/B) · Issue #19543 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3872020-10-23T19:12:29 <jonatack> there seems to be agreement to have a dedicated fee_rate option that uses a fixed unit of sat/vB
3882020-10-23T19:12:46 <jonatack> to replace overloading conf_target and estimate_mode
3892020-10-23T19:12:56 <jonatack> and it's not too hard to do
3902020-10-23T19:13:12 <jonatack> mostly test-writing to be sure all the plumbing is working
3912020-10-23T19:13:35 <sipa> so what would the changes be w.r.t 0.20 ?
3922020-10-23T19:14:09 <meshcollider> Concept ACK on fee_rate
3932020-10-23T19:14:10 <jonatack> either as-is with 11413 merged and fixups in 20220, e.g. overloading
3942020-10-23T19:14:27 <luke-jr> I don't understand the proposed solution
3952020-10-23T19:14:35 <jonatack> or stop overloading them asap before release
3962020-10-23T19:14:45 <jonatack> before we have to do a deprecation cycle
3972020-10-23T19:14:50 <jonatack> to change them
3982020-10-23T19:14:55 <luke-jr> overloading them isn't a problem, so long as it's properly documented?
3992020-10-23T19:15:05 <jonatack> luke-jr: it's fraught
4002020-10-23T19:15:06 <sipa> jonatack: sorry for all the questions, i haven't read all these issues... but i'd like to understand what the problem is and what is being changed
4012020-10-23T19:15:07 <achow101> sipa: I don't think explicit feerate is in 0.20?
4022020-10-23T19:15:08 <jonasschnelli> oh. Why do we overload "conf_target" with a feerate.. :/
4032020-10-23T19:15:24 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: it's only for positional
4042020-10-23T19:15:31 *** prayank23 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052020-10-23T19:15:32 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: with named args, they have separate names
4062020-10-23T19:15:36 <sipa> mostly to make sure we're not doing anything that breaks compatibility
4072020-10-23T19:15:54 <jonatack> achow101: no. it was merged late june
4082020-10-23T19:15:59 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: for positional, it's pretty reasonable
4092020-10-23T19:16:20 <sipa> jonatack: would the feerate argument to `settxfee` be affected?
4102020-10-23T19:16:33 <jonatack> luke-jr: it's mixing types, and look at the fundraw and createpsbt helps...
4112020-10-23T19:16:51 <luke-jr> jonatack: so the bug is documentation only
4122020-10-23T19:17:00 <jonatack> sipa: so far settxfee is not changed by 11413
4132020-10-23T19:17:18 <sipa> or existing RPCs that have feerates in their response?
4142020-10-23T19:17:37 <jonatack> luke-jr: mixed types, overloading, missing tests, broken bumpfee
4152020-10-23T19:18:30 <jonatack> luke-jr: i use it for positional, and it's scary. a bit more reassuring with -named
4162020-10-23T19:18:56 <jonatack> (have used it many times, i still re-check every time)
4172020-10-23T19:19:11 *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4182020-10-23T19:19:28 <jonatack> sipa: so far i've looked at input params/options, not yet at output
4192020-10-23T19:20:12 <sipa> if we're introducing a sat/vB option, wouldn't it be better to have it everywhere?
4202020-10-23T19:20:32 <jonatack> i think so, yes. there seems to be fairly strong agreement to migrate to it.
4212020-10-23T19:20:33 <sipa> otherwise people could be copying output from estimatesmartfee and have it be interpreted as a different unit
4222020-10-23T19:20:51 <sipa> "migrate" ?
4232020-10-23T19:21:01 <sipa> you can't break compatibility
4242020-10-23T19:21:15 <jonatack> so we have to stay with BTC/kB?
4252020-10-23T19:21:28 <luke-jr> isn't that the reason we use BTC at all in RPC?
4262020-10-23T19:21:29 <sipa> for existing RPCs, definitely
4272020-10-23T19:21:42 <sipa> but you could add extra output arguments, and extra input arguments
4282020-10-23T19:21:43 <luke-jr> otherwise it'd be better to have satoshis everywhere..
4292020-10-23T19:21:52 <sipa> feerate, feerate_satvb e.g.
