12021-06-16T00:05:34 *** b10c <b10c!uid500648@id-500648.charlton.irccloud.com> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
22021-06-16T00:35:57 *** GIANTWORLDKEEPER <GIANTWORLDKEEPER!~pjetcetal@2.95.204.25> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
32021-06-16T00:36:09 *** Guest69 <Guest69!~Guest69@218.212.21.21> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
42021-06-16T00:51:31 *** GIANTWORLDKEEPER <GIANTWORLDKEEPER!~pjetcetal@2.95.204.25> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52021-06-16T01:18:40 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62021-06-16T01:38:30 *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
72021-06-16T01:42:42 *** DeanGuss <DeanGuss!~dean@user/deanguss> has quit IRC (Excess Flood)
82021-06-16T01:44:24 *** DeanGuss <DeanGuss!~dean@nonplayercharacter.me> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92021-06-16T01:52:08 *** instagibbs_ <instagibbs_!~instagibb@119247204116.ctinets.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
102021-06-16T01:52:28 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
112021-06-16T02:07:15 *** instagibbs_ <instagibbs_!~instagibb@119247204116.ctinets.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122021-06-16T02:26:59 *** jackielove4u <jackielove4u!uid43977@user/jackielove4u> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed for inactivity)
132021-06-16T02:29:03 *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
142021-06-16T02:29:44 *** yanmaani <yanmaani!~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152021-06-16T02:38:35 *** martinus__ <martinus__!~martinus@212095005005.public.telering.at> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162021-06-16T02:41:11 *** martinus_ <martinus_!~martinus@046125249003.public.t-mobile.at> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
172021-06-16T03:00:54 *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
182021-06-16T03:01:17 *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192021-06-16T03:27:49 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202021-06-16T03:27:49 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eb63b1db2c4d...6bc1eca01b2f
212021-06-16T03:27:49 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 79c02c8 Pieter Wuille: Randomize message processing peer order
222021-06-16T03:27:49 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6bc1eca fanquake: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#22144: Randomize message processing peer order
232021-06-16T03:27:51 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
242021-06-16T03:28:06 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252021-06-16T03:28:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #22144: Randomize message processing peer order (master...202106_rand_peers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22144
262021-06-16T03:28:07 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
272021-06-16T03:31:09 *** cdecker5 <cdecker5!~cdecker@243.86.254.84.ftth.as8758.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282021-06-16T03:31:37 *** cdecker <cdecker!~cdecker@243.86.254.84.ftth.as8758.net> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
292021-06-16T03:31:37 *** cdecker5 is now known as cdecker
302021-06-16T03:39:41 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312021-06-16T03:49:24 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322021-06-16T04:00:12 *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@176.230.171.92> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332021-06-16T04:02:10 *** ratelius <ratelius!ratelius@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/ratelius> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342021-06-16T04:04:33 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
352021-06-16T04:04:54 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362021-06-16T04:21:30 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
372021-06-16T04:24:10 *** dviola <dviola!~diego@user/dviola> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382021-06-16T04:38:21 *** belcher <belcher!~belcher@user/belcher> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
392021-06-16T04:41:03 *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
402021-06-16T04:41:21 *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
412021-06-16T04:47:34 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
422021-06-16T04:47:53 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432021-06-16T04:48:44 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
442021-06-16T04:49:03 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452021-06-16T04:50:30 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
462021-06-16T04:50:55 *** belcher <belcher!~belcher@user/belcher> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472021-06-16T04:51:03 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482021-06-16T04:51:34 *** arnabsen <arnabsen!~arnabsen@45.116.190.221> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492021-06-16T05:05:29 *** dviola <dviola!~diego@user/dviola> has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 3.2)
502021-06-16T06:07:38 *** dermoth_ <dermoth_!~dermoth@user/dermoth> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512021-06-16T06:07:52 *** dermoth <dermoth!~dermoth@user/dermoth> has quit IRC (Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by dermoth_)))
522021-06-16T06:07:56 *** dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
532021-06-16T06:10:19 *** swambo_ <swambo_!~swambo@176.237.239.28> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
542021-06-16T06:11:40 *** Guest19 <Guest19!~Guest19@117.96.136.173> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552021-06-16T06:12:27 *** Guest19 <Guest19!~Guest19@117.96.136.173> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
562021-06-16T06:17:28 *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!~Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572021-06-16T06:18:40 *** goatpig <goatpig!~goat@blocksettle-gw.cust.31173.se> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
582021-06-16T06:18:52 *** swambo_ <swambo_!~swambo@176.237.239.28> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
592021-06-16T06:19:09 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
602021-06-16T06:37:22 *** smartin <smartin!~Icedove@88.135.18.171> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
612021-06-16T06:46:06 *** jarthur <jarthur!~jarthur@2603-8080-1540-002d-75b5-effb-8a85-a266.res6.spectrum.com> has quit IRC (Quit: jarthur)
622021-06-16T06:52:47 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
632021-06-16T07:05:59 *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
642021-06-16T07:08:11 *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
652021-06-16T07:08:34 *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@host-95-197-90-27.mobileonline.telia.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
662021-06-16T07:10:39 *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
672021-06-16T07:10:56 *** sibilant <sibilant!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682021-06-16T07:11:29 *** kallewoof is now known as kalle
692021-06-16T07:13:41 *** jackielove4u <jackielove4u!uid43977@user/jackielove4u> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
702021-06-16T07:42:52 *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@host-78-77-216-135.mobileonline.telia.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
712021-06-16T07:54:13 *** evias <evias!~evias__@user/evias> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
722021-06-16T08:02:42 *** lkqwejhhgasdjhgn <lkqwejhhgasdjhgn!~kljkljklk@p200300d46f03bc00adf9c5ad604010d2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732021-06-16T08:27:01 <vasild> Is my understanding correct that we don't send addresses or transactions via block-only connections, but the peer on the other end of a block-only connection may still send us addresses or transactions? Is the peer even aware that it is block-only connection for us?
