--- Day changed Thu May 18 2017
00:10 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@5.79.76.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:10 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@5.79.76.38] has quit [Changing host]     
00:10 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:11 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
00:11 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@5.79.76.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:11 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@5.79.76.38] has quit [Changing host]     
00:11 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:16 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:23 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
00:26 -!- jtimon [~quassel@117.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
00:27 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:38 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:45 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
00:52 -!- Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca     
00:53 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10419: [trivial] Fix two recently introduced typos (master...typos-201705) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10419
00:56 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
00:58 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:09 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:09 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ae786098bc58...2acface32aba
01:09 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 64aa36e ロハン ダル: param variables made const
01:09 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d60d54d ロハン ダル: merge with bitcoin core
01:09 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2acface Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9750: Bloomfilter: parameter variables made constant...
01:10 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9750: Bloomfilter: parameter variables made constant (master...bloomVar) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9750
01:10 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:13 < fanquake> What we really need is a bot that picks out every typo, spurious include and incorrect space from every new PR, and embarrassingly notifies the contributor of their transgression
01:13 < fanquake>  /s     
01:14 < wumpus> in triplicate, of course
01:15 < wumpus> for typos in translation strings it could even be useful
01:15 < wumpus> but in comments, bleh
01:16 < wumpus> especially if the gist of the word is clear anyway
01:29 -!- lichtamberg_ [~Adium@80-110-107-76.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:29 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
01:29 -!- bitcoinreminder_ [uid220256@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jzfbdqlthieaadld] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:30 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:35 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:18 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 8 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2acface32aba...962cd3f0587e
02:18 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fbf385c Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] simple fee bumper with user verification
02:18 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2ec911f Jonas Schnelli: Add cs_wallet lock assertion to SignTransaction()
02:18 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2678d3d Jonas Schnelli: Show old-fee, increase a new-fee in Qt fee bumper confirmation dialog
02:19 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #9697: [Qt] simple fee bumper with user verification (master...2017/02/qt_bumpfee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9697
02:20 < jonasschnelli> Added https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10240 to the "High-priority for review" project
02:26 -!- lichtamberg_ [~Adium@80-110-107-76.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
02:35 -!- harrymm [~wayne@45.56.152.28] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
02:36 -!- lichtamberg_ [~Adium@2a02:8388:2040:c880:21eb:dc5c:c98:41d3] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:39 < timothy> hi, is there a max size for rev*.dat files?
02:40 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:40 < wumpus> timothy: afaik no, the size of the rev depends on what is in the blk*.dat which is size-limited though
02:40 < timothy> yes, max size of blk is 128 MiB
02:41 < wumpus> I suppose the rev will always be smaller than the blk
02:41 < gmaxwell> wumpus: it could be larger if you did something absurd.
02:41 < timothy> gmaxwell: absurd like what?
02:42 < gmaxwell> wumpus: e.g. say early blocks make zillions of 9999 byte outputs, spendable with OP_TRUE.  then later blocks spend them and do nothing else.
02:42 < gmaxwell> That will make the rev data larger than the related blocks.
02:43 < timothy> right
02:43 < gmaxwell> you could get them up to a ratio of perhaps 230 times larger.
02:44 < timothy> still less than 4GB (max file size of FAT32)
02:44 < gmaxwell> of course none of these txn would pass standardness tests and what not... not likely to see it in mainnet, but it's possible.
02:44 < timothy> uhm no, more than that
02:44 < timothy> 30 GB
02:46 < wumpus> oh wow that's pretty bad
02:47 < wumpus> so I guess ideally the logic should be: if *either* the rev or dat reaches 128MB, roll to the next file
02:51 -!- JackH [~laptop@85.219.170.195] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
02:52 < timothy> is there any reason to use 128 MiB instead of other values?
02:52 < gmaxwell> it should be relatively small because it preallocates to reduce fragmentation. (or otherwise windows users cry)
02:52 < timothy> NTFS doesn't support fallocate or similar?
02:52 < gmaxwell> but not so small that its making a kazillion files and causing poor file system performance.
02:53 < timothy> I mean, preallocation without really writing the bytes
02:53 < gmaxwell> I long since forgot what the tradeoff surface was on windows.
02:53 < gmaxwell> But I didn't think NTFS did sparse files.
02:54 < wumpus> I guess it could harmlessly be changed to 256, but I expect there to be no performance gain
02:54 < gmaxwell> wumpus: 60 GB rev files! :P
02:54 < wumpus> gmaxwell: yeah after rev files capped ofcourse
02:59 < wumpus> with a blow-up of 230, at least one block's undo data would fit into that :-)
03:00 < gmaxwell> sipa might have more accurate figures on the worst case, but it's something around that much.
03:02 < wumpus> "Most modern file systems support sparse files, including most Unix variants and NTFS, but notably not Apple's HFS+. Sparse files are commonly used for disk images, database snapshots, log files and in scientific applications."
03:03 < wumpus> so MacOS is the problem here, not windows
03:07 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@jupiter.osmus.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:07 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@jupiter.osmus.org] has quit [Changing host]     
03:07 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:10 < gmaxwell> The extra question though is if they prevent fragmentation.
03:12 < wumpus> I don't know, is there such a guarantee for UNIX filesystems?
03:14 < wumpus> oh I was confused, this isn't about sparse files at all but posix_fallocate
03:15 < wumpus> in which case the disk space is reserved explicitly
03:15 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@104.192.2.226] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:17 < gmaxwell> sorry, confusion I caused, late here.
03:17 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
03:18 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
03:19 < wumpus> we apparently do have an implementation of AllocateFileRange for windows, but as I understand from MSDN it might create a sparse file (SetEndOfFile sets the file size,but not the "allocation size"), so this confusion is more general :)
03:22 < wumpus> the documentation is confusing though so I'm not sure
03:23 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:23 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:27 -!- molz_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
03:29 -!- riemann [~riemann@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:39 -!- bitcoinreminder_ [uid220256@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jzfbdqlthieaadld] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
03:40 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:44 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Client Quit]     
04:00 -!- lichtamberg_ [~Adium@2a02:8388:2040:c880:21eb:dc5c:c98:41d3] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []     
04:18 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
04:19 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:22 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:31 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
05:16 -!- jtimon [~quassel@117.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:35 -!- str4d [~str4d@27.110.123.91] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:56 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.237.91.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:58 -!- rgod [~rgod@12.20.48.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:59 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #9427: Use compact blocks for blocks that have equal work to our active tip (master...UseCmpctBlockForCompetingBlocks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9427
06:04 -!- JackH [~laptop@85.219.170.195] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:58 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:05 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:06 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:08 -!- str4d [~str4d@27.110.123.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
07:14 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:15 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
07:24 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
07:26 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:30 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #10420: Add Qt tests for wallet spends & bumpfee (master...pr/btest) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10420
07:30 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:42 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]     
07:58 -!- riemann [~riemann@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
08:24 -!- BartokIT [~BartokIT@host231-230-dynamic.19-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:24 -!- BartokIT [~BartokIT@host231-230-dynamic.19-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Quit: Hermes - Material IRC Client - https://numixproject.org/]     
08:24 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:25 -!- BartokIT [~BartokIT@host231-230-dynamic.19-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:27 < BartokIT> I want a clarification about the BIP32, is this the correct group
08:31 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:32 < BartokIT> The BIP32 allow to audit sharing the master public key
08:33 < BartokIT> This is mentioned in the mediawiki 
08:35 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
08:35 < BartokIT> But if we use the hardened key this is impossible? Is this wrong?
