--- Log opened Tue Aug 11 00:00:47 2020
00:09 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
00:21 -!- PaulTroo_ [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:26 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Quit: jonatack]
00:28 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-240-159.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
00:42 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:54 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-240-159.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:14 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
01:14 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:29 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@2601:645:c200:f539:9069:c1f4:ce4c:281f] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:32 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:42 -!- Mark_Cockrell [~Mark_Cock@84.39.117.57] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:43 < jnewbery> fanquake: I've reviewed. Looks good to me.
02:02 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
02:04 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@12.46.194.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:07 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:11 -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@static.239.36.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Changing host]
02:11 -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@unaffiliated/jonasschnelli] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:12 < jonasschnelli> can someone unban me in #bitcoin #bitcoin-dev?
02:14 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@12.46.194.178.dynamic.wline.res.cust.swisscom.ch] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:14 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:14 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:14 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:20 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:21 -!- nerdboy1 [~nerdboy@84.39.117.57] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:38 < jnewbery> wumpus, fanquake: I think it might be time to merge #19070. It has 5 ACKs/concept ACKs
02:38 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19070 | p2p: Signal support for compact block filters with NODE_COMPACT_FILTERS by jnewbery · Pull Request #19070 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
02:38 < jnewbery> It's opt-in and very self-contained, so if there are any problems with it, then it'll be very easy to revert
02:44  * aj misparses "compact block" filters
02:48 < jnewbery> filters of blocks which are compact
02:49 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:50 < aj> yeah, i said /mis/parses
02:52 -!- Guest76530 [~per@gateway/tor-sasl/wsm] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:52 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
02:55 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:56 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:57 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:57 -!- andreaca_ [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:00 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 12 commits to 0.19: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/05f5dd96c71e...28a9df7d76a6
03:00 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 0d0dd6a Andrew Chow: Update with new Windows code signing certificate
03:00 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 e422f65 Hennadii Stepanov: build: Set libevent minimum version to 2.0.21
03:00 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.19 bde6a5a Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Include "csv","!segwit" in "rules"
03:00 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
03:00 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19025: [0.19] Backports (0.19...0_19_2_backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19025
03:00 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
03:01 -!- promag [~promag@92.250.101.109] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:03 -!- Bertha4Jacobson [~Bertha4Ja@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:03 -!- andreaca_ [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:04 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:05 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:08 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
03:10 -!- Bertha4Jacobson [~Bertha4Ja@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:10 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:11 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:20 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
03:32 -!- promag [~promag@92.250.101.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:43 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:43 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:43 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Quit: = ""]
03:46 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:46 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] naumenkogs opened pull request #19697: Minor improvements on ADDR caching (master...2020-08-addr-cache-follow-up) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19697
03:46 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
03:47 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@static.126.222.46.78.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:48 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@static.126.222.46.78.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Client Quit]
03:51 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:53 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:53 -!- promag [~promag@92.250.101.109] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:54 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:55 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:55 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@static.126.222.46.78.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:55 -!- vasild_ [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:58 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:58 -!- vasild_ is now known as vasild
04:09 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.8]
04:09 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:09 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:11 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:15 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:15 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:15 -!- PaulTroo_ [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:15 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:18 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:20 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
04:20 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:c8f1:c1f0:ea40:2add] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:25 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:1205:5078:21a0:88be:8b7c:879c:5196] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:27 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:1205:5078:21a0:88be:8b7c:879c:5196] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:28 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:1205:5078:21a0:88be:8b7c:879c:5196] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:28 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:1205:5078:21a0:88be:8b7c:879c:5196] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:28 -!- PaulTroo_ [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:32 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:32 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:36 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:42 -!- promag [~promag@92.250.101.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:43 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:52 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:54 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:57 -!- promag [~promag@92.250.101.109] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:00 -!- nerdboy1 [~nerdboy@84.39.117.57] has quit []
05:03 -!- gzhao408 [~textual@c-73-252-251-3.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:05 -!- troygiorshev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:05 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:07 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:12 -!- promag [~promag@92.250.101.109] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:18 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:18 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:19 -!- armin76 [~armin76@89.47.234.28] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:21 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:34 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:35 -!- InflationHedge [5072035b@80-114-3-91.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:38 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:38 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:40 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:40 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
05:41 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:41 -!- InflationHedge [5072035b@80-114-3-91.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
05:46 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:04 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:04 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:06 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:06 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:07 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:07 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:08 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:08 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:09 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:09 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:11 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:11 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:12 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:12 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:13 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:13 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:16 -!- jnewbery [~john@164.90.178.190] has quit [Quit: leaving]
06:16 -!- jnewbery [~john@164.90.178.190] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:20 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@static.126.222.46.78.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
06:23 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:23 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:24 -!- Guyver2_ [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:24 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
06:26 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:26 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:35 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:39 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:39 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex]
06:45 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:45 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:49 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@ec2-3-211-34-208.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:57 < jnewbery> hi folks. Reminder that we have the inaugural p2p irc meeing in one hour. Feel free to add any proposed discussion topics here: https://gist.github.com/jnewbery/dfaf34706f93a0608bb24869f13abcbf
06:58 < jnewbery> only topic so far is priorities/focus. Please come prepared with one or two sentences about what your current priority/focus is to share with the group. Thanks!
