19:00:37 <wumpus> #startmeeting
19:00:37 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 17 19:00:37 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:37 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:47 <sipa> ohai
19:01:17 <wumpus> ok, that will be first morcos, anyone else with topic suggestions?
19:02:12 <wumpus> we had an action item last time to review the backports for r BIP68 and 112
19:02:36 <wumpus> #topic c: Scheduling the first BIP 9 sort fork for BIPs 68, 112, 113
19:02:44 <morcos> that wasn't the whole topic
19:02:57 <sdaftuar> i think merging is an action item, not a topic :)
19:03:19 <btcdrak> how happy is everyone with 7575?
19:03:25 * sipa happy
19:03:28 <sdaftuar> +1
19:03:29 <wumpus> well if you want to discuss 7575 that's fine with me too
19:03:32 * btcdrak happy
19:04:00 <morcos> wumpus: well its the blocker on the schedule
19:04:04 <wumpus> #action merge #7575
19:04:06 <morcos> i'm happy with it as well
19:04:47 <morcos> ok so then we just need to adequately review the backports, and we can discuss release?
19:04:57 <morcos> what is the start date?  is april 1st too soon?
19:05:00 <wumpus> I see it got a lot of new acks last day
19:05:24 <sipa> thanks to all of sdaftuar's tests :)
19:05:31 <morcos> i had suggested that the backports be put all together in 1 PR, but i'm not sure thats actually what you guys would prefer.  although i think thats the safest way to test them.
19:05:43 <morcos> (well 1 pr for 0.11 and 1 for 0.12)
19:05:52 <jonasschnelli> +1
19:05:58 <sipa> the moment miners uograde to a release with 7575 in it, the warning.logic will trigger on old nodes
19:06:01 <btcdrak> Assuming 7575 is merged, the softfork deployment code is in #7648. morcos and I have backported the mempool stuff
19:06:04 <wumpus> morcos: I think it makes sense - you can always separate out commits
19:06:21 <sipa> even if it only has softforks with a start time in the guture
19:06:25 <sipa> future
19:06:42 <sipa> so we shouldn't put it too far in the future
19:06:52 <morcos> btcdrak: so will you create a pull that backports it all together for 0.12 (including 7575) and i'll do for 0.11
19:06:55 <btcdrak> wumpus: the mempool backports are all done, they only need verification that the cherry-picks are correct
19:07:07 <wumpus> okay, good
19:07:08 <btcdrak> morcos: ok
19:07:58 <btcdrak> who has reviewed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7648?
19:08:40 <wumpus> no one yet, I think
19:08:42 <btcdrak> this is built on #7575 and has additional RPC tests that exercise the BIP9 softfork process and the BIP enforcements for 68,112 and 113
19:08:44 <morcos> i think we should announce the start date and bit number on the -dev list as soon as we've agreed on it, so that Classic and other implementations can implement it as well
19:09:22 <jonasschnelli> btcdrak: It probably better reviewable after 7575 is merged
19:09:39 <gmaxwell> +1
19:09:39 <wumpus> #action review #7648 after #7575 is merged
19:09:39 <sdaftuar> the final version of the versionbits BIP should similarly be announced i think?
19:09:39 <btcdrak> I'll rebase 7648 after 7575 is merged
19:10:03 <jonasschnelli> I think we don't need to announce the merge,.. but the release/deployment.
19:10:07 <morcos> back in 3 mins
19:11:28 <wumpus> yes the start date and bit number certainly needs to be announced
19:11:48 <btcdrak> wumpus: and we need to plan the release date to be able to set the start date.
19:12:35 <btcdrak> wumpus: morcos and I will have the backport PRs ready to go for 0.12 and 0.11. We've done most of the work already.
19:12:49 <wumpus> great!
19:13:08 <wumpus> release date is not entirely predictable, we do want a RC cycle
19:13:16 <btcdrak> really, the only holdup is review of #7648. Once that's merged final, the backports are as good as done. They'd only need to be verified for correctness.
19:13:24 <sipa> maybe set the date to may 1st?