742021-06-16T08:33:28 *** arnabsen <arnabsen!~arnabsen@45.116.190.221> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
752021-06-16T08:41:08 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
762021-06-16T09:02:16 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
772021-06-16T09:15:41 *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782021-06-16T09:20:11 *** leqock <leqock!~leqock@46.49.116.215> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
792021-06-16T09:21:04 *** gribble <gribble!~gribble@bitcoin/bot/gribble> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
802021-06-16T09:27:24 *** gribble <gribble!~gribble@bitcoin/bot/gribble> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
812021-06-16T09:27:25 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o gribble
822021-06-16T09:31:37 *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincenzop@2001:470:69fc:105::a67> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
832021-06-16T09:31:38 *** tutwidi[m] <tutwidi[m]!~tutwidima@2001:470:69fc:105::ead> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
842021-06-16T09:31:38 *** poucatreta[m] <poucatreta[m]!~poucatret@2001:470:69fc:105::20ae> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
852021-06-16T09:31:40 *** robertspigler <robertspigler!~robertspi@2001:470:69fc:105::2d53> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
862021-06-16T09:31:41 *** prusnak[m] <prusnak[m]!~stickmatr@2001:470:69fc:105::98c> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
872021-06-16T09:31:41 *** orionwl[m] <orionwl[m]!~orionwlx0@2001:470:69fc:105::80> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
882021-06-16T09:31:41 *** devrandom <devrandom!~devrandom@2001:470:69fc:105::d4d> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
892021-06-16T09:31:41 *** dongcarl[m] <dongcarl[m]!~dongcarlm@2001:470:69fc:105::82> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
902021-06-16T09:31:41 *** kvaciral[m] <kvaciral[m]!~kvaciralx@2001:470:69fc:105::17b> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
912021-06-16T09:31:42 *** mrjumper[m] <mrjumper[m]!~mr-jumper@2001:470:69fc:105::7f1> has quit IRC (Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM)
922021-06-16T09:32:49 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
932021-06-16T09:33:45 *** orionwl[m] <orionwl[m]!~orionwlx0@2001:470:69fc:105::80> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
942021-06-16T09:34:40 *** vincenzopalazzo <vincenzopalazzo!~vincenzop@2001:470:69fc:105::a67> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
952021-06-16T09:34:41 *** devrandom <devrandom!~devrandom@2001:470:69fc:105::d4d> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
962021-06-16T09:34:41 *** prusnak[m] <prusnak[m]!~stickmatr@2001:470:69fc:105::98c> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
972021-06-16T09:34:41 *** robertspigler <robertspigler!~robertspi@2001:470:69fc:105::2d53> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
982021-06-16T09:34:52 *** poucatreta[m] <poucatreta[m]!~poucatret@2001:470:69fc:105::20ae> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
992021-06-16T09:34:52 *** dongcarl[m] <dongcarl[m]!~dongcarlm@2001:470:69fc:105::82> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002021-06-16T09:34:52 *** kvaciral[m] <kvaciral[m]!~kvaciralx@2001:470:69fc:105::17b> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012021-06-16T09:34:52 *** tutwidi[m] <tutwidi[m]!~tutwidima@2001:470:69fc:105::ead> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022021-06-16T09:34:52 *** mrjumper[m] <mrjumper[m]!~mr-jumper@2001:470:69fc:105::7f1> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032021-06-16T09:36:25 *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has quit IRC (Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds))
1042021-06-16T09:37:38 *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052021-06-16T09:40:08 <lightlike> vasild: We signal in the version message whether we want txRelay. I believe if a peer still send a tx or a tx inv in violation, they will be disconnected.
1062021-06-16T09:40:31 <lightlike> Addrs will be ignored on block-relay-only connections but processed in -blocksonly mode (our peer cannot easily distinguish between these two), no disconnections there
1072021-06-16T09:41:49 <vasild> hmm
1082021-06-16T09:46:55 *** Jaamg <Jaamg!jaamg@kapsi.fi> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092021-06-16T09:47:26 *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@host-78-77-216-135.mobileonline.telia.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1102021-06-16T09:56:13 *** cdecker <cdecker!~cdecker@243.86.254.84.ftth.as8758.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1112021-06-16T09:58:25 *** cdecker <cdecker!~cdecker@243.86.254.84.ftth.as8758.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122021-06-16T10:04:45 <provoostenator> I'd like to nominate #21934 for v22 because monitoring signalling in the next few months is quite useful.
1132021-06-16T10:04:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21934 | RPC/blockchain: getblockchaininfo: Include versionbits signalling details during LOCKED_IN by luke-jr · Pull Request #21934 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1142021-06-16T10:08:52 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152021-06-16T10:08:53 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto closed pull request #22240: build: Re-enable -Wdeprecated-copy (master...210614-revert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22240
1162021-06-16T10:08:54 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1172021-06-16T10:20:24 *** Guest75 <Guest75!~Guest75@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182021-06-16T10:20:57 *** Guest75 <Guest75!~Guest75@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
1192021-06-16T10:21:13 *** Guest8 <Guest8!~Guest8@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202021-06-16T10:21:19 *** Guest8 <Guest8!~Guest8@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
1212021-06-16T10:21:31 *** Guest98 <Guest98!~Guest98@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222021-06-16T10:21:33 *** Guest98 <Guest98!~Guest98@2409:4063:6e8f:1d37:f905:caef:ac29:240c> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
1232021-06-16T10:23:19 <laanwj> vasild: yes i remember during the bip155 discussion there were some ideas to also incorporate 'do not send me addresses at all', but this was not done, i had to think of this with #22245
1242021-06-16T10:23:20 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1252021-06-16T10:24:01 <vasild> I am composing a rely to that PR with a link to that discussion...
1262021-06-16T10:24:45 <laanwj> i don't think there is any way to signal to not want addresses so i'm not sure why addrv1/addrv2 matters
1272021-06-16T10:24:56 <laanwj> not even from a bandwidth perspective: addrv2 might be *more* efficient to ignore
1282021-06-16T10:25:14 <laanwj> e.g. ipv4 addresses (the most common) take fewer bytes
1292021-06-16T10:28:53 *** whatsupboy <whatsupboy!~whatsupbo@user/scobydoo> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302021-06-16T10:36:12 <jnewbery_> laanwj: bandwidth is irrelevant. Nodes only send one addr message per 24 hours on average, and the max size is 1000 entries.
1312021-06-16T10:36:17 *** arnabsen <arnabsen!~arnabsen@45.116.190.221> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322021-06-16T10:37:25 *** jnewbery_ is now known as jnewbery
1332021-06-16T10:37:50 <laanwj> right, it's the only possible concern i could think of anyhow
1342021-06-16T10:43:44 *** Guest73 <Guest73!~Guest73@2402:f000:2:d001:912c:3873:8807:5b1f> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352021-06-16T10:45:06 *** Guest73 <Guest73!~Guest73@2402:f000:2:d001:912c:3873:8807:5b1f> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
1362021-06-16T10:52:55 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
1372021-06-16T10:53:54 *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
1382021-06-16T10:54:44 *** arnabsen <arnabsen!~arnabsen@45.116.190.221> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
1392021-06-16T11:05:37 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402021-06-16T11:05:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #22258: build: Disable deprecated-copy warning only when external warnings are enabled (master...2106-buildEnableWarnDeprecatedCopy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22258
1412021-06-16T11:05:38 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1422021-06-16T11:08:11 *** bitdex <bitdex!~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex> has quit IRC (Quit: = "")
1432021-06-16T11:18:31 *** whatsupboy <whatsupboy!~whatsupbo@user/scobydoo> has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 2.8)
1442021-06-16T11:22:30 *** mihir <mihir!~mihir@103.216.176.46> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452021-06-16T11:23:08 *** mihir <mihir!~mihir@103.216.176.46> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
1462021-06-16T11:24:25 <jonatack> the disable_tx discussions left me with the recollection that, rather than encapsulating complex state in connection types, we might be heading back to separate flags, e.g. disable tx, disable addr, etc.