08:39 -!- BartokIT [~BartokIT@host231-230-dynamic.19-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
08:46 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:54 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
08:57 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:03 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
09:17 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
09:18 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
09:19 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:36 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10421: [qt] Remove excess logic (master...if-expr-return-true-else-return-false) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10421
09:38 -!- annanay25 [~csbtech@geekon.tech] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
09:38 -!- annanay25 [~csbtech@geekon.tech] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:39 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #10422: Fix timestamp in fee estimate debug message (master...fixtimeunits) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10422
09:39 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.237.91.162] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
09:40 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:42 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.237.91.207] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:51 < sipa> wumpus, gmaxwell: the 128 MiB is a tradeoff between fragmentation overhead and granularity for pruning
09:51 < sipa> the very first versions of the patch that introduced it (ultraprune) just used a single file per block
09:51 < sipa> but that was very slow
09:54 < luke-jr> sipa: I wonder if pruning ought to perhaps consider punching sparse holes?
09:54 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
09:55 < sipa> luke-jr: i think we can also just reduce that 128MiB number significantly
09:55 < morcos> i think 128 works fine for now doesn't it? 
09:55 < luke-jr> maybe. but some filesystems perform differently than others..
09:55 < morcos> perhaps if we properly introduce sharding, then we need to rethink the design
09:55 < luke-jr> btrfs is annoyingly slow, I've found.
09:56 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:03 < wumpus> sipa: yes, it seems a good compromise
10:03 < wumpus> AFAIK monero stores all blocks in a single lmdb
10:04 < wumpus> why reduce the 128? agree with morcosthat it works fine
10:06 -!- rgod_ [~rgod@12.20.48.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:06 < wumpus> for pruning granularity it's also good enough, given how much space the utxo database takes a variance of 128mb+~16mb (usual rev files) doesn't seem to bad
10:07 -!- rgod [~rgod@12.20.48.10] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
10:14 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:19 < wumpus> although it could be worse than that in some cases depending on how blocks are distributed over the files
10:21 -!- rgod_ [~rgod@12.20.48.10] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
10:27 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
10:31 < sipa> wumpus: ok
10:49 < wumpus> and 128mb is at most 128 blocks, less than a day of blocks, even less than that w/ witness data, it's not that much
10:49 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:51 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
10:59 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/962cd3f0587e...28c6e8d71b3a
10:59 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d8e03c0 Jack Grigg: torcontrol: Improve comments
10:59 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 29f3c20 Jack Grigg: torcontrol: Add unit tests for Tor reply parsers
10:59 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d63677b Jack Grigg: torcontrol: Fix ParseTorReplyMapping...
11:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10408: Net: Improvements to Tor control port parser (master...torcontrol-parser-patches) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10408
11:13 < luke-jr> wumpus: it's much more than 128 blocks early in the chain?
11:13 < sipa> yes     
11:13 < wumpus> luke-jr: of course, but it blasts past that anyway
11:14 < wumpus> most pruning nodes will be - more or less - up to date
11:20 < wumpus> but yes it's easy to forget that once, blocks were that far from full 
11:27 -!- Sprh [~Sprh@12.20.48.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:39 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
11:41 -!- zooko [~chrome@c-73-181-114-81.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:51 -!- MrHodl [~fuc@104.145.225.178] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:51 -!- MrHodl [~fuc@104.145.225.178] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []     
11:51 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs closed pull request #9102: Really don't validate genesis block (master...dontvalidategenesis) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9102
11:55 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
12:01 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
12:01 < luke-jr> meeting?
12:01 < jonasschnelli> jup     
12:01 < gmaxwell> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
12:01 < sdaftuar> hello
12:01 < instagibbs> here
12:01 < CodeShark> hi     
12:01 < wumpus> #startmeeting
12:01 < lightningbot> Meeting started Thu May 18 19:01:43 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
12:01 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
12:02 < kanzure> hi.     
12:02 < sipa> yow     
12:02 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:02 < cfields> hi     
12:02 < CodeShark> I just have one topic for today, but I'll let others suggest theirs
12:02 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/28c6e8d71b3a...ea6fde3f1d26
12:02 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 618d07f Jorge Timón: MOVEONLY: tx functions to consensus/tx_verify.o...
12:02 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ea6fde3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8329: Consensus: MOVEONLY: Move functions for tx verification...
12:02 < wumpus> topics?
12:02 < CodeShark> #topic clientside filtering
12:02 < jonasschnelli> ack     
12:03 < luke-jr> BIP148
12:03 < luke-jr> (after clientside filtering etc)
12:03 < wumpus> I don't think that works CodeShark, I think only the chair can set the topic
12:03 < wumpus> #topic clientside filtering
12:03 < CodeShark> :)     
12:04 < CodeShark> so there are several filtering options with different performance tradeoffs
12:04 < CodeShark> bloom filters have been typically considered - but there are some other ideas that might be worth considering
12:04 < jonasschnelli> Filter for BDF, read gmaxwell's reply: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012637.html
12:05 < CodeShark> roasbeef has worked on an idea based on golomb coded sets
12:05 < jonasschnelli> «he most efficient data structure is similar to a bloom filter, but you use more bits and only one hash function. The result will be mostly zero bits. Then you entropy code it using RLE+Rice coding or an optimal binomial packer (e.g. https://people.xiph.org/~greg/binomial_codec.c).»
12:05 < sipa> yes?
12:05 < CodeShark> gcs sacrifices CPU for space
12:06 < jonasschnelli> I think what we would need is data about the filter size for the last 100000 blocks... 
12:06 < CodeShark> filters are smaller, but queries are more computationally expensive
12:06 < gmaxwell> CodeShark: CPU for who when is always the question.