4302020-10-23T19:22:05 <luke-jr> sipa: that breaks positional
4312020-10-23T19:22:15 <sipa> how so?
4322020-10-23T19:22:19 *** Zenton has quit IRC
4332020-10-23T19:22:26 <luke-jr> sipa: positional doesn't have an arg name
4342020-10-23T19:22:41 <sipa> it'd be a completely separate argument
4352020-10-23T19:22:59 <luke-jr> that's terribly ugly
4362020-10-23T19:23:03 <sipa> yes
4372020-10-23T19:23:04 <jonatack> luke-jr: so far, in the rpcs where i've added feerate, i placed it just before verbose, which isn't dangerous
4382020-10-23T19:23:08 *** Zenton has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4392020-10-23T19:23:16 <jonatack> or could be after verbose as well, either way
4402020-10-23T19:23:22 <jonatack> e.g. last
4412020-10-23T19:23:23 <sipa> jonatack: so verbose moved?
4422020-10-23T19:23:46 <jonatack> sipa: no, this is what i'm looking at rn
4432020-10-23T19:23:47 *** prayank23 has quit IRC
4442020-10-23T19:24:24 <jonatack> adding "fee_rate" or "feerate_sat_vb" to sendtoaddress/sendmany/send etc
4452020-10-23T19:24:33 <luke-jr> btw why use vB at all, if not for API compatibility? ;)
4462020-10-23T19:24:38 <luke-jr> maybe it should be sat/WU ;)
4472020-10-23T19:25:06 <sipa> i think sat/vB makes sense, it's the most common unit used in practice for fees
4482020-10-23T19:25:12 <sipa> at least as an option
4492020-10-23T19:25:27 <sipa> but compatibility is a problem
4502020-10-23T19:26:06 <sipa> previous times when new units in RPC was brought up (mostly in the context of using sat instead of BTC for absolute amounts), it was suggested that this'd be done through a completely new version of the RPC API
4512020-10-23T19:26:26 <sipa> though that of course easily scope-creeps into discussions about what else to change
4522020-10-23T19:26:37 <jonatack> luke-jr: if it was me doing it greenfield, i might use sat/kvB (and call it sat/sipa for better marketing)
4532020-10-23T19:26:44 <jonatack> sipa: hm
4542020-10-23T19:26:49 <sipa> goh please no
4552020-10-23T19:26:52 <luke-jr> lol
4562020-10-23T19:27:09 <meshcollider> ugh, rpc versioning
4572020-10-23T19:27:32 <jonatack> for the 3 send rpcs, there is currently no feerate-like param
4582020-10-23T19:27:52 <luke-jr> can we split this topic up into two: what is actually _broken_ right now? 2) what is a future backward compat burden?
4592020-10-23T19:28:16 <jonatack> bumpfee, fundraw and WCFB do have them
4602020-10-23T19:28:18 <emzy> As long as minimum fee is 1 sat/vB, this unit makes sense.
4612020-10-23T19:28:40 <luke-jr> emzy: JSON-RPC does not treat integers as special
4622020-10-23T19:28:52 <sipa> many client libraries do, though
4632020-10-23T19:29:13 <sipa> but indeed, JSON only has a "number" type with no distinction between integers and floating-point
4642020-10-23T19:29:20 <jonatack> luke-jr: minimum fixes are in #20220, except maybe additional clarity in the help about the confusing edges, which there currently are
4652020-10-23T19:29:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20220 | wallet, rpc: explicit feerate follow-ups by jonatack · Pull Request #20220 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4662020-10-23T19:30:20 <jonatack> what MarcoFalke, wumpus, Murch, kallewoof and I have been discussing is not overloading conf_target and estimate_mode before it's too late and released
4672020-10-23T19:30:26 <luke-jr> sipa: I can't think of a sane way to prepare for broken client libs combined with sub-sat/WU fee rates :p
4682020-10-23T19:30:44 <michaelfolkson> What is WU?