1472021-06-16T11:25:26 <jonatack> in the BIP155 discussions nearly a year ago, it was decided that disable addr was a separate concern from BIP155-capable, thus the current implementation
1482021-06-16T11:26:57 *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@176.230.171.92> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
1492021-06-16T11:28:21 <jonatack> those do seem like separate concerns / flags / BIPs etc
1502021-06-16T11:28:52 <jonatack> messages
1512021-06-16T11:30:48 <vasild> +1
1522021-06-16T11:31:15 <vasild> I opened https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1134 to clarify BIP155
1532021-06-16T11:32:06 <jonatack> vasild: nice!
1542021-06-16T11:34:18 <vasild> I never thought that "send me addrv2 instead of addr" may imply a preference to receive address messages (them being addrv2 or addr). My Enflisch is nae good.
1552021-06-16T11:35:16 <vasild> jnewbery: ^
1562021-06-16T11:35:25 <jonatack> vasild: just saw your review, agree
1572021-06-16T11:40:13 <jonatack> (communication may have been a bit siloed on some topics, by habit / time zones / affinities etc)
1582021-06-16T11:40:57 <jonatack> (reviewers of certain areas, and so on)
1592021-06-16T11:46:18 <laanwj> vasild: me neither
1602021-06-16T11:46:47 <laanwj> it wasn't my intent at least when writing it
1612021-06-16T11:47:32 <laanwj> i really meant it as a specification of what is supported by the client (remember that initially i started with a protocol version number bump only, the message came later because that turned out to be the preferred signaling mechanism now)
1622021-06-16T11:47:49 <laanwj> then the protocol version bump was added again because other implementations
1632021-06-16T11:50:20 <laanwj> i never once considered it a preference with regard to receiving messages
1642021-06-16T12:13:17 <jnewbery> vasild: why would I say "send me red apples instead of green apples" when I don't eat apples at all?
1652021-06-16T12:13:31 <jnewbery> And if you send me an apple I'm going to put it straight in the trash
1662021-06-16T12:13:52 <laanwj> that's just how the BIP was intended, it could just as well have been a service flag which is always sent
1672021-06-16T12:14:29 <laanwj> as I said above, the fact that it's an extra message is an implementation detail
1682021-06-16T12:15:01 <jnewbery> I'm very confused about why it's controversial to not send a message that has zero impact on our own processing
1692021-06-16T12:15:17 <laanwj> there is no message to say "I don't want to receive address messages"
1702021-06-16T12:15:19 <vasild> jnewbery: bad English, sorry
1712021-06-16T12:15:25 <jnewbery> Why would I send a message to say "please send me addrv2 messages that I'll throw away instead of sending addr messages that I'll throw away"?
1722021-06-16T12:15:37 <laanwj> because you will still receive v1 messages that you'll throw away
1732021-06-16T12:15:49 <laanwj> it doesn't matter
1742021-06-16T12:15:57 <jnewbery> so why send the message?
1752021-06-16T12:15:59 <laanwj> but anyhow, ok, I don't understand why this is such a topic of contention teither
1762021-06-16T12:16:01 <laanwj> never minds
1772021-06-16T12:17:49 <vasild> natural language is vague, we should be talking with "if ()", ">" and "==" ;-)
1782021-06-16T12:17:52 <laanwj> I did think a signal whether a peer is interested in address messages or not is orthogonal to what messages it supports or not, there was discussion to include this in BIP155 at some point but it wasnm't
1792021-06-16T12:18:01 <laanwj> I do think such a signal is useful fwiw
1802021-06-16T12:18:09 <laanwj> but I don't see how sendaddrv2 is helpful here
1812021-06-16T12:18:12 <jnewbery> laanwj: but that's not what the PR does?
1822021-06-16T12:18:21 <jnewbery> it doesn't prevent message relay
1832021-06-16T12:18:31 <laanwj> I understand that
1842021-06-16T12:18:36 <jonatack> there was a real discussion about it, no need to rehash a year later
1852021-06-16T12:18:54 <laanwj> if it prevented message relay it'd be a much more useful change
1862021-06-16T12:19:14 <jnewbery> laanwj: I'm confused. I thought that's what you're arguing against
1872021-06-16T12:19:17 <laanwj> "I don't want address messages from block-only peers" fine
1882021-06-16T12:19:55 <laanwj> no, I'm arguing against misinterpreting BIP155
1892021-06-16T12:20:13 <laanwj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1134 clears it up for me
1902021-06-16T12:20:22 <jnewbery> but this isn't misinterpreting BIP155. BIP155 is totally irrelevant for links that don't support address relay
1912021-06-16T12:21:06 <laanwj> but was you say this doesnt disable address relay
1922021-06-16T12:21:22 <laanwj> address relay isn't disabled for the connection
1932021-06-16T12:21:50 <jnewbery> laanwj: what happens when I open an outbound blocks-only connection and receive an addr message on that connection?
1942021-06-16T12:22:36 <vasild> jnewbery: there is more to this - a peer may maintain a useful database of addresses but not participate in address relay, so he is interested in receiving address gossip but is a black hole wrt further address propagation
1952021-06-16T12:22:58 <vasild> jnewbery: it is ignored
1962021-06-16T12:23:22 <jnewbery> if it's ignored then how can "he's interested in receiving address gossip" be true?
1972021-06-16T12:23:54 <vasild> the peer I mentioned is not blocks-only
1982021-06-16T12:23:56 *** donny <donny!uid133844@id-133844.brockwell.irccloud.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992021-06-16T12:24:04 <vasild> may be a light client
2002021-06-16T12:24:25 <jnewbery> so how's that relevant to PR 22245?
2012021-06-16T12:24:41 <vasild> he is interested in receiving address gossip in order to maintain his own addresses databas
2022021-06-16T12:24:42 <jnewbery> 22245 is only for blocks-relay-only connections
2032021-06-16T12:25:08 <jnewbery> talking about light clients seems completely irrelevant to the PR
2042021-06-16T12:25:32 <vasild> 22245 implies we put a new semantic to sendaddrv2: "However, if we move forward with the approached proposed in that PR"
2052021-06-16T12:25:53 <vasild> that PR == #21528
2062021-06-16T12:25:56 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2072021-06-16T12:26:16 <jnewbery> 22245 doesn't change the semantics of sendaddrv2 at all. It simply doesn't send the message when it's irrelevant
2082021-06-16T12:26:21 <lightlike> jnewbery: i think we expect to receive addr messages on block-relay-only connections currently, because out peer doesn't know from the version messages whether this is a block-relay-only link or a regular connection in -blocksonly mode (for which we want addrs)
2092021-06-16T12:27:16 <jnewbery> lightlike: the peer doesn't even know that the connection is not a full-relay-connection
2102021-06-16T12:28:44 <jnewbery> vasild: I don't think your 4 state analysis in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22245#issuecomment-862279099 is quite right. When you say:
2112021-06-16T12:28:47 <jnewbery> > !A and !B (it follows that if you send me a reply to my getaddr it should be in the old addr format because I don't support the new addrv2)
2122021-06-16T12:29:08 <vasild> jnewbery: #21528 changes the semantic of sendaddrv2 and #22245 only makes sense if #21528 is accepted
2132021-06-16T12:29:11 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2142021-06-16T12:29:13 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2152021-06-16T12:29:13 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2162021-06-16T12:29:22 <jnewbery> that doesn't make sense here. If we receive a reply to a getaddr on an outbound block-relay-only connection, then we drop it.