12:06 < roasbeef> jonasschnelli: I have that
12:06 < jonasschnelli> roasbeef: Oo... share?
12:06 < CodeShark> hey, roasbeef! :)
12:07 < gmaxwell> what BIP37 does is very cpu expensive for the serving party, which is why it leads to dos attacks.
12:07 < gmaxwell> with any of the map based proposals that goes away and the cost to construct is not very relevant.
12:07 < CodeShark> constructing a gcs isn't very computationally expensive
12:07 < sipa> more so than bip37
12:07 < gmaxwell> Similarly, cost to lookup is not very relevant, the reciever will decode one per block.
12:07 < CodeShark> the queries are a little more computationally expensive than bloom filters, but that is done on client
12:07 < roasbeef> jonasschnelli: i have a csv file of stats for the entire chain, can easily get the last 100k out of it, the csv file itself is 14MB
12:07 < gmaxwell> sipa: maybe the lots of hash functions make it more expensive than you might guess.
12:08 < jonasschnelli> roasbeef: I take the complete one,. thanks. :)
12:08 < CodeShark> but gcs only needs to be computed once per block
12:08 < sipa> CodeShark: do you suggest this as something that blocks commit to?
12:08 < sipa> or something that a full node would precompute and store?
12:08 < roasbeef> with bloom filters, there are several hash functions, with the gcs based approach, there's a single hash function. but the set itself is compressed, so you need to decompress as you query 
12:08 < CodeShark> the latter for starters
12:08 < sipa> i suppose the last
12:08 < jonasschnelli> precomp and store
12:08 < roasbeef> sipe: something a node would precompute and store, to start 
12:08 < sipa> okay
12:09 < sipa> what would be stored in the set?
12:09 < gmaxwell> I'm dubious that we'd get state of the art performance from golomb coding, but interested to see. 
12:09 < jonasschnelli> Can be done after the block has been connected
12:10 < gmaxwell> sipa: I believe the discussion is the 'bloom map' proposal. 
12:10 < CodeShark> roasbeef was suggesting two filters - one for super lightweight clients, another for clients that require more sophisticated queries
12:10 < jonasschnelli> What are the differences? The tx template types?
12:10 < CodeShark> the former would only encode UTXOs, the latter would also encode witness data
12:10 < gmaxwell> encode witness data?!
12:11 < CodeShark> well, if you want to query for whether a particular execution path has been taken - necessary for things like lightning
12:11 < roasbeef> basic has: outpoints, script data pushes. extended has: witness stack, sig script data pushes, txids 
12:11 < sipa> but do you need to _search_ based on witness data?
12:11 < sipa> i understand you may want to see it
12:12 < sipa> but you know what UTXOs to query for, no?
12:12 < CodeShark> I'm guessing revocation enforcement might be outsourced to nodes that cannot know the exact transaction format - only some key
12:12 < CodeShark> roasbeef, wanna comment?
12:12 < gmaxwell> Yes, requesting it is fine, searching on it?  Be careful: it has serious long term implications if you expect that data will even be readily available.  I am doubtful five years from now most nodes will have any witness data from more than a year back.
12:13 < gmaxwell> (witness data also means non-utxo transaction data in that above comment)
12:13 < gmaxwell> aside, I'm glad to hear this discussion has moved past just replicating the BIP37 mechenism.
12:13 < roasbeef> rationale to include witness data was to allow light cleitns to efficielty scan for things like reusable addresses (stealth addresses), i think my model of how folks do that on-chain these days is dated thoughu, i guess they stuff a notification on Op_returns? 
12:14 < sipa> i'm not sure that is worth the cost
12:14 < sipa> also, individual scriptPubKey pushes?
12:14 < sipa> if anything, my preference would just be outpoints and full scriptPubKeys
12:14 < roasbeef> they do make the extended filters quite a bit bigger (i have testnet data also) 
12:14 < gmaxwell> well no one does those things in practice, and everyone who previously has implemented them that I'm aware of performed all scanning via a centeralized server, even though they could have matched on the OP_RETURN.
12:15 < CodeShark> we can always start with the simplest minimal filter and then add more if we find use cases
12:15 < roasbeef> gmaxwell: well the intention was to allow the new light client mode to actually make using them pratcical without delegating to a central server 
12:15 < gmaxwell> roasbeef: that was already possible with BIP37 and the prior design.
12:15 < jonasschnelli> Can we start with adding the same elements that bip37 does?
12:15 < roasbeef> sipa: so including the op-codes?
12:16 < gmaxwell> Usuabilty of SPV clients that scan using BIP37 is really poor though, thus the rise of electrum. 
12:16 < sipa> roasbeef: bah, and 1) further encourage op_returns and 2) make them even more expensive for full nodes?
12:16 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: the things BIP37 added largely turned out to be a mistake that really degraded BIP37 so I hope a new proposal would do less.
12:16 < sipa> well the degradation problem doesn't exist here
12:16 < sipa> as the filter is not cumulative
12:17 < luke-jr> sipa: is there a way to do it without OP_RETURN?
12:17 < gmaxwell> yes, but you still need a bigger filter for same FP ratio. It's just less awful. :)
12:17 < sipa> luke-jr: sure, payment protocol like systems
12:17 < luke-jr> well, true, but then you don't need the crypto stuff for it
12:17 < sipa> i think that's a separate discussion and probably not one for here
12:17 < luke-jr> k     
12:17 < CodeShark> for starters we should look at the most basic use cases
12:18 < gmaxwell> Yea, we should have a subcommittee. :P
12:18 < sipa> jonasschnelli, CodeShark, roasbeef: is there a use case for individual pushes in scriptPubKeys?
12:18 < jonasschnelli> the action is probably define a set of filter and create a spec that leaves room for future filter types
12:18 < CodeShark> jonasschnelli: indeed
12:18 < sipa> especially in a world where everything is P2PKH/P2SH/P2WPKH/P2WSH
12:18 < CodeShark> once we have the framework for adding new filters, it should be easy to do
12:18 -!- ajd_ [~Anthony@2001:470:daef:e1e1:27a3:b8c8:9db:79f6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:18 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: multiple filter types can result in n-fold overhead, which will be a significant pressure against defining many.
12:18 < roasbeef> sipa: sure, the filter is smaller if one doesn't include the op-code as well 
12:19 < sipa> roasbeef: eh?
