--- Log opened Tue Sep 08 00:00:12 2020
00:00 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:05 -!- vadorovsky__ [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:06 -!- vadorovsky__ [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:14 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:15 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:20 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:20 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:21 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:28 -!- reallll [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:31 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
00:40 -!- kljasdfvv [~flack@p200300d46f11fb0024ae13d268da7ad8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
00:42 -!- kljasdfvv [~flack@p200300d46f11fb009de2953a99b0f23d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:56 -!- xxxx [34bba72f@52.187.167.47] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:58 -!- xxxx [34bba72f@52.187.167.47] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
00:59 -!- promag [~promag@188.251.225.32] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:00 -!- dermoth_ [~dermoth@unaffiliated/dermoth] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:00 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@unaffiliated/dermoth] has quit [Disconnected by services]
01:00 -!- dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
01:03 -!- MasterdonX [~masterdon@37.120.212.76] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
01:04 -!- promag [~promag@188.251.225.32] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:05 -!- MasterdonX [~masterdon@37.120.212.76] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:21 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:22 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:28 -!- vadorovsky__ [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:29 -!- vadorovsky__ [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:30 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:30 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #19915: refactor: Use Mutex type for some mutexes in CNode class (master...200908-netmx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19915
01:30 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
01:36 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:36 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Crypt-iQ opened pull request #19916: build: allow user to specify DIR_FUZZ_SEED_CORPUS when invoking cov_fuzz target (master...cov_fuzz_cleanup_0908) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19916
01:36 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
01:42 -!- theStack [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:52 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:53 -!- promag [~promag@188.251.225.32] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:53 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:55 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:56 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:a1fa:197a:119d:832c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:56 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:00 -!- nihui [~nihui@217.146.82.202] has quit []
02:00 -!- jonatack [~jon@192.113.14.109.rev.sfr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:02 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] naumenkogs closed pull request #19697: Improvements on ADDR caching (master...2020-08-addr-cache-follow-up) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19697
02:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
02:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:02 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] naumenkogs reopened pull request #19697: Improvements on ADDR caching (master...2020-08-addr-cache-follow-up) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19697
02:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
02:05 -!- jonatack [~jon@192.113.14.109.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
02:06 -!- promag [~promag@188.251.225.32] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:06 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.172.68.103] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:08 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:a1fa:197a:119d:832c] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:08 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:a1fa:197a:119d:832c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:12 -!- andreaca_ [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:d178:be8:fb0d:bf0c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:13 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:a1fa:197a:119d:832c] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
02:14 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:14 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:15 -!- andreaca_ [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:d178:be8:fb0d:bf0c] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:16 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:d178:be8:fb0d:bf0c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:20 -!- opsec_x12 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
02:21 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:d178:be8:fb0d:bf0c] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
02:21 -!- opsec_x12 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:22 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:22 -!- dfkt [~dfkt@184.75.221.179] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:27 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:1c9:c641:fa0a:f240] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:30 < meshcollider> I propose for discussion that fanquake be made an admin on the repo so he can block people like Wladimir and Peter can (assuming he wants the ability)
02:33 -!- dfkt [~dfkt@184.75.221.179] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
02:43 < wumpus> sgtm
02:45 < provoostenator> No objection. I assume it's announced somewhere who is blocked?
02:46 < provoostenator> (or I guess the blockee can complain via other channels, it's not like the Black Mirror episode)
02:49 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:49 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:52 -!- Guyver2_ [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:52 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:53 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:55 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
03:01 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@static-240-45-224-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:01 < wumpus> it's always mentioned here
03:02 < wumpus> at least, that's what we should aim for
03:09 -!- promag [~promag@188.251.225.32] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:09 < wumpus> apart from the really rare persistent troll it's only been used for obvious fake and scam and spam accounts, who never complain because they understand what they're doing
03:09 -!- sdad12121 [b9d4abc4@185.212.171.196] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:09 -!- sdad12121 [b9d4abc4@185.212.171.196] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:12 -!- promag [~promag@188.251.225.32] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:23 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:1c9:c641:fa0a:f240] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:24 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:1c9:c641:fa0a:f240] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:25 -!- yonatanbl [~Yonatan@2a0b:f4c2:1::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:28 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:1c9:c641:fa0a:f240] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
03:29 < yonatanbl> Can anyone here review the Hebrew translation for Core on Transifex?
03:30 -!- auscompgeek1 [~auscompge@84.39.117.57] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:31 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7427:1b3b:c3e8:9a27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:36 < wumpus> hi, not sure anyone reads Hebrew here but you never know
03:37 < elichai2> yonatanbl: sure, a link?
03:40 < yonatanbl> https://www.transifex.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/language/he/
03:42 < elichai2> oh I thought you meant something specific, I went over it a couple of times in the past, but it's pretty exhausting honestly
03:43 < yonatanbl> I see
03:46 -!- Guyver2__ [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:47 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:48 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7427:1b3b:c3e8:9a27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:48 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7427:1b3b:c3e8:9a27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:50 -!- Guyver2_ [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:52 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:56 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.172.68.103] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:57 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.211] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:59 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:01 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:03 < elichai2> did anyone see this error while trying to compile the fuzzers? `crypto/sha256_sse4.cpp:44:9: error: expected relocatable expression`
04:06 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7427:1b3b:c3e8:9a27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:06 < wumpus> never saw it before
04:07 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7427:1b3b:c3e8:9a27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:07 < wumpus> apparently it cannot make the inline assembly relocatable? is that a compiler or linker error?