4692020-10-23T19:30:59 <meshcollider> Weight unit
4702020-10-23T19:31:01 <luke-jr> weight units; ie, what consensus is really using
4712020-10-23T19:31:04 <michaelfolkson> Ah ta
4722020-10-23T19:31:32 <jonatack> Questions:
4732020-10-23T19:31:47 <luke-jr> jonatack: what is the difference between `int target = value.get_int();` and `const int target{value.get_int()};` that makes it so essential?
4742020-10-23T19:32:02 <jonatack> - move forward with fix to not overload those two params?
4752020-10-23T19:32:19 <luke-jr> I think they should be overloaded
4762020-10-23T19:32:25 <jonatack> - call it feerate or fee_rate?
4772020-10-23T19:32:41 <jonatack> luke-jr: it's WIP, no need to discuss style nits yet
4782020-10-23T19:32:47 <Murch> luke-jr: Do you think floats of sat/vB would be a problem?
4792020-10-23T19:33:04 <sipa> it is very late to still make changes to RPC arguments at this point
4802020-10-23T19:33:10 <luke-jr> Murch: JSON-RPC doesn't have floats, everything is precise decimal
4812020-10-23T19:33:37 <luke-jr> Murch: even if some clients might need to used floats for it, I don't see it likely to be a practical issue
4822020-10-23T19:33:44 <luke-jr> after all, floats have plenty of precision?
4832020-10-23T19:33:58 <Murch> So how do people input BTC/kB right now?
4842020-10-23T19:34:03 <jonatack> ISTM it can be simpler to add a fixed-unit feerate than keep overloading, and simpler code as well
4852020-10-23T19:34:24 <jonatack> above all, better for users
4862020-10-23T19:34:33 <luke-jr> jonatack: ?
4872020-10-23T19:34:56 <jonatack> and i've been dogfooding the current version quite a bit
4882020-10-23T19:35:19 <luke-jr> callers should be able to specify fee as an estimate mode or absolute feerate.. I see no case where overloading is weird
4892020-10-23T19:35:47 <sipa> Murch: 0.00123456 if you want 123.456 sat/vB
4902020-10-23T19:35:54 <jonatack> Has anyone actually used it?
4912020-10-23T19:36:16 <jonatack> The explicit feerate with the overloaded args.
4922020-10-23T19:36:43 <Murch> sipa: Is that then not a float?
4932020-10-23T19:36:55 <sipa> Murch: JSON doesn't have a concept of floats/integers, just "numbers"
4942020-10-23T19:37:30 <jonatack> It's awfully odd to send txns with a feerate set with conf_target=2 and estimate_mode="sat/vb"
4952020-10-23T19:37:44 <sipa> jonatack: but can't you use fee_rate=2 as well?
4962020-10-23T19:37:48 <luke-jr> jonatack: 20220 is long, and starting from the top looks like a bunch of completely unnecessary changes; I'm not opposed to them, but it's not helpful to understand what is in need of fixing
4972020-10-23T19:37:54 <Murch> I guess I'm missing the distinction, but I understand that it's not a problem to put in something with a value between 0 and 1
4982020-10-23T19:37:56 <jonatack> the names do not correspond at all to what is being done
4992020-10-23T19:38:19 <jonatack> luke-jr: 20220 mostly adds missing tests
5002020-10-23T19:38:36 <sipa> Murch: read the JSON spec, it just has a number type
5012020-10-23T19:39:00 <sipa> Murch: the problem is with client libraries, which may map the number type to floating point types, which is bad for currency reasons
5022020-10-23T19:39:05 <luke-jr> Murch: JSON-RPC numbers are decimal strings; floats are fixed-size approximations
5032020-10-23T19:39:27 <sipa> bitcoin core has no problem with this, it parses the decimals exactly from json, without conversion to a floating point type at any point
5042020-10-23T19:39:46 <Murch> luke-jr: Thanks, I see.
5052020-10-23T19:40:18 <sipa> i think it's a good idea to try to avoid numbers with a decimal in our RPC, but that's not worth breaking compatibility over
5062020-10-23T19:40:20 <jonatack> luke-jr: with an important fix that i noted with a review comment and some help documentation fixes
5072020-10-23T19:41:00 <jonatack> (some of the helps are currently wrong)
5082020-10-23T19:41:10 <Murch> My alternative proposal was sat/kvB, which gives us an additional 3 decimal of precision for numbers that are safe integers
5092020-10-23T19:41:45 <Murch> (which, though would also get parsed as floats in client libraries potentially, I guess)
5102020-10-23T19:41:47 <emzy> Murch: thats also msat/vB
5112020-10-23T19:41:56 <Murch> emzy: sure.