2172021-06-16T12:29:49 <jnewbery> 22245 seems like a good change independently from 21528 to me
2182021-06-16T12:30:07 *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192021-06-16T12:30:55 <lightlike> vasild: I don't agree with that. 22245 should make just as much sense using just ADDR,ADDRV2 and GETADDR as signs that the node is interested in addr relay. SENDADDRV2 doesn't seem necessary to me
2202021-06-16T12:30:56 <jonatack> jnewbery: it indeed would widen the meaning of sendaddrv2, and irreversibly
2212021-06-16T12:31:22 <jnewbery> jonatack: I still don't understand why you keep saying that
2222021-06-16T12:32:20 <jnewbery> if I don't do anything with addrs received on a link, then asking my peer to send those addrs (which I'm going to ignore) in a certain format, is neither useful, nor irreversible
2232021-06-16T12:33:43 *** gleb <gleb!~gleb@178.150.137.228> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242021-06-16T12:33:51 <jnewbery> can you help me understand why you think this change is irreverible?
2252021-06-16T12:39:24 <jnewbery> lightlike: I think you meant "21528 should make just as much sense using just addr, addrv2 and getaddr" (and I agree)
2262021-06-16T12:43:20 <vasild> If we look at 22245 in isolation (as if 21528 does not exist) then it is pointless change. Why make it? The peer is then going to send us addr which we ignore (instead of addrv2 which we ignore). Also we would be lying that we don't support addrv2 when we actually do. Just does not feel right.
2272021-06-16T12:45:27 <vasild> But I think the bigger argument here is 22245+21528 and changing the semantic of sendaddrv2 in order to tweak address relay and attempt to fix the black holes problem. But would even that fix it? Some scenarios where it will not: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21528#issuecomment-862312851
2282021-06-16T12:46:48 <jnewbery> `sendaddrv2` only has meaning within a single connection. It means "I prefer to receive addrv2 messages on this connection". It implies nothing about the implementation of the node (as it shouldn't). Not sending a sendaddrv2 message is not "lying that we don't support addrv2", but simply not expressing a preference for a certain format *on that connection*.
2292021-06-16T12:47:24 <jnewbery> If this was a service bit, which is gossiped beyond a single connection, then I'd agree with you, but all p2p messages only have semantic meaning within the connection that they exist in
2302021-06-16T12:47:36 <laanwj> the point is that there is no way to "not express a preference"
2312021-06-16T12:47:46 <laanwj> either the preference is v1 (not message) or v2 (send a message)
2322021-06-16T12:47:55 <jnewbery> the way to "not express a preference" is to not "express a preference"
2332021-06-16T12:48:03 <laanwj> there could have been a third option in BIP155 but there wasn't
2342021-06-16T12:48:05 <vasild> It means "I prefer to receive addrv2 messages on this connection" -- this is your interpretation.
2352021-06-16T12:48:05 <laanwj> no, it's not
2362021-06-16T12:48:34 <laanwj> that would mean that a peer that doesn't send the message doesn't fcare what it receives
2372021-06-16T12:48:38 <laanwj> whereas it means that it wants to receive v1
2382021-06-16T12:49:10 <laanwj> there is no "I don't want to receive addr" signal, nor is there "I don't care"
2392021-06-16T12:49:18 <laanwj> maybe there should be! but there isn't
2402021-06-16T12:49:19 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412021-06-16T12:49:36 <jnewbery> vasild: the BIP says "Sending such a message indicates that a node can understand and *prefers to receive addrv2 messages*" - yes, my interpretation of this is that it prefers to receive addrv2 messages
2422021-06-16T12:50:05 <vasild> INSTEAD
2432021-06-16T12:50:08 <laanwj> signaling the new protocol version then *deciding* not to send the message means your node wants to receive v1
2442021-06-16T12:50:24 <jnewbery> laanwj: that's not how p2p versions work
2452021-06-16T12:50:54 <laanwj> well it is how I intended BIP155, I don't really agree with the new interpretation
2462021-06-16T12:50:54 <jnewbery> since they're serial, if a later p2p version adds some other feature, it doesn't automatically mean that anyone using that feature *must* implement addrv2
2472021-06-16T12:51:04 *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2482021-06-16T12:51:31 <vasild> jnewbery: you skipped the trailing "instead..." which is important.
2492021-06-16T12:52:05 <jnewbery> I didn't think I was misrepresenting it. Here you go: "Sending such a message indicates that a node can understand and prefers to receive addrv2 messages instead of addr messages. I.e. "Send me addrv2"."
2502021-06-16T12:52:06 <laanwj> jnewbery: which is why there is the option not to send the message: it implies you want to keep reciving v1
2512021-06-16T12:52:37 <laanwj> there are two states, not three or four
2522021-06-16T12:52:53 <vasild> anyway, if sendaddrv2 signalled preference to receive unrequested address messages, then bitcoin core-pre-bip155 do not want to receive unrequested address messages?
2532021-06-16T12:53:04 <jnewbery> laanwj: A BIP cannot specify that not sending something implies some meaning. BIPs are opt-in. I can't say in my BIP "not sending this message implies thing".
2542021-06-16T12:53:11 <vasild> because they do not send sendaddrv2
2552021-06-16T12:53:32 <laanwj> jnewbery: in this case not sending the message is the old behavior of 'send me v1'
2562021-06-16T12:53:43 <jnewbery> vasild: huh? I think you really misunderstand 22245 and 21528.
2572021-06-16T12:53:49 <laanwj> there's the old behavior anhd the new behavior
2582021-06-16T12:54:31 <jnewbery> a pre-bip155 bitcoin core node will send a getaddr, which implies that it wants to receive addresses
2592021-06-16T12:54:38 <laanwj> but I honestly don't understand why this is such a hotbed issue before the v22.0 feature freeze
2602021-06-16T12:55:05 <jnewbery> it will also send addr messages, which implies that it's taking part in address relay
2612021-06-16T12:55:14 <laanwj> there would have been tons of time to discuss this with less time pressure
2622021-06-16T12:57:38 <vasild> jnewbery: would you say that if a node sends getaddr it follows that it wants to also receive unrequested address messages, outside of the response of that getaddr? And from that would you say it follows that this node participates in address relay (gossips to other nodes)?
2632021-06-16T12:57:54 *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
2642021-06-16T12:58:10 <laanwj> I wasn't aware either that sending "getaddr" changed the connection status in that regard
2652021-06-16T12:59:19 *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
2662021-06-16T12:59:44 <vasild> laanwj: my understanding is that 21528 intends to achieve that (sending getaddr changed the connection status...)