04:07 -!- andreaca_ [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:51be:d4c8:3398:7a8b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:09 -!- Guyver2__ is now known as Guyver2
04:11 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7427:1b3b:c3e8:9a27] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
04:12 < elichai2> Looks like compiler, bigger output: https://pastebin.com/raw/fnV6J9MR. I'm trying to mix some flags to pinpoint what's doing that (currently it's fuzzer+debug+asan+libfuzzer+clang)
04:12 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.211] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:15 -!- yonatanbl [~Yonatan@2a0b:f4c2:1::1] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
04:17 < elichai2> Ok, that's weird, it only happens with asan+fuzzer, but not with any of them alone (`AS=clang CC=clang CXX=clang++ ./configure --enable-debug --with-incompatible-bdb --enable-fuzz --with-sanitizers=address`)
04:17 < elichai2> Ops, * `AS=clang CC=clang CXX=clang++ ./configure --enable-debug --with-incompatible-bdb --enable-fuzz --with-sanitizers=fuzzer,address`
04:18 -!- andreaca_ [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:51be:d4c8:3398:7a8b] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:19 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:51be:d4c8:3398:7a8b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:22 -!- andreaca_ [~andreacab@12.46.194.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:23 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:51be:d4c8:3398:7a8b] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:25 < elichai2> so apparently it only happens with debug, I guess i'll live with longer compile times
04:27 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:27 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:29 -!- gleb [~gleb@178.150.137.228] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
04:29 < jonasschnelli> sipa, elichai2, real_or_random: what are your thoughts on the BIP342 comment here: https://gist.github.com/jonasschnelli/c530ea8421b8d0e80c51486325587c52#gistcomment-3345400
04:29 < jonasschnelli> Especially the point to retrieve further packets up to MAX_PACKET_LENGTH on an invalid MAC
04:30 < jonasschnelli> ^ ariard 
04:36 -!- gleb [~gleb@178.150.137.228] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:38 -!- vadorovsky__ [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:38 < real_or_random> jonasschnelli: oh I think I missed that one, I need to read up on this first
04:38 < jonasschnelli> would be great! thanks
04:39 < jonasschnelli> Unifying the error case for invalid MAC and MAX_PACKET_SIZE overflow makes much sense to me
04:40 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:42 -!- andreaca_ [~andreacab@12.46.194.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:42 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:46 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
04:48 -!- worc3131 [~quassel@2a02:c7f:c026:9500:7d0b:65d0:38a4:4786] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:55 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:56 < elichai2> jonasschnelli: hmm I think it would still be obvious that it is an invalid MAC error, but at least it hides the size. what happens if the sender doesn't try to send that many packets? the connection will halt until timeout? 
04:57 -!- auscompgeek1 [~auscompge@84.39.117.57] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:58 -!- hadjiszs [~yourname@ns348042.ip-5-39-92.eu] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:08 < fanquake> meshcollider: fine with me
05:10 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:10 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:12 < jonasschnelli> elichai2: yes. It will lead to the timeout... (currently checking the code path)
05:14 < jonasschnelli> elichai2: the pnode->nLastRecv is indifferent in V1/V2. So no traffic == timeout-disconnect (V1/V2)
05:16 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:17 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:22 -!- sammuel86 [~sammuel86@89.47.234.28] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:23 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
05:31 -!- reallll is now known as belcher
05:46 -!- TheRec [~toto@drupal.org/user/146860/view] has quit []
05:50 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:51 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:55 -!- palazzovincenzo [~vincent@host-82-60-201-14.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:55 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincent@host-79-35-119-77.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:01 -!- Tennis [~Tennis@unaffiliated/tennis] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:02 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
06:04 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:04 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:05 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:05 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:06 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:06 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:07 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:07 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:08 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:08 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:09 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:09 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:10 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:10 -!- TheRec [~toto@84-75-225-47.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:10 -!- TheRec [~toto@84-75-225-47.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Changing host]
06:10 -!- TheRec [~toto@drupal.org/user/146860/view] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:10 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:11 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:12 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:12 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:13 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:13 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:14 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:14 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:16 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:26 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:26 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:27 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
06:30 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:30 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:43 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:43 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:45 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:54 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:57 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:57 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #19917: RemoveUnbroadcastTx requires mempool lock (master...2020-09-removeunbroadcasttx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19917
06:57 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
07:12 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:12 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:13 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:15 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@static-240-45-224-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:15 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@static-240-45-224-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:34 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:34 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:42 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:42 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:43 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:43 < jnewbery> #17785 may be close to ready for merge
07:43 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17785 | p2p: Unify Send and Receive protocol versions by hebasto · Pull Request #17785 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
07:43 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:44 < jnewbery> sipa: not sure if you want to take a quick look. It's somewhat adjacent (though not conflicting) with your work in #19503 and I think you mentioned something about wanting to tidy up how we handle p2p versions
07:44 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19503 | Add parameter feature to serialization and use it for CAddress by sipa · Pull Request #19503 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
07:45 < jnewbery> reminder: p2p meeting in 15 minutes. One suggested topic so far "What would a good transaction propagation framework look like? See a first draw Transactions propagation design goals" #19820 (ariard)
07:45 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19820 | Transactions propagation design goals · Issue #19820 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
07:46 < jnewbery> #19914 is also RFM
07:46 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19914 | refactor: Do not pass chain params to CheckForStaleTipAndEvictPeers twice by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #19914 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
07:52 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef1aef00c4fbf55bc3d75ef3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:00 -!- sammuel86 [~sammuel86@89.47.234.28] has quit []
08:00 < jnewbery> #startmeeting
08:00 < lightningbot> Meeting started Tue Sep  8 15:00:18 2020 UTC.  The chair is jnewbery. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:00 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
08:00 < sdaftuar> hello
08:00 < hebasto> hi
08:00 < gleb> hi!
08:00 < jnewbery> #bitcoin-core-dev P2P Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james 
08:00 < ariard> hi
08:00 < jnewbery> amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
08:00 < jnewbery> hi folks
08:00 < ajonas> hi
08:00 < sdaftuar> topic suggestion: gleb's PR on netgroup diversity of outbound peers
08:01 < gleb> sure :)
08:01 < jonasschnelli> hi
08:01 < fanquake> hi
08:02 < jnewbery> one proposed topic in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings: Follow-up on last meeting's "What would a good transaction propagation framework look like? See a first draw Transactions propagation design goals #19820 (ariard)
08:02 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19820 | Transactions propagation design goals · Issue #19820 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:02 < amiti> hi
08:02 < ariard> we can start by gleb's one np
08:02 < jnewbery> ok, before we get started with those topics, does anyone have any general updates on what they're working on, or what they're prioritizing? Raise your hand if you want to give an update o/
08:03 < gleb> Over the last 10 days I opened 4 addr-related prs… I really think addr needs some attention, and my further work is blocked on this. I know addr is not the most well-known topic. I’m willing to provide any help to facilitate that review :)
08:03 < sipa> hi
08:03 < aj> oh, sdaftuar said something other than hi!