12:19 < sipa> i must be misunderstanding something then
12:19 < roasbeef> oh you mean insert the _entire_ thing 
12:19 < sipa> yes, just the whole scriptPubKey
12:19 < sipa> 1 element per output
12:19 < sipa> well, and another one for the outpoint
12:20 < roasbeef> mhmm, only advtange to data pushes in that case is in a world where mbare multi-sig is actually used 
12:20 < gmaxwell> sipa: wait why?
12:20 < sipa> gmaxwell: why what?
12:20 < gmaxwell> roasbeef: yes, which we don't expect that world to exist. 
12:20 < sipa> roasbeef: yes, the reason it's in BIP37 is for bare multisig support... but i don't think that's very interesting now
12:20 < gmaxwell> sipa: I expect one insert per output. The scriptpubkey. Why would you insert anything else (for normal functionality)
12:21 -!- justan0theruser is now known as justanotheruser     
12:21 < gmaxwell> s/now/ever/ but hindsight is 20/20
12:21 < gmaxwell> blockchain isn't a message bus. :P
12:21 < sipa> i guess if you want to look for an outpoint, you can always search for its scriptPubKey
12:21 < gmaxwell> sipa: right.
12:21 < gmaxwell> okay.
12:21 < sipa> in BIP37 there was a reason to separate it, as it would be less bandwidth if you wanted a specific coutpoint, despite there being many scriptPubKeys with it
12:22 < sipa> but here, that reason doesn't really matter i think?
12:22 < sipa> roasbeef: what do you think? just a filter with scriptPubKeys?
12:22 < gmaxwell> sipa: the privacy leak from correlated data still exists in map proposals, based on what blocks you choose to scan further, though much less severe than BIP37. Keep that in mind.
12:22 < roasbeef> if it's just spk's, then how does one query the filters to see if an outoint has been spent? 
12:23 < sipa> roasbeef: by querying for the scriptPubKey that outpoint created
12:23 < sipa> roasbeef: which you will always know, i think?
12:23 < gmaxwell> roasbeef: by looking for its spk.
12:24 < roasbeef> sipa: which would require adding parts of the witness/sigScript though? 
12:24 < sipa> ?     
12:24 < sipa> i'm confused
12:24 < roasbeef> me too :)
12:24 < CodeShark> txhash:txindex -> scriptPubKey
12:24 < sipa> maybe we should do this outside of the meeting
12:24 < gmaxwell> roasbeef: has nothing to do with the witness. You validate the transaction, you know the content of the outpoint.
12:24 < sipa> it seems we're doing protocol design here now
12:25 < gmaxwell> 12:17 < gmaxwell> Yea, we should have a subcommittee. :P
12:25 < CodeShark> anyhow, we don't need to decide the specifics of what goes in the filter right now
12:25 < sipa> agree
12:25 < roasbeef> ok, sure, to summarize: we have working code for the construction, have nearly finished integrating it into lnd, have a BIP draft that should be ready by next week-ish (will also integrate feedback from thjis discussion) 
12:25 < CodeShark> I like the idea of creating a framework that allows us to arbitrarily define filters later on
12:25 < sipa> i think it's an interesting thing to research further
12:25 < sipa> not sure what else needs to be discussed here
12:25 < gmaxwell> well we aren't deciding anything right now... :)
12:25 < gmaxwell> CodeShark: I do not.
12:26 < jonasschnelli> BTW: kallewoof has an draft impl. on serving filters over the p2p (though bloom): https://github.com/kallewoof/bitcoin/pull/1/files (in case someone wants to drive this further)
12:26 < gmaxwell> CodeShark: there is an n-fold cost to additional filters. It is unlikely to me that nodes would be willing to carry arbritarily many in the future.
12:26 < gmaxwell> CodeShark: there might be a reasonable case for more than one, sure.
12:26 < gmaxwell> In any case, I think this is good to open up more discussion and participation.
12:27 < gmaxwell> I'm quite happy to hear that there is activity in this area and I'd like to help.
12:27 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I see this point but I don't think it would hurt if the specs would allow new filter types
12:27 < CodeShark> gmaxwell: point is the code complexity to support adding arbitrary filters isn't that great and it avoids the bikeshed in writing up the initial BIP ;)
12:27 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: yea sure, whatever, but thats just a type paramter. 
12:27 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: right.
12:28 < sipa> end of topic?
12:28  * roasbeef now uunderstands what sipa was referring to 
12:28 < wumpus> I don't think any other have been proposed?
12:28 < gmaxwell> you're gonna regret saying that.. :P
12:29 < gmaxwell> quick: high priority PRs.
12:29 < wumpus> nearly halfway time
12:29 < jonasschnelli> kallewoof had also an approch that peers could serve digests of filters to check the integrity among different peers
12:29 < wumpus> #topic high priority PRs
12:29 < sipa> small topic for later: bytes_serialized
12:29 < gmaxwell> Congrats Morcos on the merge of the new fee estimator stuff.
12:29 < jonasschnelli> \o/     
12:29 < sipa> it will need cleanups, but that's fine
12:29 < morcos> thanks, quick PSA..  if you run master now it'll blow away your old fee estimates, you might want to make a copy
12:30 < wumpus> quite a few high priority PRs were merged this week, so there's place for new ones, please speak up if there's any that block further work for you
12:30 < gmaxwell> "micros" not withstanding.
12:30 < morcos> i'm hoping to get an improvment which makes the transition more seamless before 0.15
12:30 < sdaftuar> sipa: i'm basically done reviewing per-txout (#10195), looks awesome! running some benchmarks now.
12:30 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:30 < sipa> sdaftuar: thank you so much
12:31 < gmaxwell> I've been testing per-txout. Survived a few crashes so far.
12:31 < wumpus> I've been testing #10195 for a while, haven't run into any problems
12:31 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:31 < instagibbs> morcos, dont look now but it's being used in anger on multiple large wallet services :)
12:31 < sipa> instagibbs: "in anger" ?
12:31 < instagibbs> "doing it live"
12:32 < gmaxwell> "hold my beer"
12:32 < morcos> heh.. fools, the whole reason to merge it into master was to get it some more testing
12:32 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: have you done the multiwallet rebasing?
12:32 < jtimon> there's not many explicit acks on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10339
12:32 < luke-jr> I didn't realise jtimon's PR was merged?
12:32 < instagibbs> morcos, well, other services were doing crazy things.. (ok enough off-topic)
12:33 < jtimon> luke-jr: which one?
12:33 < wumpus> so, ok, any new ones?