19:13:27 <morcos> I'd suggest moving the start date to April 15th
19:13:28 <morcos> oh
19:13:29 <morcos> ok
19:13:38 <wumpus> may 1st sounds good to me
19:14:12 <btcdrak> is that the start date for BIP9?
19:14:17 <wumpus> better to leave some time for issues, which will always arise
19:14:33 <morcos> so BIP 9 itself is up to date in the BIP repo, I guess that's what matters most for other implementations, not our code readiness
19:14:46 <sdaftuar> others may not be aware of that though
19:14:57 <sdaftuar> as it's been in flux until recently
19:15:24 <morcos> I'm happy to send the follow up to my original email with these announcements.  Perhaps we should update BIP's 68,112,113 with the soft fork info
19:15:34 <sipa> we want to announce out intention to go ahead with a deployment based on bip9, for 68/112/113, with a given start date
19:15:34 <btcdrak> morcos: BIP9 text is uptodate with the implementation
19:15:52 <sdaftuar> good point about updating BIP68/112/113
19:16:02 <wumpus> yes
19:16:03 <btcdrak> OK I'll do that
19:16:25 <btcdrak> so is the BIP9 start date May 1st?
19:16:47 <morcos> btcdrak: that language is confusing.  the date for the first BIP9 soft fork is May 1st
19:16:49 <sdaftuar> May 1st is the startdate for the CSV deployment
19:16:53 <morcos> yep
19:16:56 <sdaftuar> (or whatever we're calling it)
19:17:20 <sipa> once we have code running anywhere in production with a given start date, that date cannot be postponed anymore
19:17:27 <sipa> or there is a fork risk
19:17:31 <morcos> CSV deployment makes sense to me, it captures most of it, perhaps it would be helpful to add a comment next to the deployment, which BIPS it implements
19:17:37 <sipa> moving the start time back is possible
19:17:45 <btcdrak> yeah, it's already called CSV deployment in the code.
19:18:39 <wumpus> ok, so aim is may 1st
19:18:41 <btcdrak> ok so action point is update BIP68/112/113 deployment section
19:18:58 <wumpus> let's make sure to review everything necessary as soon as possible so that it can be merged as soon as possible and we can do the release as soon as possible
19:18:58 <morcos> I think it makes sense to include that we Bitcoin Core will have a release well in advance of the start date implementing the fork
19:19:36 <btcdrak> regarding choosing the bit, I guess bit 0 makes sense.
19:19:53 <sdaftuar> just please don't choose bit 28
19:20:09 <wumpus> or 13 :)
19:20:19 <btcdrak> The Chinese like 8
19:20:20 <btcdrak> ha
19:20:44 <wumpus> but yes it makes sense just to allocate 0
19:21:09 <wumpus> easier to keep track if they're simply dealt out in order
19:21:22 <morcos> what is the block number classic uses?
19:21:57 <btcdrak> BIP109 uses one of the top 3 ::sigh::
19:22:19 <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/blob/develop/src/primitives/block.h#L13
19:22:32 <btcdrak> top bit 010, so it's not actually part of the BIP9 spec
19:23:23 <morcos> btcdrak: huh, it looks like they use 001 and then use bit 28 to signal their hard fork
19:23:37 <btcdrak> yup
19:23:41 <sdaftuar> TESTDUMMY!
19:23:42 <sdaftuar> er
19:23:49 <jonasschnelli> ;-)
19:23:51 <sdaftuar> so that works out fine then?
19:23:51 <btcdrak> bwahahaha
19:23:55 <wumpus> hehehe
19:23:55 <btcdrak> yes
19:23:58 <morcos> sdaftuar: thats what i'm hoping you'll answer
19:24:20 <morcos> it should, i think
19:24:24 <sdaftuar> i think so too
19:25:09 <btcdrak> TESTDUMMY is a past deployment, in 2008 so no problem.
19:25:13 <wumpus> ok, let's try to be sure about that before committing to one
19:25:37 <morcos> jonasschnelli: so we'd like to get that listunspent abandon flag in for 0.12.1 too (but not the gui changes)...
19:25:42 <btcdrak> wumpus: it's fine. TESTDUMMY timeout is December 31, 2008
19:25:48 <jonasschnelli> morcos: opening PR in 30secs.