08:03 < aj> holla
08:03 < gleb> Some of them is refactoring, other have important implications and fix bugs
08:03 < jonatack> hi
08:03 < sdaftuar> aj: hi
08:04 < aj> sdaftuar: nack
08:04 < jnewbery> ok, well if no-one else has any general updates, I'll just share one of mine, then we can go onto proposed topics?
08:04 < sdaftuar> jnewbery: ack
08:04 < ariard> yes
08:04 < jnewbery> I'd still encourage review of the remaining backport #19606
08:05 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19606 | Backport wtxid relay to v0.20 by jnewbery · Pull Request #19606 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:05 < jnewbery> there was some confusion about Marco's comment a few weeks ago about merge order. Is MarcoFalke here?
08:06 < jnewbery> Either way, I'd encourage review. It's not a totally clean backport, but it shouldn't be impossible to review
08:06 < jonatack> quick reminder to review the bip155 and bip324 implementation PRs
08:06 < jnewbery> #topic netgroup diversity of outbound peers (gleb)
08:06 < gleb> #19860
08:06 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19860 | Improve diversification of new connections: privacy and stability by naumenkogs · Pull Request #19860 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:07 < sdaftuar> i suggested that topic because some of the changes are non-obvious to me, and thought discussion would help
08:07 < gleb> This PR has some obvious improvement: e.g. don't look at current feelers when make new persistent connection, because feelers are temporary so shold not affect I believe.
08:07 < gleb> I guess there is one nuance that is not obvious.
08:07 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:08 < gleb> I suggested to not look at the *existent* block-relay-only conns (2 conns we have) while making *new* full relay conns.
08:08 < gleb> Because block-relay-conns should be more private (we rely on them for anti-eclipse).
08:09 < gleb> And someone controlling our AddrMan (e.g. by occupying all our full relay slots) may deduce which netgroups are existent block-relay-o conns are taking.
08:10 < gleb> The disadvantage of this change is that we will have a little less diversity as a whole
08:10 < gleb> (new full-relay conns may be in same net group with existent block relay only conns)
08:10 < sdaftuar> That last point is the one that I thought should be the primary consideration, as that seems like it has the greatest effect on our partition-resistance -- more diversity seems better
08:10 < gleb> So I guess it's questionable whether this privacy benefit worth sacrificing a bit of diversity. And whether this kind of privacy threat is real, in general.
08:10 < amiti> if someone has taken over our addrman & we're trying to open block-relay-only conns, isn't the bigger concern that we would just be opening connections to the poisoned addresses? 
08:11 < gleb> amiti: I assume that at that time we still have 2 healthy block-relay-only conns, and I want to expose them as little as possible.
08:12 < ariard> sdaftuar: does the design goal of block-relay-only connections was to mask better block-relay topology, thus masking netgroups of such peers should be in agreement?
08:12 < gleb> sdaftuar: I was fine with sacrificing diversity here, because it has so little effect. The only difference will be that *just two* existing block-relay-only conns may overlap with new full relay conns. 
08:13 < amiti> whats the worst attack that could be carried out if an adversary knows the netgroups of the conns? 
08:13 < gleb> And if we have more than two in the future, we can make 2 of them private, and N-2 of them overlappable.
08:13 < jnewbery> gleb: is it fair to say the effect is that we'll have the same level of diversity as we did prior to block-relay-only peers being introduced?
08:13 < gleb> amiti: they can further deduce what are those peers in the network, and evict us from them.
08:13 < amiti> gleb: how? 
08:14 < ariard> amiti: I think about looking among available public peers in this netgroup and open connection to them to try to evict inbound slot of your victim
08:14 < gleb> jnewbery: Yes, I think it's fair. sdaftuar?
08:14 < sdaftuar> gleb: we do have keyed network groups, so i am curious what you have in mind there?
08:14 < sdaftuar> jnewbery: yes, i think that's likely true
08:14 < amiti> ariard: thanks!
08:15 < sdaftuar> ariard: the goal of the connections is twofold:
08:15 < sdaftuar> - the main goal is to increase the difficulty/cost/power of an adversary required to carry out a network partitioning attack against a target node
08:16 < sdaftuar> and the specific motivation was that our existing full-relay connections leak topology information, and fixing that is sort of hopeless in the long run, though we certainly can and should make improvements where possible
08:16 < jnewbery> the questions I'd ask are: was diversity a problem to block-relay-only peers being introduced? Did block-relay-only peers make it measurably better? I guess there aren't answers to those except "more is generally better"
08:16 < sdaftuar> - the second goal is a bit more nebulous, but my thinking is that it's easier to get the anti-DoS tradeoffs right if we focus on the different aspects of network traffic separately
08:17 < sdaftuar> so for instance i think the design goals around transaction relay may leads us to different peering strategies than the design goals around block relay
08:17 < gleb> jnewbery: In my opinion, block-relay-only connections wasn't intended to improve diversity at all. I'd say it was a side-effect benefit we got for free.
08:18 < sdaftuar> gleb: i think i agree, but that benefit seems so substantial that i think taking it away for the sake of privacy is hard for me to imagine, without a concrete understanding of where the privacy would be lost
08:18 < gleb> sdaftuar: an attacker just forces us to connect to a peer from some netgroup, sees that we refuses, and deduces that our block-relay-only is in that group.
08:18 < sipa> sdaftuar: i think you're missing one point: block-only connections increase partition resistance without the bandwidth overhead that full connections have
08:18 < sdaftuar> sipa: yes, thank you
08:18 < ariard> wrt to increase the difficulty/cost/power, I think you can achieve this by either more diversity and/or more non-observability of your peerings, what gleb's PR is underscoring IMO is a potential trade-off between them
08:19 < sipa> gleb: how can they force us to connect somewhere?
08:20 < gleb> sipa: have all our full relay slots, feed only selected addr records of their sybils, drop connections and see us connect to one of their sybils
08:20 < jnewbery> gleb: 'just forces us to connect to a peer from some netgroup' sounds very difficult. If an attacker can already do that, I think we're in a lot of trouble already
08:20 < sipa> gleb: that sounds like they've already succesfully pattitioned us?