12:33 < luke-jr> jtimon: args refactor
12:33 < ryanofsky> i'd like more review on #10295, it is blocking my ipc prs
12:33 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10295 | [qt] Move some WalletModel functions into CWallet by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10295 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:33 < sipa> ryanofsky: ack, i started reviewing that
12:33 < jonasschnelli> I have added #10240 today
12:33 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10240 | Add HD wallet auto-restore functionality by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10240 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:33 < sipa> jonasschnelli: sgtm
12:33 < jtimon> luke-jr: I see #9494
12:33 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9494 | Introduce an ArgsManager class encapsulating cs_args, mapArgs and mapMultiArgs by jtimon · Pull Request #9494 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:33 < luke-jr> ok, looks like 4 days ago it was; I'll rebase multiwallet then
12:33 < sipa> luke-jr: thank you
12:34 < jonasschnelli> luke-jr: great. I promise to test
12:34 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: thank you!
12:35 < jonasschnelli> ryanofsky: will do the 10295 review. Thanks for the info
12:35 < sipa> short point: wrt the pruned-node-serving, see http://bitcoin.sipa.be/depths.png
12:35 < wumpus> added 10295  and 10339
12:35 -!- stickcuck [~austerity@unaffiliated/austeritysucks] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:35 < wumpus> #topic pruned-node serving
12:35 < sipa> see that graph, the title is wrong
12:35 < jonasschnelli> Currently overhauling the BIP
12:35 < sipa> it shows the relative depth of each block downloaded from my node _excluding_ compact blocks
12:36 < sipa> gmaxwell did some statistical analysis on it
12:36 -!- BMRelayBot [~BMRelayBo@d40ab76b.rev.stofanet.dk] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:36 < gmaxwell> Sipa's data is interesting. 144 is to small for sure.  1008 is fine.  I'm of the view that we don't need more than a dozen or so blocks of headroom.  I think the BIP should be written based on what you should keep.  How you decide where to fetch depends on exactly what you're doing.
12:37 < stickcuck> hm     
12:37 < gmaxwell> I found no really evidence of a real preference for N weeks in sipas data, but rather, advantages for doing 1-day 2-day 3-day ...  etc. But 'day' is a lot more than 144 blocks, because of hashrate increases.
12:38 < gmaxwell> You can process the data to roughly remove IBDing peers and the fall off is pretty stark.
12:38 < gmaxwell> note sipas graph ignores depth 0.
12:38 < sipa> it'd be a hockeystick if it included 0
12:38 < jonasschnelli> What would you recommend for "day" instead 144, calc in the historical hashrate increase?
12:38 < gmaxwell> also 0 data is inaccurate because it excludes compact blocks
12:39 -!- zooko [~chrome@c-73-181-114-81.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
12:39 < sipa> gmaxwell: didn't you suggest 288?
12:39 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I think we should make the first threshold 288. It's more than enough to cover a 'day' in practice.
12:39 < jonasschnelli> 288 and 1008...
12:39 < jonasschnelli> But then the current minimum (prune=550) would not allow to signal the LOW mode?
12:40 < morcos> the current minimum is 288
12:40 < gmaxwell> and then peers should estimate what they need (based on time, or headers if they have them) and choose where to connect. The estimate should be conservative but it doesn't need to be a 100 block headroom, a dozen blocks should be fine. If you get headers and find that you need more, you'll disconnect and go elsewhere.
12:40 < jonasschnelli> Or is 288 including headroom?
12:40 < morcos> the 550 is just so you don't set a prune limit which you have no hope of respecting
12:40 < gmaxwell> the minimum is 288 blocks.
12:40 < morcos> its out of date with segwit
12:40 < gmaxwell> and we'll blow over the prune setting to preserve 288 blocks.
12:40 < morcos> i think the calculation is presented in the code comments
12:41 < jonasschnelli> Yes. 288 is the minimum. So we should remove the BIP headroom/buffer from the BIP
12:41 < gmaxwell> I think eventually we should be changing the prune setting to be enum-like but thats another matter.
12:41 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I think the BIP shouldn't have any buffer.  "You store X from your tip" "You store Y from your tip"  it can then make advice to users on how to choose connections. but the requirement is just what you promise to store.
12:42 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: ack
12:43 < gmaxwell> The advice can say to use the best info you have available (time or headers if you have them) to figure out what you need, and then give enough headroom maybe 6 or 12 blocks that you can fetch parents.  The cost of connecting to someone that doesn't have what you need is not that great. You'll request headers from them, learn you need blocks they don't have and you'll disconnect them and connect
12:43 < gmaxwell>  to someone else.
12:44 < jonasschnelli> For the 1008 I guess the BIP can no longer state blocks for 1 week. Now the question is to use 2016 or say it 3.5 days..
12:44 < sipa> ?     
12:44 < sipa> i think it should just say 1008 or 2016 blocks or so, and not make any connection with time
12:44 < jonasschnelli> From what I understood is that 144 is to little for a day regarding the increasing hash-rate
12:44 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I'll catch up with you later today, I don't have my processed results in front of me. But I think I found that after elimiating IBDs there were very few fetches in sipas data past 1000 blocks deep.    And indeed, it shouldn't mention time.
12:45 < jonasschnelli> But light client implementations are really looking for "days" rather the blocks.. but, sure, they can do their homework... but would have been nice to mention day values in the BIP.
12:45 < jonasschnelli> But maybe they are to inaccurate
12:45 < gmaxwell> The bit(s) should just be defined as "I claim I will keep at least X blocks deep from my tip, maybe I keep more, maybe not."
12:45 < sipa> jonasschnelli: light clients know how many blocks they are behind after header sync
12:45 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: anyone using these bits will fetch headers.
12:46 < jonasschnelli> Indeed.... okay. Got it.
12:46 < gmaxwell> now, before you connect you won't have headers and you'll need to make a time based guess. If you guess wrong you'll need to disconnect and go elsewhere. Not the end of the world.
12:47 < jonasschnelli> Yes. I agree on that. Re-connecting should be hard.
12:47 < jonasschnelli> Maybe even an additional dns query may be involved (in case you filter)
12:48 < sipa> even if it happens, it'll happen just once
12:48 < jonasschnelli> Yeah,... shouldn't be a problem for clients
12:48 < sipa> because even if you connect to a peer that does not have enough blocks, they'll have the headers to teach you how many blocks you are behind
12:48 < sipa> so i don't think it's such a big issue
12:49 < sipa> done topic?
12:49 < gmaxwell> I think I mentioned it on the list, but it should be clear that these bits should still mean that you can serve headers for the whole chain.