19:25:50 <morcos> topic: anything else needed for 0.12.1 ?
19:26:08 <jonasschnelli> What about the GUI warning capabilities for 0.12.1?
19:26:15 <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7579
19:26:18 <wumpus> if it's going to be a softfork release, there shouldn't be much else in 0.12.1
19:26:28 <btcdrak> yeah let's keep it small
19:26:31 <jonasschnelli> I'm not entierly happy with 7579,... but could be a small step.
19:26:47 <btcdrak> postpone 7579
19:26:57 <wumpus> 2008? well, let's get into our deloreans
19:27:11 <jtimon> sorry, late, reading, super happy with bip9
19:27:36 <morcos> jonasschnelli: oh, i'm glad you pointed me to that PR, i didn't know about it, and was separately going to rework warnings.   we should fix them for rpc and gui at the same time.  so yeah not for 0.12.1
19:27:57 <jonasschnelli> 7579 aims for a simple change that is BP compatibile.
19:28:01 <wumpus> let's leave that to 0.12.2
19:28:07 <jonasschnelli> It does not prevent the whole rework.
19:28:11 <wumpus> focus on the softfork
19:28:16 <jonasschnelli> +1
19:28:20 <btcdrak> wumpus: +1
19:28:40 <wumpus> anything that is also required will unpredictably affect the release date
19:28:42 <jonasschnelli> The internal warning system was always bad. So no hurry. :)
19:28:47 <wumpus> yea...
19:29:17 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: I do like 7579 btw
19:29:34 <morcos> wumpus: right, so lets review 7706 and jonasschnelli's pull that is now 2 mins overdue as well, b/c i think we need those
19:31:06 <wumpus> which one?
19:31:21 <morcos> (the flag for abandontransaction in listunspent)
19:31:29 <btcdrak> we probably need a new #topic, we've strayed off the original topic
19:31:41 <morcos> well its all related to getting 0.12.1 released
19:31:47 <wumpus> oh that makes sense, probably a few line change with no impoact outside listunspent
19:31:56 <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7707 (not 7706!)
19:31:58 <GitHub84> [13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #7707: [RPC][QT] UI support for abandoned transactions (06master...062016/03/abandon_ui) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7707
19:32:07 <morcos> jonasschnelli: yeah, mine is 7706, we need both
19:32:08 <btcdrak> morcos: but the topic was "Scheduling the first BIP 9 sort fork for BIPs 68, 112, 113"
19:32:20 <sipa> i think we should get dgenr8's partition detection improvement reviewed for 0.12.1
19:32:28 <jonasschnelli> morcos: Ah. Right.
19:32:45 <wumpus> ok, now everyone wants their favorite thing in 0.12.1
19:32:46 <jonasschnelli> sipa: PR URL?
19:32:46 <morcos> sipa: oh, i like that idea.  thats the most effective way to fix the poor situation with the warnings
19:32:47 <wumpus> I was trying to avoid this
19:32:52 <wumpus> and focus on the softfork
19:33:11 <morcos> wumpus: well lets see if the list we come up wiht in the next 5 mins is reasonable
19:33:21 <morcos> we don't have to keep adding stuff for the next week
19:33:58 <btcdrak> improving the partition warnings would be a great help, because it's currently a _disaster_
19:34:00 <jonasschnelli> dgenr8 partition check PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7568/files
19:34:14 <wumpus> minimum risk would be to release 0.12.0 + only softfork backports
19:34:48 <wumpus> but I agree if there are critical bugfixes they should be in too
19:34:57 <jonasschnelli> I agree. 0.13 Release is 2016-07-01
19:35:04 <wumpus> yes
19:35:06 <morcos> wumpus: i think the conflict detection issue is potentially large. i'm kind of surprised we haven't seen more complaints about it.  i guess people might not rely on unconfirmed balance too much
19:35:06 <jonasschnelli> (so not so far away)
19:35:08 <sipa> if we don't fix the partition warnings, we should disable them. maintaining the system longer in the current state will just make people ignore them
19:35:21 <btcdrak> sipa: +1