08:20 < gleb> I assume a scenario when we lost all our full relay slots, but still have 2 block-relay-only slots.
08:20 < sipa> or are trivially able to do so as well
08:21 < ariard> do we assume that our full-relay can be discovered through transaction relay in that way you can learn their netgroups and exclude block-relay-o to be there
08:21 < gleb> b-r-o slots don't answer addr queries i believe, so they won't help to sanitize our addr man
08:21 < sdaftuar> correct, or rather we ignore addr messages from our block-relay peers 
08:21 -!- afb [~afb@195.206.169.184] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:21 < aj> sipa: if we had (say) 10 blocks-only connectoins and 6 tx-relay connections, it might make sense to have separate netgroups for each blocks-only peer and separate netgroups for each tx-relay peer, but not worry about overlap between the two?
08:21 < ariard> if you can learn the full-relay peers of your victim, you can try to influence peering of those full-relay by exploiting their inbound eviction logic
08:21 < sdaftuar> aj: isn't more diversity still better?
08:22 < jonatack> sdaftuar: separate design goals make sense to me as well given the very different characteristics of tx relay and block relay. for instance, from what i see, last tx is frequent, many/most peers, and often in seconds. last block is rare, comes from only a few peers, over minutes and hours. 
08:22 < sipa> my thinking (but i haven't thought/looked too much) is that you want to maximize diversity of (full+blockonly), and of (full) alone
08:23 < sdaftuar> sipa: that lines up with my intuition as well
08:23 < ariard> aj: I agree with these logic, but as of today full-relay we have an overlap between connections types, that's more how we address this while moving in this direction
08:23 < ariard> *this
08:23 < sipa> the former for partition resistance, the second for actual short-term efficient connectivity
08:24 < gleb> I just thought that the impact of dropping block-relay-only from the full relay diversity set would be fine. It's just 2 peers. And they still be diverse among themselves.
08:24 < aj> sdaftuar: i guess my gut feel is that once you have sufficient diversity, then having them be independent gets you more robustness as well since one network can't interfere with the other?
08:24 < gleb> And block-relay-only will be diverse w.r.t existent full-relay conns. Just not vice versa :)
08:24 < aj> sdaftuar: (2 peers not being sufficiently diverse, 6-10 maybe being sufficiently diverse)
08:24 < jnewbery> aj: that seems like a good end-goal. Totally separating logic for the connection types allows us to reason about each individually and prevents potentially privacy/exploitability by not allowing information to leak between the two.
08:25 < sdaftuar> gleb: that part of the logic is strange to me, because the peering logic is not symmetric depending on what order you connect in?
08:25 < sipa> jnewbery: hmm, i see the appeal for that too
08:25 < gleb> sdaftuar: I don't see symmetry as a good goal :)
08:26 < sdaftuar> aj: yeah so i guess there are two goals, one is how we minimize the likelihood of being partitioned, but then maybe once we're close enough on that point, we can choose other tradeoffs e.g. for robustness/design clarity as jnewbery suggested
08:26 < gleb> Maybe we should keep this until more block-relay-only, and then make part of them private and part of them diverse?
08:27 < amiti> I'm still trying to wrap my head around the attack vectors in the scenario (full-relay taken over, block-relay safe). I think ofc diversity is good, but the small decrease might be worthwhile if its offering protection. but I need to understand exactly what its protecting against in order to evaluate that tradeoff. 
08:27 < sdaftuar> it does seem like we're a long way from truly separating connection types, as long as addrman is firmly in the middle here
08:27 < sipa> sdaftuar: looking at full only when making a new full connection, and looking at both when making a blocksonly connection... isn't that how you'd implememt maximization of diversity for (blocksonly+full) and for (full) alone?
08:27 < ariard> sdaftuar: non-observability of victim's connections likely minimizes the likelihood of being partitioned
08:28 < gleb> sipa: this is my exact suggestion btw.
08:28 < sipa> amiti: i'm not there is a concrete attack beyond "8 connections is easier to partition than 10"
08:28 < sdaftuar> sipa: i was going to point out that achieving maximum diversity for blocksonly+full is sufficient to achieve maximum diversity for full alone
08:28 < sipa> sdaftuar: hmm!
08:29 < sipa> of course
08:30 < jnewbery> it seems like it's ok for information about full connections to leak into our blocksonly connection logic, since blocksonly are meant to be private?
08:30 < sdaftuar> i think this comes down to whether we think this attack -- can we observe keyed-netgroup collisions from observed outbound connections -- is practical for some kind of attacker we're concerned about?
08:30 < gleb> jnewbery: yeah, I think so. Because there are probably better ways to learn full conns anyway
08:31 < gleb> sdaftuar: do you accept the setting where we lost all our full conns, but 2 block-relay-only are still healthy?
08:31 < gleb> or you think it's unrealistic
08:31 < sdaftuar> if our addrman starts off healthy, then i think we're probably ok in that scenario
08:32 < sdaftuar> if our addrman is already poisoned but for the two block-relay only connections, i think that's a very edge-case scenario to try to optimize for
08:32 < sdaftuar> (i think we're ok because of feelers, maybe that's wrong)
08:32 < gleb> i see.
08:32 < sipa> i have a hard time imagining how that's not a problem
08:33 < ariard> gleb: when you assume addrman poisoning, do you scope knocking-out the feeler logic by an attacker?
08:33 < jnewbery> does anchor connections make gleb's scenario more likely?
08:33 < sdaftuar> sipa: i guess one thing that goes wrong is that eventually nodes go offline, and so in the long run you lose all your honest peers?
08:33 < sipa> because with all normal connections sybilled, the attacker can probably start poisoning addrman, and leave you no way to recover
08:33 < amiti> jnewbery: was wondering that. I think so 
08:33 < ariard> jnewbery: I think it makes it easier to observe them as block-relay-o become more stable?
08:34 < jnewbery> (#17428)
08:34 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17428 | p2p: Try to preserve outbound block-relay-only connections during restart by hebasto · Pull Request #17428 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:34 < sdaftuar> sipa: does this problem get solved if we introduce some level of rotation of tx-relay peers?