12:49 < wumpus> #topic bytes_serialized (sipa)
12:49 < sipa> thanks
12:49 < gmaxwell> Kill with fire (sorry wumpus)
12:49 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: seems obvious.. but I'll mention it
12:49 < gmaxwell> :P     
12:49 < sipa> so currently gettxoutsetinfo has a field called bytes_serialized
12:50 < sipa> which is based on some theoretical serialization of the utxo set data
12:50 < wumpus> I think there's something to be said for a neutral way of representing the utxo size, that doesn't represent on estimates of a specific database format
12:50 < sipa> wumpus: agree with that
12:50 < gmaxwell> what I said to sipa the other day was that if we list the total bytes in values and the txout counts, that lets you come up with whatever kind of seralized size estimate you want.
12:50 < sipa> but would you be fine with it just being the size of keys+values in a neutral format, _not_ accounting for the leveldb prefix compression?
12:50 < wumpus> sipa: yes
12:50 < gmaxwell> If you want you could multiply that count by 36 and add the values and that gives you the size for the dumbest seralization that hopefully no one would use.
12:50 < luke-jr> values counted as 8 bytes, or compressed?
12:51 < wumpus> sipa: that's be fine really, and the format change provides oppertunity to change the definition
12:51 < sipa> wumpus: agree
12:51 < gmaxwell> okay if wumpus and sipa agree I'll shutup.
12:51 < sipa> luke-jr: no strong opinion. do you?
12:51 < luke-jr> sipa: I don't think the compression should be exposed, ideally.
12:51 < sipa> luke-jr: seems fair
12:51 < gmaxwell> wumpus: the only concern I had with a really neutral figure is that it's misleading. 
12:51 < luke-jr> not a strong opinion though
12:51 < wumpus> luke-jr: just a fixed size seems ok to me
12:52 < wumpus> luke-jr: that's more future proof likely
12:52 < wumpus> luke-jr: so we can have a statistic to compare over time
12:52 < morcos> can't we output more than one thing?
12:52 < luke-jr> wumpus: indeed
12:52 < gmaxwell> e.g. a naieve seralization would have 32 bytes for txid, but the reality is probably under 16 due to sharing.  But as long as it doesn't require scanning that data I guess I don't care.
12:52 < sipa> morcos: so #10396 reports the actual disk usage
12:52 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10396 | Report LevelDB estimate for chainstate size in gettxoutsetinfo by sipa · Pull Request #10396 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:52 < sipa> morcos: and the total number of utxos is also reported
12:53 < wumpus> we should definitely report the actual disk usage too!
12:53 < morcos> yeah i'm sorry if i'm behind, but i think actual disk usage is useful, even if we want this .. ok, that's all i was saying
12:53 < luke-jr> agreed
12:53 < sipa> yes yes, absolutely
12:53 < sipa> the point is that the current bytes_serialized tries to mimick disk usage, but fails
12:53 < gmaxwell> the leveldb usage is a noisy thing that goes up and down based on the mood of the table compacting gods.
12:53 < luke-jr> (although I guess users can just du the directory?)
12:53 < sipa> and will fail even more post per-txout
12:54 < sipa> so if we drop the requirement that bytes_serialized has anything to do with disk usage, all is good
12:54 < wumpus> gmaxwell: yep, it's less useful for reporting as statistics
12:54 < wumpus> sipa: indeed; I never assumed it did really
12:54 < wumpus> to me it was just 'serialization size of utxo in an arbitrary, but constant, format'
12:55 < phantomcircuit> huh what im here
12:55 < wumpus> sipa: would make sense to rename the field too
12:55 < sipa> wumpus: ok, so 10195 removes bytes_serialized - i'll create a separate PR afterwards to add a (new) bytes_serialized again
12:55 < sipa> wumpus: agree
12:55 < gmaxwell> wumpus: it will be odd if the serialized size is larger than the database but not that odd. 
12:55 < sipa> gmaxwell: at least it will be obvious that it has nothing to do with it then!
12:55 < wumpus> (after all we don't want people to report weird jumps in statistics, renaming the field is ag ood hint)
12:56 < luke-jr> sipa: maybe it should be renamed?
12:56 < sipa> luke-jr: yes, it should be
12:56 < wumpus> "bogosize"
12:56 < gmaxwell> bogosize++
12:56 < sipa> hash_serialized is renamed too
12:56 < sipa> hahaha bogosize
12:56 < sipa> ok, deal
12:56 < gmaxwell> should be in nibbles.
12:56 < gmaxwell> :P     
12:56 < luke-jr> lol     
12:56 < wumpus> :D     
12:56 < sipa> in nepers
12:56 < instagibbs> buy one get one size? 
12:56 < gmaxwell> ehats the base e entropy unit?
12:56 < sipa> gmaxwell: yes
12:57 < luke-jr> can I add an OP_CHECKBOGOSIZE? *hides*
12:57 < gmaxwell> Good. (that was supposted to be a "Whats?" but seems you were a step ahead of me)
12:57 < sipa> ah, no, nats
12:57 < sipa> nepers are just for ratios, like db
12:57 < sipa> </offtopic>
12:58 < wumpus> time to close the meeting I think
12:58 < instagibbs> 2 minutes
12:58 < instagibbs> review begging?
12:58 < instagibbs> :P     
12:58 < wumpus> we already did that one
12:58 < instagibbs> ah k
12:58 < luke-jr> defer BIP148 to next week?
12:58 < wumpus> (though if you have any proposals just say so)
12:58 < instagibbs> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10333 <-- my beg
12:58 < wumpus> luke-jr: oh forgot about that one
12:58 < luke-jr> it's okay, a week might be good anyway
12:58 < gmaxwell> I'm sure you can discuss it in one minute.
12:59 < gmaxwell> :P     
12:59 < kanzure> we need a meeting extension block
12:59  * morcos refrains
12:59 < wumpus> #endmeeting
12:59 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu May 18 19:59:09 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
12:59 < lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-18-19.01.html
12:59 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-18-19.01.txt
12:59 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-18-19.01.log.html
12:59 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: well, to be fair, we've never had a formal time limit for meetings..
12:59 < luke-jr> :p     
12:59 < instagibbs> it's a standardness rule...
12:59 < kanzure> it was to prevent spam
12:59 < gmaxwell> I like that they're limited. even though I always spend another half hour in resulting discussions.
12:59 < gmaxwell> kanzure: that limit was temporary!
13:00 < instagibbs> I think it's good to focus and respect people's time
13:00 < wumpus> agree
13:00 < sipa> we should revert to the original limit of 24 hours
13:00 < luke-jr> >_<     
13:00 < gmaxwell> esp considering timezones don't put this meeting at good times of day for many.