2672021-06-16T12:59:46 *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682021-06-16T12:59:48 <laanwj> but if you can regard "getaddr" as a signaling message to receive unrequested address messages, and a peer never sending it effectively signals it doesn't ever want to see address messages, then you're right, there are three states
2692021-06-16T13:00:09 <jnewbery> laanwj: that's what #21528 is proposing. If a peer sends us `addr` OR `addrv2` OR `getaddr` OR `sendaddrv2`, then we should consider it a peer for address gossiping. I think it makes sense to review that PR.
2702021-06-16T13:00:11 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2712021-06-16T13:00:12 *** promag_ is now known as promag
2722021-06-16T13:00:37 <jnewbery> The PR description also lists all of the places that the proposal has been discussed previously
2732021-06-16T13:00:51 <laanwj> jnewbery: if that is new behavior it needs a BIP as well
2742021-06-16T13:01:01 <laanwj> doesn't seem limited to bitcoin core
2752021-06-16T13:01:08 <jnewbery> laanwj: please read the PR before making statements like that
2762021-06-16T13:01:23 <jnewbery> here's the mailing list post: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018784.html
2772021-06-16T13:01:24 <laanwj> you're being really agressive now
2782021-06-16T13:02:00 <jnewbery> I don't think it's aggressive to expect people to read PR descriptions
2792021-06-16T13:02:08 <laanwj> I'm not aware of every single PR description
2802021-06-16T13:02:16 <laanwj> I just cannot keep up wit hthat
2812021-06-16T13:03:28 <jnewbery> laanwj: this has been discussed in many venues already. It's been raised on the mailing list, discussed in bitcoin core irc and p2p irc meetings, amiti has even done a survey of every other common node implementation to make sure it doesn't break them: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21528#issuecomment-809906430
2822021-06-16T13:03:48 <vasild> hmm, actually laanwj is right that 21528 is not related to just bitcoin core - it changes the semantics of getaddr, addr, addrv2 and sendaddrv2. I guess that warrants a BIP.
2832021-06-16T13:04:59 <laanwj> jnewbery: that's good
2842021-06-16T13:05:32 <laanwj> vasild: yes, likely instead of your proposed BIP155 change
2852021-06-16T13:06:19 <laanwj> (as it goes the other way)
2862021-06-16T13:06:52 <laanwj> which is fine, if you're trying to change something, just be transparent about it, a while before you were still claiming this doesn't make any irreversible change to behavior
2872021-06-16T13:07:25 <jnewbery> laanwj: are you saying that I'm not being transparent?
2882021-06-16T13:07:34 *** evias_ <evias_!~evias__@196.red-88-6-131.staticip.rima-tde.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892021-06-16T13:07:41 <jnewbery> 22245 makes no irreversible changes to behavior
2902021-06-16T13:07:47 <laanwj> it came across to me as "this was always the case"
2912021-06-16T13:08:10 <jnewbery> all of this has been discussed many times on github, irc, mailing list. How could it be more transparent?
2922021-06-16T13:08:36 <laanwj> maybe it's just the nthat taking that part out of the parent PR separetely was unclear to people
2932021-06-16T13:08:45 <vasild> Today is the first time I hear about it, sorry.
2942021-06-16T13:09:09 <laanwj> yeah
2952021-06-16T13:09:36 <vasild> it == 21528+22245
2962021-06-16T13:10:10 <jnewbery> laanwj: I suggested to amiti that 22245 be separated from 21528, so I apologize if that was confusing for people and take full responsibility
2972021-06-16T13:10:11 *** evias <evias!~evias__@user/evias> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
2982021-06-16T13:10:24 <jnewbery> it seems to me like a good change independent from 21528
2992021-06-16T13:10:32 <vasild> IMO 21528+22245 is a protocol change.
3002021-06-16T13:10:40 <jnewbery> vasild: it's not a protocol change
3012021-06-16T13:11:00 <vasild> the semantic of e.g. getaddr is changed (extended)
3022021-06-16T13:11:30 <laanwj> by itself (without other context) it seemed like a misinterpretation of BIP155 as i had intended it
3032021-06-16T13:11:51 <laanwj> seeing it as part of a large change is completely different
3042021-06-16T13:12:42 <jnewbery> laanwj: the first sentence in the PR description links to the 21528. I don't understand how it's not transparent
3052021-06-16T13:13:22 <laanwj> so okay, you *are* trying to amke a protocol change
3062021-06-16T13:13:32 <jnewbery> what?
3072021-06-16T13:13:54 <jnewbery> can you please stop the insinuations that I'm trying to do something underhand?
3082021-06-16T13:14:19 <laanwj> what, I dont' mean you are trying to make a sneaky protocol change
3092021-06-16T13:14:41 <laanwj> I haven't said anything about being underhand
3102021-06-16T13:14:45 <laanwj> I just didn't understand
3112021-06-16T13:14:51 <jnewbery> you said that I'm not being transparent
3122021-06-16T13:15:09 *** laanwj <laanwj!~laanwj@user/laanwj> has quit IRC (Quit: WeeChat 3.1)
3132021-06-16T13:17:24 <jamesob> seems clear that there's enough unresolved discussion here that merging these changes in before the feature freeze isn't the way to go. and that conversations like these would be much more amicable IRL!
3142021-06-16T13:18:45 <jnewbery> laanwj: I'd suggest re-reading the irc meeting logs from when this was discussed, both in the main Bitcoin Core meeting, and in the p2p meeting. You commented in the first meeting in March, so you were aware that this was a proposal.
3152021-06-16T13:21:50 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
3162021-06-16T13:23:44 <jnewbery> It's very frustrating to see someone put in months of work on something, raise it in both irc meetings, share it on the mailing list, do a huge amount of work to verify compatibility with other nodes, and then see people show up and leave opinionated comments without reading and understanding the full context.