08:34 < gleb> Yeah I don't have big faith in feelers once we lost all our full conns
08:34 < gleb> We don't even send GETADDR to feelers iirc?
08:35 < sdaftuar> sorry, i don't mean feelers
08:35 < sdaftuar> what i mean is the tried-table-collision resolution algorithm
08:35 < sipa> that's feelers, no?
08:35 < gleb> oh, that's interesting.
08:35 < ariard> that's done by feelers connection
08:35 < sdaftuar> no, feelers are for connecting to NEW table entries and trying to mive them to tried
08:35 < gleb> Not sure how that thing is effective.
08:35 < sdaftuar> yes, we call them feelers too
08:35 < sdaftuar> but it's confusing
08:35 < sipa> mive?
08:35 < sdaftuar> move*
08:35 < jnewbery> I do like the concept of not allowing any information at all to leak from our blocksonly connections into our other connection logic. Even if this particular scenario is unlikely, it's still nice to be able to count out any such similar attacks.
08:35 < sipa> ah, move
08:36 < sipa> thinking ahout this, i wonder if we need addr-only connections too
08:36 < gleb> The worst diversity degradation here btw: 2 newly selected full peers are from the same netgroup as 2 existent block-relay-only conns
08:37 < gleb> sipa: working on that stuff.
08:37 < sdaftuar> sipa: yeah i was thinking about that a bit as well
08:37 < gleb> it's blocked by my 4 addr-related prs :)
08:37 < sipa> i'm not worried about information leakage of our selection of full/blockonly connections
08:37 < sipa> but our partitition resistance gained (assuming blockonly is diverse wrt full) is only for block connectivity
08:37 < sipa> not for addrmam health
08:38 < sipa> which is valuable, but shorter term
08:38 < aj> sipa: maybe addr-only connections should mean occassionally requery dns-seeds too (once a day or once a week, poisson'ed eg) ?
08:38 < sipa> maybe
08:38 < ariard> sipa: you mean an attacker can't interfere with victim's blockonly connections if it learns their netgroups?
08:38 < sdaftuar> aj: that leaks different information that people are concerend about i think?
08:38 < gleb> aj: this is a follow-up for #18421
08:38 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18421 | Periodically update DNS caches for better privacy of non-reachable nodes by naumenkogs · Pull Request #18421 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:39 < gleb> I gave up on periodic DNS queries for now :)
08:39 < sipa> ariard: i think that if all connections that convey addr informarion are sybilled, it's game over for addrman sanity
08:39 < sipa> ariard: and blocksonly connections cannot help with that
08:39 < gleb> sipa: but we're not eclipsed at least?
08:40 < sdaftuar> sipa: one alternate implementation idea i had for syncing our chain tip with more peers, was to couple that with addrman updates
08:40 < sipa> gleb: not eclipsed wrt to block propagation
08:40 < gleb> sipa: sure.
08:40 < ariard> sipa: you might still be okay for a while more until your current block-relay-only are stable, and this is already a gain
08:40 < sipa> gleb: but you are eclipsed wrt addr relay, which means addrman will (if the situation persists) become attacker controlled
08:40 < sdaftuar> sipa: so that we bump a peer's status (maybe just updating its times in the tried table) only if their tip was synced to something with as much work as ours, or something like that
08:42 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@75-166-188-219.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:42 < sipa> so i think this means we want full connections, blockonly connections, addronly connections... and diversity of (full+blockonly) and of (full+addronly) ?
08:42 < sdaftuar> i think it would be helpful to run some simulations on that point
08:42 < sipa> or just diversity of everything, really
08:42 < ariard> sdaftuar: if you take this info for future peers selections, you might favor even more performant peers, and tight network topology ?
08:43 < sipa> ariard: being more or less in sync isn't a very strong preference for.performamt peers
08:43 < sipa> just an aversion for broken ones
08:44 < sdaftuar> right, we could put in a tolerance of being a block or two behind, that's very different from having no knowledge of their chain
08:44 < ariard> sipa: aren't low-grades peers really likely to be late on tip view ?
08:44 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:44 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #19918: sync: Replace LockAssertion with WeaklyAssertLockHeld (master...pr/lockb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19918
08:44 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
08:44 < sipa> ariard: by a few seconds maybe
08:45 < sdaftuar> sipa: it seems a shame to not relay blocks on addronly links
08:45 < sdaftuar> (or at least headers)
08:45 < gleb> sdaftuar: agree.
08:45 < jnewbery> gleb: one of your concerns was about an attackers knowing about which netgroups you're connected to. Would it make sense for each node to have their own way of dividing the address space into netgroups (eg by clustering ASs differently)
08:46 < sdaftuar> jnewbery: we do that already, don't we?
08:46 < sipa> jnewbery: we do!
08:46 < jnewbery> oh! Good!
08:46 < sipa> there is an addrman key for that
08:46 < ariard> should we have a hierarchy of types of traffic, i.e it's okay to relay public informations like block on more private ones (tx/addr) but not the reverse ?
08:46 < sdaftuar> that's what i said before about keyed network groups
08:46 < jnewbery> I should have reviewed the AS PRs
08:46 < jnewbery> sdaftuar: got it. Thanks!
08:46 < sipa> jnewbery: this was part of the original addrman :)
08:47 < gleb> Yeah, this part makes it a bit less realistic.
08:47 < jonatack> question: how effective is -seednode/-addnode to trusted peers as an anti-eclipse tactic?
08:47 < jnewbery> sipa: ah, ok. I guess I should just review more of the code in general then :)
08:47 < sipa> jonatack: assuming no network-level attacker, addnode is great for that
08:47 < sdaftuar> well, hopefully your trusted peer is also not eclipsed :)
08:48 < ariard> jonatack: really depends of the capabilites of your eclipse attacker
08:48 < sipa> i see no reason why you wouldn't also send blocks over addr links, agree
08:48 < sdaftuar> sipa: so perhaps we should have two kinds of block-relay links then
08:48 < jonatack> thanks. i seem to recall matt tweeting about doing that a while back
08:49 < gleb> sdaftuar: I'm lost. Which kinds?
08:49 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:49 < sipa> gleb: blocksonly and addrplusblocksonly
08:49 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:50 < aj> is the idea that addr-relay nodes are long-lived or short-lived (like feelers) ?
08:50 < sipa> long-lived, i'd say
08:50 < sdaftuar> aj: i think they could be long lived?  they would be very low bandwidth
08:50 < gleb> I have a branch with short-lived self-announcement addr links :)
08:50 < ariard> even if they're short-lived you want to do headers-sync on them
08:50 < gleb> But that's different from what was discussed.
08:51 < lightlike> hi - we probably can't rely much on our addr-links staying private, or can we?
08:51 < aj> so blocks-only is eclipse prevention, addr+blocks is low-bw extra diversity, tx-relay is tx relay?
08:51 < sdaftuar> i'm actually not sure if it's better to use a connection slot on a long-lived addr+block-relay peer, than it is to just rotate our full-relay peers some and get addrman updates from the getaddr message we send
08:51 < jnewbery> We have 10 minutes left and one other topic (What would a good transaction propagation framework look like? See a first draw Transactions propagation design goals)
08:51 < jnewbery> ariard: are you happy to punt that to the next meeting?
08:52 < ariard> aj: being eclipsed at the tx-relay level is really bad for offchain stuff
08:52 < ariard> jnewbery: I feel we need it better to end on this topics
08:52 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:52 < aj> ariard: not as bad as being eclipsed from the most-work chain though
08:52 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:52 < sdaftuar> lightlike: agreed, addr relay likely leaks topology
08:52 < aj> sipa: (what's the blocker for getting tx relay overhaul rebased/out-of-draft?)
08:53 < gleb> sdaftuar: have you checked out caches yet? It's getting better!
08:53 < sipa> ariard: parse error
08:53 < jnewbery> ariard: does that mean punt to next meeting?
08:53 < ariard> aj: in fact I think that's a bit more subtle, you can close your channels without knowing what the state chain is ?
08:53 < sdaftuar> gleb: no idea what you're referring to...
08:53 < ariard> jnewbery: yes next meeting :)
08:54 < gleb> sdaftuar: #18991
08:54 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18991 | Cache responses to GETADDR to prevent topology leaks by naumenkogs · Pull Request #18991 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:54 < sdaftuar> gleb: oh, addr-relay privacy leaks
08:54 < jnewbery> great. Thanks. That'll also give people a bit more time to read your doc here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19820
08:54 < ariard> sipa: if a LN node can't broadcast its punishment transaction that's worthless to see a revoked commitment transaction on the most-valid PoW chain
08:55 < sipa> ariard: you know my thinking on that
08:55 < aj> ariard: if you see the revoked commitment tx, you can aggressively try connecting to many peers to find one that relays honestly; if you don't see the commitment tx at all, your opportunity to do a punishment can time out
08:55 < sipa> aj: i have a branch where it's half done, but i got preempted by bip340/taproot stuff
08:56 < ariard> sipa: I know, I know that's the reason to talk about #19820 next time :)
08:56 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19820 | Transactions propagation design goals · Issue #19820 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:57 < gleb> Alright, so I think i'll turn that PR into a harmless refactoring (don't diversify by current feeler or oneshot/addr_fetch), and keep the non-diverse/more-private idea for future.
08:57 < sdaftuar> gleb: that sounds good to me.  thanks for the discussion!
08:58 < sipa> gleb: sounds good
08:58 < jnewbery> Thanks gleb!
08:58 < ariard> aj: you can probalistically close your channel, if you don't see block for a hour, that's likely something is wrong (but more an open question how offchain stuff  should react in case of block eclipse)
08:58 < jnewbery> Any final topics before we end? Remember it's feature freeze in 5 weeks (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18947) so it's a great time to shill your PRs!
08:59 < sdaftuar> if we're shilling, i'd love review on #19858
08:59 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19858 | Periodically make block-relay connections and sync headers by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19858 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:59 < ariard> sdaftuar: updated #19871 in the hope to clarify outbound eviction
08:59 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19871 | doc: Clarify scope of eviction protection of outbound block-relay peers by ariard · Pull Request #19871 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:59 < sdaftuar> ariard: thanks, i'll take a look
08:59 < hebasto> o/
08:59 < sipa> i have been succesfully shilled
08:59 < jnewbery> any advances on one shilling?
08:59 < jnewbery> going once
08:59 < hebasto> #17785
08:59 < jonatack> It would be great to have #19643 in master and it seems RFM
08:59 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17785 | p2p: Unify Send and Receive protocol versions by hebasto · Pull Request #17785 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:59 < jnewbery> going twice
08:59 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19643 | Add -netinfo peer connections dashboard by jonatack · Pull Request #19643 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:59 < gleb> super-easy little refactoring which will unlock my future work #19843
08:59 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19843 | Refactoring and minor improvement for self-advertisements by naumenkogs · Pull Request #19843 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:59 < jnewbery> #endmeeting
09:00 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Tue Sep  8 15:59:59 2020 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
09:00 < lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-08-15.00.html
09:00 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-08-15.00.txt
09:00 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-09-08-15.00.log.html
09:00 < sdaftuar> two shillings
09:00 < jnewbery> sold!
09:00 < sdaftuar> i forgot what i was bidding on
09:05 < instagibbs> leading the next core pr review
09:06 < sdaftuar> sweet, instagibbs i pick you
09:07 < aj> "tangy and quite full-bodied, with a lasting, mostly pleasant, aftertaste"
09:07  * aj reviews instagibbs now to get it out of the way
09:09 < sipa> aj: is that how we'll describe connection types in getpeerinfo ?
09:09 < sdaftuar> block-relay peers: mostly pleasant?
09:10 < aj> sipa: full-bodied: relays tx; tangy: relays addresses; lasting aftertase: longlived; mostly pleasant: low but nonzero discouragement score?
09:10 < sipa> something like that
09:11 < aj> bool IsTangy(conn_type ct);
09:11 -!- alko89 [~alko89@unaffiliated/alko89] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.5 - https://znc.in]
09:11 -!- alko89 [~alko89@unaffiliated/alko89] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:12 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef1aef00c4fbf55bc3d75ef3.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:13 < luke-jr> aj: aftertaste implies you stopped using it..?