13:00 < wumpus> so make sure that you have topics ready at the beginning, that makes it easier to schedule time for topics
13:00 < sipa> it's especially annoying for people in asia
13:00 < luke-jr> sipa: IMO the original limit was 5 hours
13:00 < sipa> i wonder if we should have the meeting alternate between two times
13:00 < luke-jr> sipa: since that's how long until the day changes in UTC
13:01 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: That isn't consistent with Craig Wright^W^WSatoshi's vision!
13:01 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: it's consistent with tonal though
13:01 < cfields> sipa: nah, let's just use an accounting trick and have meetings on a plane zooming through timezones.
13:01 < luke-jr> anyway, my parents showed up, so going to say hi and then get back to multiwallet
13:01 < kanzure> yes if you navigate the plane correctly, you can actually not spend any time at all in the meeting if you hop between timezones just right.
13:01 < cfields> I'm pretty sure we can cram 2 days into 1 that way :p
13:02 < luke-jr> cfields: rofl
13:02 < gmaxwell> too bad they stopped flying the concord.
13:02 < sipa> you just need a plane circeling the arctic
13:02 < kanzure> sounds like bip148 discussion is slightly blocked by luke-jr parental units
13:03 < wumpus> sipa: if there's interest from people from asia joining we should certainly do that; in practice I never had any concerete complains about the current meeting time though
13:03 < sipa> wumpus: we did, a long time ago
13:04 < gmaxwell> wumpus: jl2012 has lamented, and I believe kallewoof too.
13:04 < cfields> iirc it's prohibitive for jl2012, at least
13:04 < instagibbs> oh yeah, kalle too
13:04 < wumpus> ok good to know
13:04 < wumpus> maybe fanquake too (australia)
13:05 < instagibbs> he's a kiwi I thought
13:05 < jtimon> luke-jr: aug2017 seems to soon to me, I have no problems with bip149 on the other hand
13:05 < gmaxwell> we could also just look at the log data, determine a time when when most of us are already here that the asian people can meet, and maybe just setup a hour to talk to them when they know people will be around.
13:05 < sipa> 7am europe, 10pm westcoast, 1pm hongkong, 2pm japan?
13:05 < sipa> maybe too early in europe
13:05 < instagibbs> 1am East coast US, hmmm
13:05 < sipa> instagibbs: oops
13:05 < wumpus> I'm usualy up very early so that'd be ok with me
13:05 < gmaxwell> I think there is no time everyone can meet. But thats okay.
13:06 < gmaxwell> wumpus is up that early. 
13:06 < gmaxwell> oh oops.
13:06 < wumpus> better than late at night
13:06 < instagibbs> I'll survive once a week if that works
13:06 < instagibbs> oh right Chaincode...
13:06 < instagibbs> :)     
13:07 < sipa> damn timezones
13:07 < achow101> I'd rather not be up at 1 am
13:07 < sipa> achow101: you'll be on the west coast soon :)
13:07 < instagibbs> Maybe figuring a way to reliably rotate or something. I dunno.
13:08 < achow101> sipa: thinking ahead a bit past the summer :)
13:08 < gmaxwell> instagibbs: well Above I just suggested we have a second meeting at another time.  It may be the case that the activity level in the meetings with asia are low enough that rotating wouldn't make sense.
13:08 < sipa> otherwise 4pm europe, 7am westcoast, 10am eastcoast, 10pm hongkong, 11pm japan?
13:08 < gmaxwell> instagibbs: if we pick at time when 'enough' people are here anyways, then it's not like setting aside the slot has a huge cost.
13:08 < instagibbs> hm yeah that makes more sense
13:08 < luke-jr> jtimon: well, it's already happening Aug 1 with BIP148..
13:09 < jtimon> luke-jr: right, I mean that seems too soon
13:10 < jtimon> so I don't think I will run bip148 myself
13:10 < gmaxwell> sipa: so there is like 3 hours between japan and auckland, so that might actually fail to get everyone in that part of the globe.
13:10 < luke-jr> jtimon: oh well. :<
13:11 < sipa> gmaxwell: yes, we need a slower earth rotation
13:11 < instagibbs> don't give kanzure any ideas
13:14 < gmaxwell> instagibbs: kanzure wants to destroy the moon I thought, that would reduce the slowing a lot.
13:14 -!- vicenteH` [~user@135.234.15.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:14 < gmaxwell> sipa: thats already happening, just wait a while.
13:14 -!- BMRelayBot [~BMRelayBo@d40ab76b.rev.stofanet.dk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:15 < sipa> gmaxwell: 2ms per century isn't very much
13:15 < kanzure> yeah i have some plans but it's sort of off-topic
13:16 -!- vicenteH [~user@135.234.15.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
13:16 -!- jtimon [~quassel@117.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
13:16 -!- jtimon [~quassel@117.29.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:21 -!- BMRelayBot [~BMRelayBo@159.203.67.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:25 < stickcuck> ok     
13:30 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:30 -!- BartokIT [~BartokIT@5.90.183.39] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:31 -!- BartokIT [~BartokIT@5.90.183.39] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:31 -!- BMRelayBot [~BMRelayBo@159.203.67.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:34 -!- BMRelayBot [~BMRelayBo@159.203.67.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:38 -!- BartokIT [~BartokIT@5.90.183.39] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:41 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10423: [tests] skipped tests should clean up after themselves (master...cleanup_skipped) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10423
13:45 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
13:55 -!- BartokIT [~BartokIT@5.90.183.39] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
14:01 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:04 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #10424: Populate services in GetLocalAddress (master...notnodenone) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10424
14:10 -!- freqry [~skropf@80-108-63-146.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:18 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: fengling, [Author], Magma
14:19 -!- Sprh [~Sprh@12.20.48.10] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
14:56 < jtimon> travis tests seem to be stuck for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9176
15:06 -!- freqry [~skropf@80-108-63-146.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]     
15:11 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:12 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:12 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:12 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]     
15:15 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
15:16 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:27 < kallewoof> Being able to participate in a meeting occasionally would be spiffy for sure.
15:36 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:52 -!- vicenteH` [~user@135.234.15.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
15:53 -!- spinza [~spin@196.212.164.26] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...]     