5122020-10-23T19:42:09 <sipa> Murch: the bitcoin core RPC also lets you pass any amount as a string, in case your client library can't produce JSON numbers without going through a floating-point type
5132020-10-23T19:42:23 <luke-jr> emzy: but msat isn't an existing unit (in Bitcoin/Core at least)
5142020-10-23T19:42:52 <emzy> luke-jr: but Lighting uses it already.
5152020-10-23T19:42:59 <sipa> so you can have integer sats internally in the application, and format them as "%i.%06i" % (sats // 1000000, sats % 1000000) for example (python like)
5162020-10-23T19:43:01 <luke-jr> emzy: unfortunately :p
5172020-10-23T19:43:57 <sipa> we'll add a command line option to rename msat/vB to sat/kvB for luke-jr
5182020-10-23T19:44:02 <sipa> ;)
5192020-10-23T19:45:05 <Murch> mh, my nickname is the only one with a capital letter. Are you all anti-capitalists?
5202020-10-23T19:45:07 <emzy> I don't like the 1/k I think it is confusing
5212020-10-23T19:45:12 <luke-jr> lol
5222020-10-23T19:45:39 <jonatack> I'm not sure what people would like to do here. What we have now does have some issues per #19543 and other issues I found while adding tests, but happy to not work on it further if it's not needed.
5232020-10-23T19:45:40 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19543 | Normalize fee units for RPC ("BTC/kB" and "sat/B) · Issue #19543 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5242020-10-23T19:46:01 <sipa> jonatack: i'm going to refrain from commenting further until i understand what the problem and proposed solution are
5252020-10-23T19:47:01 <jonatack> I'm afraid people will definitely complain about the overloaded options having functions that don't have much to do with the param names.
5262020-10-23T19:47:18 <jonatack> e.g. conf_target for the fee rate
5272020-10-23T19:47:34 <luke-jr> jonatack: if you're using named params, you *shouldn't* be specifying it as conf_target
5282020-10-23T19:47:39 <jonatack> and there is also a feeRate or fee_rate arg next to it in some rpcs
5292020-10-23T19:47:58 <luke-jr> it should be the same position, but named fee_?rate
5302020-10-23T19:48:11 <jonatack> that in addition does not work if you use estimate_mode
5312020-10-23T19:48:42 <luke-jr> without #17356, we can't enforce the correct name is used, but that's beside the point
5322020-10-23T19:48:44 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17356 | RPC: Internal named params by luke-jr · Pull Request #17356 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5332020-10-23T19:49:50 <Murch> presumably `conf_target` and `feerate` would be exclusive or one would supersede if both are provided (exclusive is cleaner, though)
5342020-10-23T19:50:15 <jonatack> Ok, in issue 19543 I thought there was a pretty clear direction, but it seems not, and I suspect no one has been dogfooding the current new feature.
5352020-10-23T19:50:19 <luke-jr> Murch: ideally, if both were provided, we'd error
5362020-10-23T19:50:40 <luke-jr> or rather, if the wrong one were provided
5372020-10-23T19:50:54 <luke-jr> estimate_mode (perhaps should be renamed fee_mode) specifies which one is correct
5382020-10-23T19:51:11 <jonatack> luke-jr: we cannot rename estimate_mode
5392020-10-23T19:51:12 <luke-jr> (and with "fee_mode" there, "fee_rate" seems obvious over "feerate")
5402020-10-23T19:51:16 <luke-jr> jonatack: why not?
5412020-10-23T19:51:25 <jonatack> it's used for the fee estimation since some time
5422020-10-23T19:51:29 <luke-jr> so?
5432020-10-23T19:51:33 <luke-jr> we support multiple names
5442020-10-23T19:51:46 <luke-jr> deprecate the old one and keep allowing it
5452020-10-23T19:51:55 <jonatack> This is a mess.