3172021-06-16T13:24:14 *** nfr <nfr!~nfr@2001:1c00:31c:5500:f00e:3d5e:2b21:31c1> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3182021-06-16T13:25:01 *** nfr <nfr!~nfr@2001:1c00:31c:5500:f00e:3d5e:2b21:31c1> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3192021-06-16T13:26:53 <jamesob> jnewbery: no doubt man, but to some extent that's just the nature of the beast re: the project's decentralized development process. I haven't seen mention of an irreversible widening of the protocol's semantics earlier than jonatack's comment 8 hours ago, and I think once something like that is raised it deserves to be fleshed out over some time
3202021-06-16T13:30:05 <jnewbery> I'm still waiting for jonatack to explain why this is an "irreversible change"
3212021-06-16T13:32:00 <michaelfolkson> It is regrettable but if laanwj vasild jonatack are all uncomfortable with it getting in before feature freeze then we should probably move on. Lots of other things to discuss for feature freeze
3222021-06-16T13:32:29 *** Guest9766574 <Guest9766574!~Guest9766@ip5f5bf52b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232021-06-16T13:36:57 *** Guest9766574 <Guest9766574!~Guest9766@ip5f5bf52b.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
3242021-06-16T13:39:37 *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@194.59.250.58> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3252021-06-16T13:41:54 <_aj_> jnewbery: <jnewbery> you said that I'm not being transparent // -!- laanwj [~laanwj@user/laanwj] has quit
3262021-06-16T13:42:15 *** sibilant <sibilant!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
3272021-06-16T13:44:09 *** goatpig <goatpig!~goat@blocksettle-gw.cust.31173.se> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
3282021-06-16T13:48:04 *** evias_ <evias_!~evias__@196.red-88-6-131.staticip.rima-tde.net> has quit IRC (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
3292021-06-16T13:55:49 *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
3302021-06-16T13:56:00 *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@p200300c7ef121e0069fa21b1771e86de.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3312021-06-16T14:04:09 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Quit: leaving)
3322021-06-16T14:05:48 *** AaronvanW <AaronvanW!~AaronvanW@71pc74.sshunet.nl> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3332021-06-16T14:06:24 <ariard> notwithstanding making the discussion far less heated for the sake of everyone, i agree that's a sender-only change and i don't see how it would restrain a future bip155 client to probe addrv2 support with its selected v22.0+ peers
3342021-06-16T14:06:49 <ariard> that's the bip is unclear and not interest in addr format doesn't signal lack of interest in addr-relay sounds a different issue there, imho
3352021-06-16T14:09:41 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3362021-06-16T14:10:36 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
3372021-06-16T14:11:41 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3382021-06-16T14:21:09 *** jonatack <jonatack!jonatack@user/jonatack> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed)
3392021-06-16T14:22:18 *** goatpig <goatpig!~goat@h-94-254-2-155.A498.priv.bahnhof.se> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3402021-06-16T14:24:00 *** leafy-greens <leafy-greens!~leafy-gre@modemcable123.58-83-70.mc.videotron.ca> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3412021-06-16T14:26:09 *** evias <evias!~evias__@user/evias> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3422021-06-16T14:27:53 *** sibilant_ <sibilant_!~sibilant@user/sibilant> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
3432021-06-16T14:40:52 *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3442021-06-16T14:43:10 *** stevenroose <stevenroose!~steven@2001:19f0:6801:83a:5b0:2160:99b2:6c0e> has quit IRC (Quit: ZNC 1.7.4 - https://znc.in)
3452021-06-16T14:43:26 *** stevenroose <stevenroose!~steven@2001:19f0:6801:83a:ec57:5e94:994a:afff> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3462021-06-16T14:51:23 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Quit: leaving)
3472021-06-16T14:52:45 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3482021-06-16T14:53:19 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
3492021-06-16T14:55:42 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3502021-06-16T14:59:08 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
3512021-06-16T14:59:26 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522021-06-16T14:59:51 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
3532021-06-16T15:00:56 *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3542021-06-16T15:03:18 *** Henry151 <Henry151!~bishop@user/henry151> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3552021-06-16T15:05:21 *** jonatack <jonatack!jonatack@user/jonatack> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3562021-06-16T15:09:41 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3572021-06-16T15:09:42 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #22260: Make bech32m the default, except where needed. Update GUI checkbox. (master...2021/06/bech32_gui) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22260
3582021-06-16T15:09:43 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3592021-06-16T15:23:47 *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
3602021-06-16T15:38:56 *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3612021-06-16T15:47:41 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3622021-06-16T15:53:26 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has quit IRC ()
3632021-06-16T15:54:22 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3642021-06-16T15:54:32 *** lkqwejhhgasdjhgn <lkqwejhhgasdjhgn!~kljkljklk@p200300d46f03bc00adf9c5ad604010d2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
3652021-06-16T15:56:49 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
3662021-06-16T15:57:15 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3672021-06-16T15:59:06 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3682021-06-16T15:59:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #22261: [p2p/mempool] Two small fixes to node broadcast logic (master...2021-06-broadcast-fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22261
3692021-06-16T15:59:07 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3702021-06-16T15:59:21 *** dunxen <dunxen!dunxen@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/dunxen> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3712021-06-16T16:01:17 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
3722021-06-16T16:02:09 *** Evel-Knievel <Evel-Knievel!~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3732021-06-16T16:18:15 *** sagi <sagi!~sagi@bzq-79-180-140-8.red.bezeqint.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
3742021-06-16T16:19:59 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3752021-06-16T16:19:59 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl closed pull request #20158: tree-wide: De-globalize ChainstateManager (master...2020-06-libbitcoinruntime) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20158
3762021-06-16T16:20:01 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3772021-06-16T16:23:48 *** prakash <prakash!~prakash@58.182.42.155> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3782021-06-16T16:35:05 *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
3792021-06-16T16:39:43 *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3802021-06-16T16:52:49 *** WS_black22 <WS_black22!~WS_black2@176.67.86.204> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3812021-06-16T16:52:53 <WS_black22> hello folks
3822021-06-16T16:53:11 <WS_black22> i got my old wallet.dat i need to imported to the new bitcoin core, how can i do this? i dont see the replasment of wallet.dat,
3832021-06-16T16:53:28 *** Guest69 <Guest69!~Guest69@218.212.21.21> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
3842021-06-16T16:54:51 *** WS_black22 <WS_black22!~WS_black2@176.67.86.204> has quit IRC (Quit: IRC sucks ... IRC should Die! all sick!)
3852021-06-16T16:57:51 *** Talkless <Talkless!~Talkless@mail.dargis.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3862021-06-16T17:03:23 *** mekster <mekster!~mekster@li1564-239.members.linode.com> has quit IRC (Quit: mekster)
3872021-06-16T17:03:42 *** mekster <mekster!~mekster@li1564-239.members.linode.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3882021-06-16T17:06:23 *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
3892021-06-16T17:09:58 <amiti> hey all, looks like I missed lots of convo about my work to mitigate-addr-blackholes. I've caught up on the conversation here & the PRs and want to share two main thoughts:
3902021-06-16T17:10:09 <amiti> 1. My biggest question is why are these approach concerns only being raised now?
3912021-06-16T17:10:10 <amiti> To review the context of this work: I opened #21528 almost 3 months ago, and soon after brought it up at the weekly bitcoin-core-dev meeting to seek approach feedback. A lot of the concerns that are now being voiced (should there be a separate flag, could we do redundant relay for blackholes rather than selective, what are the implications for other clients) have already been discussed in relation to these changes. My
3922021-06-16T17:10:10 <amiti> understanding was the biggest concern was about compatibility for other clients, so I wrote to the mailing list and researched / opened issues in every other bitcoin client I could find. Iâve additionally brought up these changes at a P2P meeting in early April and then again this week. I understand that time zones are hard and that not everyone can attend the meetings, but Iâd hope the logs would be read and concerns to
3932021-06-16T17:10:10 <amiti> be raised in the week that follows.