19:35:33 <wumpus> I agree sipa and morcos
19:35:37 <morcos> sipa: have you reviewed the partition PR
19:35:38 <wumpus> so let's fix those
19:35:39 <wumpus> no more
19:36:47 <wumpus> but the softfork is still priority #1
19:37:46 <sipa> ok
19:38:28 <wumpus> #action for 0.12.1, apart from softfork: fix partition warnings (review #7568), conflict detection issue (#7706)
19:39:06 <sipa> morcos: only the concept; i'll review the code too
19:39:45 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: we probably want a RPC-only #7707 for 0.12.1
19:40:01 <morcos> yep, its one line of code.  : )
19:40:06 <wumpus> heh
19:40:09 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: Agree. You could cherry pick or tell me if i should open a RPC-only PR against 0.12
19:40:37 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: oh it's one line, I'll manage :)
19:40:46 <jonasschnelli> +1
19:41:10 <jonasschnelli> Is a independent commit: 42e945d79fd54ab11ad48978910b42d10c1c7cf8
19:41:24 <morcos> i marked 7706 as WIP, but i just want to flesh out the tests.  but wouldn't mind somoene else to think about whether its doing the right thing
19:41:25 <wumpus> #action for 0.12.1, #7707 (: 42e945d79fd54ab11ad48978910b42d10c1c7cf8 only)
19:41:55 <jtimon> wumpus: ACK on just using bits in order
19:44:13 <wumpus> that concludes the topic, I think
19:44:20 <jonasschnelli> topic prop.: state of SW
19:44:35 <wumpus> #topic state of SW
19:45:00 * jonasschnelli thinks is rude to look at sipa now...
19:45:01 <sipa> i'm working on the post-fork upgrade problem in the current segnet code
19:45:19 <jtimon> morcos: the right bit to signal hardforks is the one that helps old nodes declare the first hardfork block invalid. see outdated https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7566/commits/990dda87b258c1e8d4d35b1fcbae4106303664f0
19:45:21 <sipa> next thing after that is rebase on top of versionbitd and do a new segnet
19:45:49 <morcos> sipa: new segnet or testnet?
19:45:59 <jonasschnelli> samesame?
19:46:14 <sipa> new segnet
19:46:29 <sipa> though we can independently test on testnet too, of course
19:47:20 <jonasschnelli> Are we aiming SW for 0.13.1?
19:47:52 <sipa> i'm aiming for SW in 0.11.something, 0.12.something, 0
19:47:55 <sipa> 0.13
19:48:14 <sipa> it's a softfork, we'll need to backport
19:48:20 <morcos> btcdrak: btw, you should make the start date for CSV deployment earlier on testnet.  we didn't talk about that.  but any reason not to make the start date march 1st?
19:48:34 <jonasschnelli> sipa: Agree. Just on the "timeline".
19:48:45 <sipa> jonasschnelli: "soon"
19:48:57 <jonasschnelli> I love that "soon". :)
19:50:10 <jonasschnelli> I'm just asking because some Core Devs did agree a timeline for SW on a a miners/devs/etc. meeting.
19:50:19 <jonasschnelli> *agree on a timeline
19:50:31 <btcdrak> morcos: ok
19:51:04 <sipa> jonasschnelli: i don't care what some people think; a timeline is something you can't promise
19:51:12 <sipa> but we can do our best
19:51:18 <wumpus> good to watch that timeline but most important is that we don't deploy before it's ready, quality shouldn't suffer under time pressure
19:51:19 <jonasschnelli> sipa: fully agree.
19:51:36 <btcdrak> sipa: that's fine, so long as we communicate how things are going, that's good enough.
19:51:42 <wumpus> worst outcome would be to be scared into delivering something that breaks
19:51:48 <jonasschnelli> btcdrak: yes. We just need to communicate.
19:51:50 <sipa> yes
19:52:21 <jonasschnelli> Lets just say "soon". :)
19:52:39 <sipa> i'm glad bip9 seems final
19:52:45 <wumpus> me too
19:52:59 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Finally.
19:53:07 <btcdrak> sipa: party at your house. we'll bring the beers.
19:53:13 <wumpus> I think that concludes the meeting?
19:53:44 <jonasschnelli> btcdrak finally de-anonymizes at the party.
19:53:48 <wumpus> #endmeeting