15:55 -!- tripleslash [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
15:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] earonesty opened pull request #10425: 0.14 (0.14...0.14) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10425
15:59 -!- spinza [~spin@196.212.164.26] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:16 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:20 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:23 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:25 -!- shockoo [~shockoo@ip-94-112-163-197.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:44 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #10426: Replace bytes_serialized with bogosize (master...bogosize) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10426
16:47 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@104.192.2.226] has quit []     
16:47 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:49 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #10241: Allow tests to pass even when stderr got populated (master...2017/04/test_stderr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10241
16:52 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
16:58 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:59 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []     
17:00 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]     
17:02 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
17:03 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:09 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
17:13 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:22 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hsigmstpdaglfukl] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
17:25 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:29 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
17:39 -!- marcoagner [~user@179.177.244.150] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
17:39 -!- marcoagner [~user@179.177.244.150] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:54 -!- marcoagner [~user@179.177.244.150] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
17:54 -!- marcoagner [~user@179.177.244.150] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:01 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
18:09 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:16 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
18:17 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
18:21 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:22 -!- xHire [~xHire@kos.paskuli.cz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
18:22 -!- xHire [~xHire@kos.paskuli.cz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:23 -!- shockoo [~shockoo@ip-94-112-163-197.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
18:30 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:51 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
18:52 -!- JackH [~laptop@85.219.170.195] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
18:56 -!- QBcrusher [~QBcrusher@cpe-173-88-70-206.columbus.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:58 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
19:05 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
19:10 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:13 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:13 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:16 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
19:22 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:25 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
19:30 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:36 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #10427: Consensus: Introduce static GetScriptFlags (mostly MOVEONLY) (master...b15-consensus-script-flags-min) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10427
19:40 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
19:41 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:48 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
19:49 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
19:49 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:50 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:55 < luke-jr> ugh, it's like people refactored Core intentionally to make this rebase harder! (I know that's not the case..)
19:58 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.237.91.207] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
20:04 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
20:31 -!- zooko [~chrome@2601:281:8000:9b7b:5430:f504:5a91:40e6] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
20:32 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:36 < jtimon> updated https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10118
20:37 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
20:56 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:57 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Quit: bye]     
21:01 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
21:02 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] earonesty opened pull request #10428: -bip148 option (0.14...0.14) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10428
21:09 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
21:12 -!- fao3 [~fao@106.120.101.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
21:15 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #10429: tests: fix spurious addrman test failure (master...fix-addrman-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10429
21:21 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@2604:5500:17:2ea:61d1:8f13:8837:549b] has quit [Quit: .]     
21:24 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:30 < SopaXorzTaker> guys, I want to propose a BIP
21:31 < SopaXorzTaker> Let's bring back the removed script opcodes, and standartize their behavior
21:31 < ajd_> have you tried the mailing list?
21:31 < SopaXorzTaker> ajd_, well, I've never had an experience with mailing lists
21:31 < SopaXorzTaker> where can it be found?
21:32 < ajd_> hold on lmgtfy
21:32 < ajd_> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
21:33 < ajd_> not sure how successful you'll be but probably not less successful than pitching it here
21:33 < SopaXorzTaker> hmm     
21:33 < SopaXorzTaker> yup, found that
21:34 < SopaXorzTaker> um, what should I write?
21:34 < SopaXorzTaker> "Umm guys do u wanna look at my BIP proposal?"
21:35 < ajd_> - Posts should be technical or academic in nature.
21:35 < ajd_> - Generally encouraged: patches, notification of pull requests, BIP proposals, academic paper announcements. And discussions that follow.
21:35 < ajd_> - Generally discouraged: shower thoughts, wild speculation, jokes, +1s, non-technical bitcoin issues, rehashing settled topics without new data, moderation concerns. 
21:36 < ajd_> maybe better to run the proposal past the people in #bitcoin first
21:36 < ajd_> Anyway I'm going to shut up now
21:41 < SopaXorzTaker> hmm     
21:47 -!- sdf_0010 [~steven@173.239.11.108] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
21:49 -!- sdf_0010 [~steven@173.239.11.108] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:58 < SopaXorzTaker> BTW, just a core dev question
21:58 < SopaXorzTaker> do we prune old UTXOs?
21:59 < SopaXorzTaker> If not, I'd suggest keeping ones older than a parameter in on-disk cache, and allocating memory only for the new ones
22:13 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
22:26 < luke-jr> SopaXorzTaker: please at least understand things before making suggestions.. all UTXOs are kept primarily in an on-disk database
22:44 < sipa> SopaXorzTaker: please go away
22:45 < sipa> SopaXorzTaker: you've been told repeatedly to not make proposals about changing bitcoin here
22:46 < sipa> the UTXO question is indeed on topic, but you could do some basic research like trying to read the code and ask questions about it
22:57 < SopaXorzTaker> wait
22:57 < SopaXorzTaker> I had that misconception that UTXOs are kept in memory
22:57 < sipa> they are cached in memory
22:57 < sipa> the most recently used ones
22:58 < sipa> -dbcache controls the size of that cache
22:58 < sipa> the default since the latest release is 450 MB
23:00 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xlljnzsvhroqbptn] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:03 < SopaXorzTaker> hm     
23:03 < wumpus> also, please don't prefix any question with a "wait!" or "guys!" or "hm" line, you can just go and ask the question
23:03 < SopaXorzTaker> so I tried to oversmart the Core dev team, uh
23:05 < sipa> any idea what's going on here: https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/233833539
23:05 < sipa> the win32 build repeatedly fails to test... 10 min timeout
23:06 < sipa> if i look at other PRs that succeed there, there is '790s' marker next to that line
23:06 -!- stickcuck [~austerity@unaffiliated/austeritysucks] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
23:06 < wumpus> seems the util test is taking very long
23:07 < sipa> i think it's the test_bitcoin
23:07 < sipa> just hasn't produced output yet
23:08 < sipa> but i don't understand how in normal (succesful) builds, there can be line that takes 790s, while not timing out
23:09 < sipa> https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/233849245#L2526
23:10 < sipa> oh, perhaps that 790s for the entire section
23:10 < wumpus> maybe it's on the edge of timing out, and usually it falls within the allotted time, but sometimes (due to VM unpredictability) it doesn't 
23:11 < wumpus> travis issues are usually so hard to debug , especially intermittent ones, it's become its own kind of dread
23:11 < sipa> but with 10195 (after the latest rebase, not before) reproducibly times out there
23:12 < sipa> can we increase that 10min timeout?
23:12 < sipa> or make test_bitcoin print some dots
23:12 < sipa> oh, it wouldn't be visible even to travis, as the makefile construction doesn't connect stdout/stderr of the tests with the actual outut
23:13 < wumpus> you could increase the verbosity level, but yeah exactly
23:14 -!- fao3 [~fao@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:17 < sipa> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10195/commits/71837d800cdacd92ddb5bf8536c0e16338a6a889
23:21 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
23:42 -!- marcoagner [~user@179.177.244.150] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
23:43 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
23:43 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
23:46 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:47 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
23:48 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:55 -!- marcoagner [~user@187.113.158.26] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev