19:00:42 <wumpus> #startmeeting
19:00:42 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Feb 27 19:00:42 2020 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:42 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:44 <jonatack> elichai2: thanks! your siphash pr and suhas' wtxid one are top of my list
19:01:15 <provoostenator> hi
19:01:18 <kanzure> hi
19:01:20 <elichai2> Hi
19:01:47 <achow101> hi
19:01:52 <sipa> hi
19:01:56 <jonatack> hi
19:02:06 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james amiti fjahr
19:02:07 <wumpus> jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55
19:02:09 <hebasto> hi
19:02:13 <lightlike> hi
19:02:14 <promag> hi
19:02:28 <fjahr> hi
19:02:35 <meshcollider> hi
19:02:38 <jonasschnelli> hi
19:03:05 <wumpus> two proposed topics in proposedmeetingtopics: macOS notarization (jonasschnelli), more topic collection for upcoming physical meeting (kanzure)
19:04:00 <wumpus> any last minute topics?
19:04:29 <wumpus> FWIW 0.20.0 feature freeze is in about half a month
19:04:45 <instagibbs> hi
19:04:58 <wumpus> see for schedule: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17432
19:05:10 <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
19:05:44 <wumpus> 7 blockers, 1 bugfix, 6 chasing concept ACK in  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
19:06:04 <achow101> Add #18115
19:06:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18115 | wallet: Pass in transactions and messages for signing instead of exporting the private keys by achow101 · Pull Request #18115 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:13 <provoostenator> +1
19:07:33 <wumpus> added
19:08:12 <wumpus> anything else to add/remove, or that is ready for merge?
19:08:47 <provoostenator> I was hoping #17509 is ready, though maybe meshcollider can review first (it's not strictly wallet)
19:08:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17509 | gui: save and load PSBT by Sjors · Pull Request #17509 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:09:03 <wumpus> that one does seem the closest
19:09:20 <gleb> hi
19:09:27 <jnewbery> hi
19:09:41 <ariard> hi
19:09:59 <meshcollider> provoostenator: sure, I can review it :) Missed it actually sorry because it's only tagged GUI
19:10:16 <sdaftuar> hi
19:10:27 <provoostenator> If it makes it in, I pre-nominate gwillen's #18027 after that, nice to get that in for the feature freeze
19:10:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18027 | "PSBT Operations" dialog by gwillen · Pull Request #18027 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:10:44 <instagibbs> yeah that would be awesome ^
19:10:48 <wumpus> that would be very nice
19:10:58 <MarcoFalke> Can I add #17809 to high prio? It is a lot of changes, but shouldn't be too hard to review.
19:11:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17809 | rpc: Auto-format RPCResult by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #17809 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:06 <instagibbs> no need to open up -cli/console for anything PSBT related
19:11:07 <provoostenator> +1
19:11:21 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: sure
19:12:10 <wumpus> added
19:13:31 <wumpus> #topic macOS notarization (jonasschnelli)
19:13:33 <provoostenator> We could try #18187 on v0.19.1rc3; if that's the only change it can be tested very quickly.
19:13:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18187 | Add macOS notarization (including stapling) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #18187 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:13:52 <jonasschnelli> 18187 is pretty much it
19:14:07 <wumpus> do we need a 0.19.1rc3?
19:14:12 <jonasschnelli> It changes the process how we create the final macOS app
19:14:35 <jonasschnelli> for the notarization, we don't need a rc3 I think... but it could help
19:14:36 <provoostenator> It adds a staple to the signed binary, which is better for privacy
19:14:43 <wumpus> thanks for working on this btw
19:14:47 <provoostenator> And something we should test ideally
19:14:52 <jonasschnelli> yes.
19:15:18 <jonasschnelli> if there are any questions or possible problems (privacy / security), ask now! :)
19:15:23 <wumpus> yes, we could do a rc3 just to test this, though I think many would like 0.19.1 out of the door, and we could test this for 0.20.0rc1 as well it takes somewhat longer but dunno
19:15:50 <wumpus> it's more in line with the usual flow of doing things on master first
19:16:07 <wumpus> but no strong opinion
19:16:13 <provoostenator> True, but it's nice to test this on a smaller demographic than the 0.20 release
19:16:24 <jonasschnelli> We can notarize 0.19.1 anyways (even without 18187)
19:16:37 <jonasschnelli> I think targeting the pull for 0.20 makes sense
19:16:41 <wumpus> do you think 0.20.0rc1 will have a larger demograhic?
19:17:03 <sipa> 0.20.0 likely will have bigger adoption than 0.19.1
19:17:11 <sipa> don't know about the rc's
19:17:15 <jonasschnelli> Maybe we skip 0.19.1 and focus on a rc
19:17:16 <provoostenator> That's what I mean. The rc I can test myself
19:17:17 <wumpus> a lot of people wait for .1 fwiw
19:17:22 <wumpus> don't know about rcs
19:17:26 <jonasschnelli> There is the risk that we corrupt the final dmg otherwise
19:17:45 <sipa> no strong opinion either way here
19:18:08 <wumpus> ok, lets just merge it for 0.20 then
19:18:16 <jonasschnelli> if I publish the notarization ticket together with the code signature, it would automatically end up in the final dmg
19:18:20 <wumpus> then backport if it works
19:18:22 <jonasschnelli> but we had no test if we go for 0.19.1
19:18:32 <provoostenator> I don't like the privacy implications of not stapling, so then I suggest we don't notarize it, and just leave it right-click to install
19:18:39 <jonasschnelli> yes. Lets merge and do the process only for 0.20rcX
19:18:56 <jonasschnelli> provoostenator: thats a good point.
19:19:10 <jonasschnelli> But no-one AFAIK has done a privacy related test.
19:19:23 <jonasschnelli> We don't know if the GateKeeper server will not be contacted if the ticket is stapled
19:19:30 <jonasschnelli> I haven't tested it (yet)
19:19:39 <jonasschnelli> But very likely its completely offline
19:20:10 <provoostenator> Well, if not, then they might as well ping gatekeeper for non-notarized binaries too and that's the end of macOS privacy  :-)
19:20:35 <jonasschnelli> Yes. There are little more we can do...
19:20:48 <wumpus> that's what happens with platforms closing up
19:21:11 <wumpus> Cory Doctorow was right with his war on general purpose computing
19:21:22 <jonasschnelli> Yeah. I guess the staping concept is probably acceptable.
19:21:36 <jonasschnelli> But yeah. It's the digital war agains terrorism
19:21:45 <jonasschnelli> (== - privacy)
19:21:47 <wumpus> yep
19:22:10 <jonasschnelli> What if we notarize 0.19.1 without stapeling?
19:22:21 <wumpus> okay, one topic left
19:22:25 <jonasschnelli> It would run without changing the security settings
19:22:40 <wumpus> #topic more topic collection for upcoming physical meeting (kanzure)
19:22:44 <provoostenator> But it would potentially doxx users to Apple
19:22:51 <kanzure> hey yeah just a reminder that we have a meeting in a month and i'm collecting topics
19:23:01 <kanzure> need to poke jnewbery for survey entries iirc
19:23:25 <jonasschnelli> provoostenator: lets talk on 18187
19:23:27 <kanzure> i have a short document with a list of things that people have asked about.
19:24:51 <kanzure> that's all
19:24:59 <kanzure> in other news, HWI irc logs are now available http://gnusha.org/hwi/
19:25:26 <wumpus> great!
19:26:46 <wumpus> #endmeeting