3942021-06-16T17:10:11 <amiti> Itâs pretty disheartening to spend a long time trying to clear the conceptual obstacles for this work, to then loop back and rehash the same conversations. So this brings me back to the question of why are these approach concerns only being raised now? Iâm genuinely perplexed because between the PR, irc meetings & the mailing list, I thought I was very vocal about these changes. If our only takeaway is how we avoid these
3952021-06-16T17:10:12 <amiti> sort of drawn-out circular conversations, at least this will have been a constructive experience.
3962021-06-16T17:10:12 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3972021-06-16T17:10:22 <amiti> 2. In regards to the path forward for #21528 & #22245, it seems like the concerns are all focusing specifically on SENDADDRV2 and the wording of that specific bip. #21528 can proceed without using SENDADDRV2 (aka without #22245), but imo it would make more sense to treat it consistently with ADDR, GETADDR and ADDRV2 messages. While I do think the change is a standalone improvement, the end goal is to support more
3982021-06-16T17:10:22 <amiti> block-relay-only connections (and address the concerns I had about the disabletx proposal). In the end, if the only remaining concern is really around SENDADDRV2, I will remove that piece. But I would prefer to keep it logically consistent with the rest of the proposed changes.
3992021-06-16T17:10:22 <amiti> Its clear that network-wide addr relay is something filled with murky assumptions, and divergent expectations, but Iâm hoping to find a way forward for these goals.
4002021-06-16T17:10:23 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4012021-06-16T17:10:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4022021-06-16T17:10:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4032021-06-16T17:10:25 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4042021-06-16T17:10:46 <amiti> laanwj, vasild, jonatack: I'm interested in hearing your opinions on these two points. thanks in advance!
4052021-06-16T17:10:59 <amiti> also sorry for all the gribbles =P
4062021-06-16T17:13:46 *** martinus__ <martinus__!~martinus@212095005005.public.telering.at> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
4072021-06-16T17:15:44 *** mekster <mekster!~mekster@li1564-239.members.linode.com> has quit IRC (Quit: mekster)
4082021-06-16T17:16:34 *** mekster <mekster!~mekster@li1564-239.members.linode.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4092021-06-16T17:19:57 <achow101> amiti: from a cursory review of all of the discussion on this topic that I could find, the issue is with the specific implementation of #22245, which, afaict, is not discussed anywhere except when that PR was opened. I get that it was broken out of #21528 but I don't see where that specific change is discussed.
4102021-06-16T17:19:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22245 | [p2p] Stop sending SENDADDRV2 message to block-relay-only peers by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #22245 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4112021-06-16T17:20:00 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21528 | [p2p] Reduce addr blackholes by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #21528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4122021-06-16T17:20:32 <sipa> i don't think the sendaddrv2 aspect of the discussion is relevant
4132021-06-16T17:21:22 <sipa> (only to the extent that it drew attention to the fact that 21528 is changing behavior for a number of messages including sendaddrv2)
4142021-06-16T17:21:34 <achow101> it seems to me that the concerns are with 22245 itself, not with the concept of avoiding addr blackholes
4152021-06-16T17:21:57 <sipa> 22245 is utterly harmless on itself
4162021-06-16T17:22:36 <sipa> sending sendaddrv2 or not makes no difference, as the received addr messages are just ignored
4172021-06-16T17:28:19 <achow101> sipa: but with 21528 it gains an additional meaning?
4182021-06-16T17:29:01 <sipa> achow101: not in my opinion, but yes, i think that is the disagreement
4192021-06-16T17:29:48 *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4202021-06-16T17:30:02 <amiti> this is kinda what I'm trying to clarify- are the concerns solely about the sendaddrv2 message, or are they about the general approach
4212021-06-16T17:31:44 <amiti> but yeah, I conceptually agree with what sipa just voiced
4222021-06-16T17:35:50 <sipa> amiti: actually, question i have: if 21528 would exclude sendaddrv2 (just not use it as a trigger when received), what would happen for relay to block only peers?
4232021-06-16T17:38:34 <amiti> so, if 21528 only used ADDR, ADDRV2, GETADDR to indicate "interest in addr relay", then bitcoin core nodes wouldn't initiate any of those to outbound block-relay-only connections. but nodes who have started up in blocks-only mode would initiate a GETADDR to their outbound peers.
4242021-06-16T17:38:44 <amiti> and participate in other ADDR relay
4252021-06-16T17:42:22 <sipa> amiti: so what difference would that make?
4262021-06-16T17:44:51 <amiti> sipa: right, so I don't quite get why sendaddrv2 would / should be treated differently, and have a preference for logical consistency across p2p messages. BUT if the concern is *exclusively* about sendaddrv2 messages & not matching the intent when writing the bip, I can just leave it out and continue forward.
4272021-06-16T17:45:19 <sipa> amiti: yeah, i'm just trying to understand the tradeoffs
4282021-06-16T17:45:32 <sipa> not suggesting anything specifically
4292021-06-16T17:47:07 <amiti> gotcha, imo the main tradeoff of using sendaddrv2 or not is just "logical consistency" of treating it the same as other address messages. no observable functional difference based on current clients
4302021-06-16T17:47:51 <amiti> also in the research of other clients, I wasn't specifically looking, but didn't see much support for sendaddrv2, so suspect it would have minimal impact there too.
4312021-06-16T17:47:52 <sipa> got it, thanks
4322021-06-16T17:50:20 <amiti> :)
4332021-06-16T17:52:00 <achow101> is 22245 required for 21528 or just "makes things consistent"? If the latter, I would suggest just dropping/skipping it for now.
4342021-06-16T17:52:18 <achow101> it seems to me it doesn't really get in the way
4352021-06-16T17:53:08 *** dunxen <dunxen!dunxen@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/dunxen> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
4362021-06-16T17:53:19 *** dunxen <dunxen!dunxen@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/dunxen> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372021-06-16T17:54:27 *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@host-78-77-216-135.mobileonline.telia.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4382021-06-16T17:54:51 <sipa> i think i'm leaning in that direction too; trying to write my thoughts a bit more structured on the PR
4392021-06-16T18:06:27 *** belcher_ <belcher_!~belcher@user/belcher> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4402021-06-16T18:06:40 <amiti> yup, not my preference but totally viable. if we're going that route, I'd like to better understand the reasoning around treating sendaddrv2 differently, and then can update 21528 & close 22245.
4412021-06-16T18:07:34 *** belcher <belcher!~belcher@user/belcher> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
4422021-06-16T18:09:14 *** hiii <hiii!~hiii@171.78.176.155> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4432021-06-16T18:11:23 *** belcher_ is now known as belcher
4442021-06-16T18:18:25 <hiii> Hi, is this the main bitcoin dev channel?
4452021-06-16T18:19:20 <michaelfolkson> hiii: "Bitcoin Core development discussion and commit log"
4462021-06-16T18:26:03 <hiii> thanks
4472021-06-16T18:26:21 <hiii> where can I ask about summerofbitcoin? sorry if this is off topic
4482021-06-16T18:27:00 <michaelfolkson> hiii: #bitcoin
4492021-06-16T18:29:41 <hiii> michaelfolkson: thank you so much, i asked here since it was a btc core developer program, apologies
4502021-06-16T18:31:22 *** dunxen <dunxen!dunxen@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/dunxen> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving...)
4512021-06-16T18:36:38 *** sjaustirni <sjaustirni!~sjaustirn@user/sjaustirni> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4522021-06-16T18:37:20 *** sjaustirni <sjaustirni!~sjaustirn@user/sjaustirni> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4532021-06-16T18:48:42 *** zndtoshi <zndtoshi!~zndtoshi@79.112.74.9> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4542021-06-16T18:49:49 <zndtoshi> I posted the answers (randomized order) for the devs that were kind enough to give their feedback on the Taproot update and future expectations. Thank you! https://twitter.com/zndtoshi/status/1405235804549566464?s=20
4552021-06-16T18:53:16 *** evias <evias!~evias__@user/evias> has quit IRC (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
4562021-06-16T19:06:43 *** kabaum <kabaum!~kabaum@host-78-77-216-135.mobileonline.telia.com> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
4572021-06-16T19:13:07 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4582021-06-16T19:13:07 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto reopened pull request #19882: depends: Export variables from make to environment explicitly (master...200905-build) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19882
4592021-06-16T19:13:08 *** bitcoin-git <bitcoin-git!~bitcoin-g@x0f.org> has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4602021-06-16T19:19:44 *** zestymug <zestymug!uid446484@id-446484.charlton.irccloud.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4612021-06-16T19:21:44 *** zndtoshi <zndtoshi!~zndtoshi@79.112.74.9> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
4622021-06-16T19:26:01 *** zndtoshi <zndtoshi!~zndtoshi@79.112.74.9> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4632021-06-16T19:27:03 *** logarus <logarus!~logarus@101.186.60.205> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4642021-06-16T19:28:49 *** logarus2 <logarus2!~logarus@2001:8003:4d47:a500:fc19:6bd2:ed16:1c0d> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
4652021-06-16T19:29:56 *** lukedashjr <lukedashjr!~luke-jr@user/luke-jr> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4662021-06-16T19:30:14 *** luke-jr <luke-jr!~luke-jr@user/luke-jr> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
4672021-06-16T19:31:23 *** lukedashjr is now known as luke-jr
4682021-06-16T19:33:15 *** Talkless <Talkless!~Talkless@mail.dargis.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
4692021-06-16T19:38:13 *** zestymug is now known as zesty
4702021-06-16T19:39:51 *** vasanth2[m] <vasanth2[m]!~vasanth2m@2001:470:69fc:105::3548> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4712021-06-16T19:41:03 *** kexkey <kexkey!~kexkey@static-198-54-132-110.cust.tzulo.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4722021-06-16T19:49:35 *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
4732021-06-16T19:57:39 *** sipsorcery <sipsorcery!~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::3> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4742021-06-16T19:57:56 *** nanotube <nanotube!~nanotube@user/nanotube> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
4752021-06-16T19:58:50 *** Guest54 <Guest54!~Guest54@pool-108-53-136-237.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4762021-06-16T20:09:43 *** zndtoshi <zndtoshi!~zndtoshi@79.112.74.9> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
4772021-06-16T20:19:18 *** RebelOfBabylon <RebelOfBabylon!~RebelOfBa@host-67-204-200-148.public.eastlink.ca> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4782021-06-16T20:30:12 *** RebelOfBabylon <RebelOfBabylon!~RebelOfBa@host-67-204-200-148.public.eastlink.ca> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed)
4792021-06-16T20:51:36 *** nanotube <nanotube!~nanotube@user/nanotube> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4802021-06-16T21:19:25 *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
4812021-06-16T21:19:55 *** vnogueira <vnogueira!~vnogueira@user/vnogueira> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4822021-06-16T21:30:26 *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4832021-06-16T21:38:33 *** Guyver2 <Guyver2!~Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl> has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
4842021-06-16T21:41:49 *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
4852021-06-16T21:42:07 *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4862021-06-16T21:47:02 *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
4872021-06-16T21:47:13 *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4882021-06-16T21:47:22 *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Client Quit)
4892021-06-16T21:48:23 *** rejvons <rejvons!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4902021-06-16T21:50:40 *** rejvons is now known as ola
4912021-06-16T21:50:45 *** ola is now known as rejvons
4922021-06-16T21:53:39 *** rejvons is now known as ratatosk9
4932021-06-16T21:54:24 *** ratatosk9 is now known as rejvons
4942021-06-16T21:58:04 *** hiii <hiii!~hiii@171.78.176.155> has quit IRC (Quit: Connection closed)
4952021-06-16T22:00:01 *** rejvons <rejvons!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
4962021-06-16T22:00:18 *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4972021-06-16T22:02:52 *** gene_ <gene_!~gene@2a02:6f8:2020:214:100::100e> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4982021-06-16T22:03:03 *** ratatosk9 is now known as rejvons
4992021-06-16T22:13:21 *** smartin <smartin!~Icedove@88.135.18.171> has quit IRC (Quit: smartin)
5002021-06-16T22:18:03 *** rejvons is now known as ratatosk9
5012021-06-16T22:22:07 *** Guest54 <Guest54!~Guest54@pool-108-53-136-237.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net> has quit IRC (Quit: Client closed)
5022021-06-16T22:22:12 *** gene_ is now known as gene
5032021-06-16T22:24:51 *** ratatosk9 <ratatosk9!~ratatosk9@193.138.218.218> has quit IRC (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
5042021-06-16T22:29:06 *** leafy-greens <leafy-greens!~leafy-gre@modemcable123.58-83-70.mc.videotron.ca> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
5052021-06-16T22:34:28 *** Neojack <Neojack!Neojack@pear.bnc4free.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5062021-06-16T22:35:11 *** lightlike <lightlike!~lightlike@user/lightlike> has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
5072021-06-16T22:39:22 *** l3kk0 <l3kk0!~l3kk0@c-73-22-213-40.hsd1.il.comcast.net> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 268 seconds)
5082021-06-16T22:39:33 *** l3kk0 <l3kk0!~l3kk0@107.117.175.81> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5092021-06-16T22:48:38 *** l3kk0 <l3kk0!~l3kk0@107.117.175.81> has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
5102021-06-16T22:50:05 *** l3kk0 <l3kk0!~l3kk0@c-73-22-213-40.hsd1.il.comcast.net> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5112021-06-16T23:11:11 *** provoostenator <provoostenator!~quassel@user/provoostenator> has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
5122021-06-16T23:38:17 *** sanket1729 <sanket1729!~sanket172@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5132021-06-16T23:50:01 *** gene <gene!~gene@2a02:6f8:2020:214:100::100e> has quit IRC (Quit: gene)
5142021-06-16T23:52:29 *** jarthur <jarthur!~jarthur@2603-8080-1540-002d-d88a-0d46-4103-a0ae.res6.spectrum.com> has joined #bitcoin-core-dev