5462020-10-23T19:52:24 <jonatack> I thought we had a good solution, but it seems best for me to drop it.
5472020-10-23T19:52:36 <jonatack> I'm done.
5482020-10-23T19:52:57 <sipa> :(
5492020-10-23T19:53:21 <jonatack> luke-jr: I with you had chimed in on the discussion in 19543
5502020-10-23T19:53:33 <jonatack> we seemed in agreement I thought
5512020-10-23T19:53:38 *** davterra has quit IRC
5522020-10-23T19:54:03 <jonatack> I'll get back to catching up on the reviewing.
5532020-10-23T19:54:47 <achow101> any other topics for the last 5 minutes?
5542020-10-23T19:55:38 <michaelfolkson> Is that an effective Approach NACK luke-jr?
5552020-10-23T19:55:53 *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5562020-10-23T19:56:05 <luke-jr> michaelfolkson: I don't understand his proposed approach still :/
5572020-10-23T19:56:24 <sipa> i worry that i may have contributed to jonatack's frustration here by commenting without understanding the problem well
5582020-10-23T19:57:35 <michaelfolkson> Ok well if you both do look over it it would be good to get a formal Approach NACK if you really don't like it.
5592020-10-23T19:57:43 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5602020-10-23T19:57:55 <michaelfolkson> I haven't understood it all either
5612020-10-23T19:58:07 <jonatack> sipa, no worries, I'm not frustrated, it's just clearly too early in that people haven't tripped on the issues yet.
5622020-10-23T19:59:11 <jonatack> achow101: did you want to do high priority?
5632020-10-23T19:59:12 <Murch> How come that parameters to RPC are defined separately instead of in a dictionary that applies to all uses of the same parameter?
5642020-10-23T19:59:33 <Murch> I.e. why is something like feerate not defined once for the whole codebase?
5652020-10-23T19:59:33 <achow101> jonatack: I think all the high priority is already listed in the milestone
5662020-10-23T19:59:44 <jonatack> achow101: that's true
5672020-10-23T19:59:56 <sipa> Murch: what do you mean with "defined once" ?
5682020-10-23T20:00:04 <sipa> code for parsing it?
5692020-10-23T20:00:27 <achow101> #endmeeting
5702020-10-23T20:00:27 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Fri Oct 23 20:00:27 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
5712020-10-23T20:00:27 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-23-19.01.html
5722020-10-23T20:00:27 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-23-19.01.txt
5732020-10-23T20:00:27 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-23-19.01.log.html
5742020-10-23T20:00:51 <Murch> like a class that provides the parameter parsing, logic, and sanitation that can be used by various rpc to
5752020-10-23T20:01:47 <sipa> we have that for amounts (AmountFromValue), and historically, feerates were always just amounts (per k(v)B)
5762020-10-23T20:02:27 <michaelfolkson> I have a question for achow101 if he's sticking around. You said in your blog post it will be possible to migrate legacy wallets to descriptor wallets. How does the descriptor wallet obtain the descriptor from the legacy wallet?
5772020-10-23T20:02:34 <sipa> jonatack: i think it'd be useful if you added a summary of the actual RPC changes in 20220 ?
5782020-10-23T20:02:39 <sipa> s/?//
5792020-10-23T20:02:48 <jtimon> sipa: is there not a CFeeRate class anymore?
5802020-10-23T20:03:06 <sipa> there is, but it doesn't RPC argument parsing
5812020-10-23T20:03:21 <sipa> feerates were just constructed from an amount
5822020-10-23T20:03:22 <jtimon> oh, I see
5832020-10-23T20:03:25 <achow101> michaelfolkson: going through all the keys in the legacy wallet and creating descriptors for them. it requires considering everything that IsMine matches on
5842020-10-23T20:03:50 <jtimon> yeah, yeah, from an amount is the one I know, murch wants one to parse from rpc
5852020-10-23T20:03:55 <jtimon> got it
5862020-10-23T20:03:56 <achow101> for HD wallets, it's pretty simple with computing the xprv for the hd seed and using a single descriptor. for non-HD but still only key things, it's a descriptor for each key
5872020-10-23T20:04:06 <achow101> for wallets with watchonly things and multisigs, it gets complicated
5882020-10-23T20:05:19 <jtimon> so what's the status on using bitcoin core with hardware wallets, multisig and all those cool things? is it still a separated branch?