09:13 < sdaftuar> addr-relay peers really have the best aftertaste imo
09:13 < aj> luke-jr: pause inbetween uses works to i think?
09:13 < luke-jr> not enough to tell that the aftertaste is lasting
09:14 < aj> luke-jr: unrelated, any thoughts on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19401#pullrequestreview-482271390
09:15 < aj> (or anyone else, re: gbt for test chains)
09:15 < luke-jr> aj: I think it's better to avoid special casing test code in the main codebase
09:17 < luke-jr> (not sure if we do, but we *should* have a test that one node by itself can't mine)
09:19 < aj> luke-jr: regtest nodes can trivially mine on their own via generate
09:19 < luke-jr> ok?
09:19 < aj> luke-jr: not being able to mine without being connected matters for mainnet, sure; but not for anything else
09:19 < luke-jr> mainnet is all that matters in the end
09:21 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:23 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:45 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@c-73-34-43-4.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:45 -!- cato_ [~cato@gateway/tor-sasl/alec] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:46 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:46 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] AkioNak opened pull request #19919: bugfix: make LoadWallet assigns status always (master...set_databasestatus) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19919
09:46 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
09:51 -!- cato_ [~cato@gateway/tor-sasl/alec] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:51 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:05 < darosior> jnewbery: you were right regarding #18766: it's much nicer by keeping the feeEstimator as a separate component :)
10:05 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18766 | Disable fee estimation in blocksonly mode (by removing the fee estimates global) by darosior · Pull Request #18766 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
10:15 -!- IGHOR [~quassel@176.121.4.135] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
10:17 -!- IGHOR [~quassel@176.121.4.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:24 < jnewbery> darosior: cool. Thanks for being open to trying it both ways. Hopefully I'll have time to review the new version this week.
10:26 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:26 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:30 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:33 -!- Highway62 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:35 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:35 -!- Highway62 is now known as Highway61
10:45 -!- theStack [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
10:48 -!- opsec_x12 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:54 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:00 -!- afb [~afb@195.206.169.184] has quit []
11:14 -!- filchef [~filchef@212.104.97.177] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:15 -!- filchef [~filchef@212.104.97.177] has quit [Client Quit]
11:25 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@static-240-45-224-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:26 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@static-240-45-224-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:36 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:38 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:42 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
11:47 -!- Highway62 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:47 -!- Highway62 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Client Quit]
11:48 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
11:54 -!- ecrist1 [~ecrist@104.254.90.243] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:00 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
12:03 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:03 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:18 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:22 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
12:27 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:27 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host]
12:27 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:31 < shesek> does bitcoin core ever verify merkle inclusion proofs? (I assume not, it only verifies that the merkle root matches the set of txids. but maybe I'm missing some other ways its being used?)
12:31 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
12:32 < sipa> gettxoutproof will let you construct one
12:32 < sipa> i don't think anything verifies them
12:32 < phantomcircuit> shesek, why?
12:34 < shesek> just curious. I was writing about that in a comment in the context of me claiming that merkle trees aren't an essential component of Bitcoin's breakthrough, and someone saying that they are (and being wrong :p)
12:34 < pinheadmz> sipa isnt there a verifytxoutproof rpc ?
12:34 < shesek> I wanted to write that full nodes don't ever verify merkle inclusion proofs at all, and wanted to be sure I'm not wrong
12:34 < sipa> pinheadmz: oh, there is!
12:35 -!- opsec_x122 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:35 < sipa> shesek: no, they don't even ever receive any
12:35 < shesek> I was thinking more in the context of the protocol and p2p interaction, not the user facing rpcs
12:35 < sipa> though they were an essential part of BIP37
12:35 < shesek> (if anyone is curious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24407196)
12:35 < phantomcircuit> shesek, for a full node theres no real difference between receiving a merkle tree and a hash of a list
12:36 < phantomcircuit> but for spvish clients its very different
12:36 < sipa> yeah, for a full-blocks-only bitcoin like protocol, the "merkle root" stored in the block header could just be a flat hash of all txids
12:36 < shesek> right, my claim was that the SPV model isn't all that important, and that if Satoshi released Bitcoin without considering light clients at all it would still be the incredible breakthrough that it is
12:37 < shesek> I'm aware. :) "If light SPV clients weren't a consideration, we could just concatenate all txids together and use the hash of that in the block header instead of a merkle root, and get the same effect. ... For a full node that has the full list of txids regardless, this is basically meaningless."
12:37 < yanmaani> is txn noninclusion proofs something bitcoin core intends to include?
12:37 < yanmaani> 'UTXO X did/did not exist in the UTXO set as of this block"
12:38 < sipa> yanmaani: the current bitcoin protocol does not permit compact proofs for that
12:38 -!- opsec_x122 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has quit [Client Quit]
12:38 -!- opsec_x12 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:39 -!- opsec_x122 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:39 -!- opsec_x12 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has quit [Read error: No route to host]
12:40 -!- opsec_x122 is now known as opsec_x12
12:42 < yanmaani> I know, but is there any research being done? Like on BIPs or stuff? I know about utreexo
12:42 < sipa> in that case, you're asking about proposal bitcoin protocol changes, not bitcoin core
12:42 -!- opsec_x122 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:43 < sipa> utreexo doesn't permit this, as it's insertion ordered
12:43 -!- opsec_x12 [~opsec_x12@44-25-143-49.ip.hamwan.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:43 < sipa> probably better for #bitcoin-wizards
12:48 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:48 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:48 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:48 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:59 -!- crtn32002[m] [crtn32002m@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-ohxxzvuqlttthsnb] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:03 -!- gzhao408 [uid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-srruwobpjzhulrgk] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
13:09 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef1aef00a845008f232485aa.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:13 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:13 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:17 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/147d50d63e07...4f229d8904f8
13:17 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa7e407 MarcoFalke: Do not pass chain params to CheckForStaleTipAndEvictPeers twice
13:17 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4f229d8 MarcoFalke: Merge #19914: refactor: Do not pass chain params to CheckForStaleTipAndEvi...
13:17 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
13:17 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19914: refactor: Do not pass chain params to CheckForStaleTipAndEvictPeers twice (master...2009-netNo2ChainParams) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19914
13:17 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
13:20 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
13:24 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)]
13:53 -!- gleb [~gleb@178.150.137.228] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:58 -!- gleb [~gleb@178.150.137.228] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:00 -!- ecrist1 [~ecrist@104.254.90.243] has quit []
14:03 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:15 -!- filchef [~filchef@212.104.97.177] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:16 -!- filchef [~filchef@212.104.97.177] has quit [Client Quit]
14:21 -!- Voker571 [~Voker57@178.162.212.214] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:21 -!- promag [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:22 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:29 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:29 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] elichai opened pull request #19920: test: Fuzzing siphash against reference implementation [Request for feedback] (master...2020-fuzzing-siphash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19920
14:29 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
14:35 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:37 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:39 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:39 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:39 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:39 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:45 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:45 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:57 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:00 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:01 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:11 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:12 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:26 -!- palazzovincenzo [~vincent@host-82-60-201-14.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:38 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:47 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef1aef00a845008f232485aa.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:54 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@c-73-34-43-4.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
15:59 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:01 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:02 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@c-73-34-43-4.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:04 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:04 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dr-orlovsky closed pull request #19907: util: add psbt combiner role (master...feat/psbt-combiner) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19907
16:04 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
16:08 -!- marcoagner [~user@bl11-17-219.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
16:09 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:10 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:23 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:29 -!- tryphe_ [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:32 -!- tryphe [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
16:56 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:56 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:59 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:00 -!- Voker571 [~Voker57@178.162.212.214] has quit []
17:00 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:00 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:01 -!- go121212 [~go1111111@104.156.98.86] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:03 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:03 -!- go11111111111 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
17:06 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:06 -!- Tennis [~Tennis@unaffiliated/tennis] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:12 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:13 -!- Tennis [~Tennis@unaffiliated/tennis] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:14 -!- Tennis [~Tennis@unaffiliated/tennis] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:17 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
17:22 -!- Rennex1 [~Rennex@s91904426.blix.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:27 -!- gribble [~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:35 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:36 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:37 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:40 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:41 -!- gribble [~gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:42 -!- worc3131 [~quassel@2a02:c7f:c026:9500:7d0b:65d0:38a4:4786] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
17:45 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
17:45 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:46 -!- worc3131 [~quassel@2a02:c7f:c026:9500:7d0b:65d0:38a4:4786] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:51 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:53 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:00 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:01 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:12 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:12 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:14 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:15 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:15 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:18 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:18 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:23 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
18:24 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6981:7880::1e7] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:25 -!- v14 [93a177b0@147.161.119.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:34 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:35 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:39 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:40 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:49 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@c-73-34-43-4.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
18:50 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
18:52 -!- v14 [93a177b0@147.161.119.176] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
18:54 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:54 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:58 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:58 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:02 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
19:03 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:06 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
19:06 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:28 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:32 -!- promag_ [~promag@Bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:39 -!- vhuffst [vhuffst@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/vhuffst] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:40 -!- isis is now known as isis_
19:40 -!- vhuffst [vhuffst@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/vhuffst] has quit [Client Quit]
19:41 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:41 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #19695: [do not merge] Test impact of secp256k1 endianness detection change (master...202008_test_appveyer_secp256k1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19695
19:42 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
19:57 -!- tryphe_ [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:57 -!- tryphe_ [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:00 -!- Rennex1 [~Rennex@s91904426.blix.com] has quit []
20:04 -!- go11111111111 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:04 -!- go121212 [~go1111111@104.156.98.86] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:06 -!- go121212 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:09 -!- go11111111111 [go1111111@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/go1111111] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:11 -!- opsec_x122 is now known as opsec_x12
20:16 -!- tryphe_ [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:16 -!- tryphe [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:19 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:21 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@84.39.116.180] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:22 -!- midnightmagic is now known as Guest32689
20:23 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
20:30 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:30 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:32 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:32 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:47 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:56 -!- mekster6 [~mekster@139.180.192.79] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:57 -!- Evel-Knievel [~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
20:57 -!- sr_gi [~sr_gi@static-240-45-224-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer]
20:57 -!- sr_gi6 [~sr_gi@static-240-45-224-77.ipcom.comunitel.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:58 -!- TheHoliestRoger [~TheHolies@unaffiliated/theholiestroger] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:58 -!- mekster [~mekster@139.180.192.79] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:58 -!- mekster6 is now known as mekster
20:58 -!- Evel-Knievel [~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:59 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-30-112.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:59 -!- TheHoliestRoger [~TheHolies@unaffiliated/theholiestroger] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:19 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:20 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:24 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:34 -!- melande [~melande@gateway/tor-sasl/melande] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:37 -!- melande [~melande@gateway/tor-sasl/melande] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:53 -!- tralfaz [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:53 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:11 -!- melande [~melande@gateway/tor-sasl/melande] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:12 -!- melande [~melande@gateway/tor-sasl/melande] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:15 -!- tralfaz [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:16 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:20 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:24 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
22:25 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
22:26 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:30 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
22:30 -!- melande [~melande@gateway/tor-sasl/melande] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:31 -!- melande [~melande@gateway/tor-sasl/melande] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:32 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:36 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
22:44 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:45 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:00 -!- Guest32689 [~midnightm@84.39.116.180] has quit []
23:01 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:02 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:06 -!- melande [~melande@gateway/tor-sasl/melande] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:07 -!- melande [~melande@gateway/tor-sasl/melande] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:17 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:17 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:17 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:21 -!- whartung1 [~whartung@84.39.117.57] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:30 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@185.244.212.67] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:30 < vasild> Next step to TORv3 is at #19845, waiting for some reviewers to shoot it down :)
23:30 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19845 | net: CNetAddr: add support to (un)serialize as ADDRv2 by vasild · Pull Request #19845 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
23:34 < jonatack> 👍
23:38 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:39 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:39 -!- arowser [~arowser1@204.124.180.72] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:41 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
23:46 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:791d:bd7e:eb3c:f699] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:49 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:49 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@185.244.212.67] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex]
23:50 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
23:54 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@185.244.212.67] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:54 -!- promag_ [~promag@bl19-22-20.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:56 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:56 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:59 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@185.244.212.67] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex]
--- Log closed Wed Sep 09 00:00:13 2020