5892020-10-23T20:05:28 <jtimon> or it is merged now?
5902020-10-23T20:05:38 <luke-jr> not even close afaik
5912020-10-23T20:05:45 <jtimon> :(
5922020-10-23T20:05:52 <sipa> PSBT works
5932020-10-23T20:05:54 <jonatack> sipa: do you mean discuss in the 20220 PR description the RPC changes of 11413?
5942020-10-23T20:06:01 <achow101> jtimon: if you're willing to do some command line stuff, it works
5952020-10-23T20:06:13 <achow101> *do command line stuff and use hwi separately
5962020-10-23T20:06:16 <sipa> jonatack: no, what changes in 20220
5972020-10-23T20:06:26 <jtimon> but I need to get a different branch with scripts and stuff, no?
5982020-10-23T20:06:35 <achow101> jtimon: no
5992020-10-23T20:06:44 <michaelfolkson> achow101: It effectively has to ask the legacy wallet what the equivalent descriptor is. I'd have thought in some scenarios this would be hard as the legacy wallet wasn't set up to answer that question.
6002020-10-23T20:07:02 <jtimon> achow101: oh, I see, so I guess it's more or less a while back, but now merged, nice
6012020-10-23T20:07:19 <sipa> jtimon: you need HWI or other software that can talk to the hardware wallet
6022020-10-23T20:07:32 *** ghost43 has quit IRC
6032020-10-23T20:07:42 <jonatack> sipa, 20220 just adds missing test coverage, fixes a bug to make bumpfee work again, and does doc updates that were left over from 11413 (which was 3 years old when it was merged)
6042020-10-23T20:07:42 <jtimon> are there any plans to add that stuff to the qt interface?
6052020-10-23T20:07:57 *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6062020-10-23T20:08:01 <sipa> jonatack: oh ok, that explains why i couldn't find anything
6072020-10-23T20:08:29 <achow101> michaelfolkson: it's just kind of complex. but the set of scriptPubKeys is finite and not log(n!) so it's doable
6082020-10-23T20:08:41 <achow101> s/log/O
6092020-10-23T20:08:54 <michaelfolkson> OK thanks achow101
6102020-10-23T20:09:26 <achow101> jtimon: yes. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/4
6112020-10-23T20:09:31 <sipa> achow101, michaelfolkson: i think it depends on what level of compatibility you're talking about; constructing a set of descriptors that match exactly what a legacy wallet *right now* considers IsMine() is doable i think
6122020-10-23T20:09:39 <jonatack> yes, 20220 doesn't change the RPCs. I started changing them in 20231 today...simpler UI and code.
6132020-10-23T20:09:49 <achow101> meshcollider: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/16 can be closed/removed/whatever happens to completed project boards
6142020-10-23T20:10:04 <jtimon> achow101: oh, wow, and the gui is separated? I missed a lot
6152020-10-23T20:10:07 <sipa> making it also treat IsMine() any future script the legacy would have considered... is probably impossible if you want to cover al edge cases
6162020-10-23T20:10:15 <sipa> jtimon: same project, different repo
6172020-10-23T20:10:23 <sipa> it's still compiled as one thing
6182020-10-23T20:10:45 <sipa> so it's just the development/review workflow that moved elsewhere
6192020-10-23T20:10:47 <jtimon> oh, ok, just 2 projects for the PRs and stuff, right?
6202020-10-23T20:10:53 <achow101> yeah
6212020-10-23T20:11:15 *** prayank23 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6222020-10-23T20:11:48 <achow101> sipa: as long as we don't change legacy ismine, we don't have to worry about future stuff
6232020-10-23T20:11:49 *** prayank23 has quit IRC
6242020-10-23T20:11:58 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
6252020-10-23T20:12:32 <jtimon> well, still very cool that this is getting into the gui
6262020-10-23T20:12:36 <sipa> achow101: it's also only crazy edge cases that you can't cover i think
6272020-10-23T20:13:21 <sipa> achow101: like having a HD chain that has a future key X, where multi(2,X,Y,Z) is a watch-only script, with Y and Z private keys you already have
6282020-10-23T20:14:14 *** kabaum has quit IRC
6292020-10-23T20:14:16 <achow101> sipa: well stop using the legacy wallet after it migrates :p
6302020-10-23T20:14:28 <sipa> achow101: of course
6312020-10-23T20:14:51 <sipa> just means you can't silently do the conversion
6322020-10-23T20:16:47 <luke-jr> "Welcome to Bitcoin Core 2022.11. You are using an ancient wallet version, that will not be supported in the next release. Do you want to upgrade now? This will invalidate old backups!"
6332020-10-23T20:17:11 <achow101> luke-jr: that's probably what will happen anyways
6342020-10-23T20:18:22 <achow101> actually, the current migration pr doesn't let you use the legacy stuff anyways. it currently makes a new descriptor wallets and essentially imports the descriptors for the legacy wallet
6352020-10-23T20:18:27 *** Guest48991 has quit IRC
6362020-10-23T20:19:11 <sipa> achow101: how big is an sqlite wallet.dat if it has 6000 imported descriptors?
6372020-10-23T20:20:03 <sipa> oh, or will it convert hdchains correctly and only have 6?
6382020-10-23T20:20:11 <achow101> it should correctly convert hd chains
6392020-10-23T20:20:51 <achow101> I haven't tested the migration pr with sqlite yet. I think it might be broken
6402020-10-23T20:32:58 *** Lthere has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6412020-10-23T20:33:38 <sipa> jonatack: so is there anything you'l were thinking of trying to get in 0.21, besides 20220?
6422020-10-23T20:34:02 <jonatack> sipa: re-reading, i now see your question "but can't you use fee_rate=2 as well"
6432020-10-23T20:34:38 <jonatack> and that's part of the oddness, with explicit feerate feature, no
6442020-10-23T20:35:30 <jonatack> and only for BTC/vB iiuc, feeRate doesn't handle sat/B but conf_target with estimate_mode does handle it
6452020-10-23T20:35:55 *** jtimon has quit IRC
6462020-10-23T20:36:03 *** jb55 has quit IRC
6472020-10-23T20:36:13 <sipa> too many ideas floating around
6482020-10-23T20:36:53 <jonatack> yeah it's fairly unsimple and unintuitive
6492020-10-23T20:39:01 <jonatack> tagged for 0.21 i also have #20115 and #20120, but no hurry, still a week :)
6502020-10-23T20:39:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20115 | cli: -netinfo quick updates/fixups and release note by jonatack · Pull Request #20115 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6512020-10-23T20:39:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6522020-10-23T20:40:12 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6532020-10-23T20:44:08 *** berndj-blackout has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6542020-10-23T20:46:38 *** queip_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6552020-10-23T20:47:26 *** TheHoliestRoger_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6562020-10-23T20:50:04 *** tryphe has quit IRC
6572020-10-23T20:50:04 *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
6582020-10-23T20:50:04 *** IGHOR has quit IRC
6592020-10-23T20:50:04 *** queip has quit IRC
6602020-10-23T20:50:04 *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
6612020-10-23T20:50:04 *** cryptapus has quit IRC
6622020-10-23T20:50:04 *** nothingmuch has quit IRC
6632020-10-23T20:50:04 *** spinza has quit IRC
6642020-10-23T20:50:04 *** TheHoliestRoger has quit IRC
6652020-10-23T20:50:04 *** baldur has quit IRC
6662020-10-23T20:50:05 *** troygiorshev has quit IRC
6672020-10-23T20:50:05 *** berndj has quit IRC
6682020-10-23T20:50:05 *** Nebraskka has quit IRC
6692020-10-23T20:50:05 *** Klox0480931 has quit IRC
6702020-10-23T20:50:05 *** chjj has quit IRC
6712020-10-23T20:50:05 *** berndj-blackout is now known as berndj
6722020-10-23T20:50:12 *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6732020-10-23T20:50:12 *** jeremyrubin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6742020-10-23T20:50:12 *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6752020-10-23T20:50:12 *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6762020-10-23T20:50:12 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6772020-10-23T20:50:12 *** nothingmuch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6782020-10-23T20:50:12 *** baldur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6792020-10-23T20:50:12 *** troygiorshev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6802020-10-23T20:50:12 *** Nebraskka has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6812020-10-23T20:50:12 *** Klox0480931 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6822020-10-23T20:50:12 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6832020-10-23T20:51:20 *** queip_ is now known as queip
6842020-10-23T20:51:39 *** IGHOR has quit IRC
6852020-10-23T20:51:40 *** tryphe has quit IRC
6862020-10-23T20:52:49 *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6872020-10-23T20:52:52 *** Zenton has quit IRC
6882020-10-23T20:55:11 *** kristapsk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6892020-10-23T20:57:19 *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6902020-10-23T21:00:02 *** Lthere has quit IRC
6912020-10-23T21:03:02 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6922020-10-23T21:21:26 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6932020-10-23T21:22:06 *** ericbsd1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6942020-10-23T21:42:28 *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6952020-10-23T21:42:28 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #20233: addrman: make sanity checks a runtime option (master...2020-10-addrman-sanity) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20233
6962020-10-23T21:42:29 *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
6972020-10-23T21:42:30 *** filchef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6982020-10-23T21:43:19 *** filchef has quit IRC
6992020-10-23T21:47:47 *** twistedline has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7002020-10-23T21:47:47 *** twistedline has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7012020-10-23T22:10:43 *** vasild has quit IRC
7022020-10-23T22:12:53 *** vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7032020-10-23T22:35:50 *** davterra has quit IRC
7042020-10-23T22:36:11 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
7052020-10-23T22:42:00 *** davterra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7062020-10-23T22:48:39 *** ctrlbreak_MAD has quit IRC
7072020-10-23T22:49:03 *** ctrlbreak_MAD has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7082020-10-23T22:49:07 *** xurzua has quit IRC
7092020-10-23T22:52:45 *** Talkless has quit IRC
7102020-10-23T22:58:46 *** sanketh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7112020-10-23T23:07:04 *** prayank23 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7122020-10-23T23:09:33 *** prayank23 has quit IRC
7132020-10-23T23:15:48 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
7142020-10-23T23:18:09 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7152020-10-23T23:26:28 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7162020-10-23T23:27:49 *** dviola has quit IRC
7172020-10-23T23:36:04 *** brianhoffman_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7182020-10-23T23:38:19 *** brianhoffman has quit IRC
7192020-10-23T23:38:19 *** brianhoffman_ is now known as brianhoffman
7202020-10-23T23:47:26 <achow101> if a multisig isn't being watched, should it be migrated during descriptor wallet migration?
7212020-10-23T23:53:31 <sipa> achow101: as in, it's not IsMine() in the legacy wallet?
7222020-10-23T23:53:41 <achow101> sipa: yes
7232020-10-23T23:53:52 <sipa> i'd say no
7242020-10-23T23:54:01 <achow101> but it was added and we can sign for it
7252020-10-23T23:54:32 <sipa> can you have a concept of an "unwatched" descriptor?
7262020-10-23T23:54:37 <achow101> nope
7272020-10-23T23:54:43 <sipa> which helps for signing, but isn't watching anything?
7282020-10-23T23:55:06 <sipa> it would be strange
7292020-10-23T23:55:36 <achow101> we can sign if it's part of a psbt
7302020-10-23T23:55:49 <achow101> but we wouldn't be able to fill that psbt with the script
7312020-10-23T23:55:55 <sipa> right
7322020-10-23T23:57:44 <sipa> descriptor wallets really don't have a concept that corresponds to that
7332020-10-23T23:57:59 <achow101> indeed
7342020-10-23T23:58:08 <sipa> and i think that's a good thing
7352020-10-23T23:58:33 <sipa> but it may be useful to have an option at migration time to convert all solvable things in the legacy wallet to watched things in the descriptor one
7362020-10-23T23:59:20 <sipa> if you really want, you'd be able to convert a legacy wallet into a descriptor wallet for balance watching, and another one with "all cruft i can participate in signing for"