07:01  * fanquake wonders if he should attend to achieve back to back to back bitcoin meetings 🤔 
07:02 < aj> jnewbery: maybe make the agenda a wiki on https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki ?
07:18 < jnewbery> aj: good idea. I'll move it there for the next meeting
07:21 < aj> jnewbery: great, now i don't need to feel guilty about spamming a comment
07:21 -!- theStack [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:24 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.162.69] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:26 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:26 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host]
07:26 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:26 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:27 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:27 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host]
07:27 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:27 -!- theStack [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has quit [Quit: leaving]
07:27 -!- theStack [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:32 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.162.69] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:34 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:37 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:39 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:39 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:41 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:41 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:43 < jnewbery> aj: oh, is everyone able to update that wiki, or just people in the bitcoin org on github?
07:45 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:56 < aj> jnewbery: no idea
07:57 < aj> also, yay, replied to 19498 with *multiple* minutes to spare before the meeting
07:58 < jonatack> jnewbery: i think anyone can edit
07:59 < jonatack> edited release notes there a year ago ;p
08:00 -!- armin76 [~armin76@89.47.234.28] has quit []
08:00 < jnewbery> #startmeeting
08:00 < lightningbot> Meeting started Tue Aug 11 15:00:07 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 < 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 < jonatack> hola
08:00 < jnewbery> amiti fjahr jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55 elichai2
08:00 < troygiorshev> hi
08:00 < jnewbery> Hi folks! Welcome to the first p2p IRC meeting.
08:00 < dongcarl> hi
08:00 < ajonas> hi
08:00 < amiti> hi!
08:00 < fanquake> hi
08:00 < jnewbery> Please say hi to let everyone know you're here and planning to participate.
08:00 < pinheadmz> hi
08:00 < sdaftuar> hi
08:00 < jnewbery> We have a one suggested topics at https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings (and aj has added his priorities as well - thanks!)
08:00 < ariard> hi
08:00 < theStack> hi
08:00 < aj> hi
08:01 < jnewbery> (please don't use the gist any more. I've moved the notes to the bitcoin-core wiki)
08:01 < elichai2> Hi
08:01 < jnewbery> I suggest we start with priorities/focus as a topic
08:01 < sipa> hi
08:02 -!- Lightlike [~Lightlike@185.255.67.158] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:02 < jnewbery> #topic priority/focus
08:02 < jnewbery> aj: would you like to start. You've listed what you're working on https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/P2P-IRC-meetings but do you have anything else to add?
08:03 -!- Lightlike [~Lightlike@185.255.67.158] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:03 < aj> i'm mostly caring about taproot-critical-path-things, which i think is now mostly not p2p stuff
08:03 < aj> but copied stuff off my whiteboard in case it's missing anything interesting or important
08:04 < adiabat> hi
08:04 < jnewbery> sdaftuar: any priorities?
08:04 < sdaftuar> i've got a bunch of things i am thinking about...
08:05 < sdaftuar> i'd say my current priorities are to get the transaction download stuff (sipa's 19184 i think) reviewed.  and erlay is on my mind right after that
08:05 < sdaftuar> but i'm also thinking about a bunch of other things that i want to mention, because if others are interested in any then maybe we can make progress on other fronts as well
08:06 < jnewbery> do you want to list them now?
08:06 < sdaftuar> some stuff is related to network-topology improvements:
08:06 < sdaftuar> more block-relay only peers (which is probably gated on negotiating block-relay connections at connect-time)
08:07 < sdaftuar> more improvements to syncing our tips with more peers (possibly including tx-relay-peer rotation, which can help here as well)
08:07 < sdaftuar> improved eviction logic (pr open)
08:07 < sdaftuar> and other stuff is related to transaction relay policy, particularly package relay, which is a whole beast of a topic by itself
08:07 < sdaftuar> but also rbf pinning (which may be a related problem)
08:08 < aj> #19670 ?
08:08 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19670 | Protect localhost and block-relay-only peers from eviction by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19670 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:08 < sdaftuar> yep
08:08 < sdaftuar> so that's a lot of stuff, and depending on what others view as priorities, that will influence where i focus my time
08:08 < jnewbery> thanks sdaftuar
08:09 < jnewbery> jonatack: priorities?
08:09 < jonatack> review
08:10 < jonatack> refactoring/cleanup
08:10 < jonatack> for a couple of weeks i was working on inbound eviction policy
08:10 < jonatack> methodology was (1) an observation dashboard (#19643), 2) test coverage, and 3) optimisation
08:10 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19643 | Add `-netinfo` peer connections dashboard by jonatack · Pull Request #19643 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:10 < jonatack> i didn't realize that suhas was working on it as well
08:11 < jonatack> i was then asked by a few devs to consider picking up bip324 implementation
08:11 < jonatack> talked with jonas schnelli today and he will be back on it soon
08:11 < jonatack> he needs help with one sticking point
08:12 < jonatack> i don't have the gist handy, will provide a bit later, we were discussing this with ariard, warren, moneyball, wumpus and jonasschnelli 
08:12 < jonatack> atm i need to do some work on #11413 followups
08:12 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11413 | [wallet] [rpc] sendtoaddress/sendmany: Add explicit feerate option by kallewoof · Pull Request #11413 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:12 < dongcarl> jonatack: do you have link to bip324 discussion?
08:13 < jonatack> so will stick with review and p2p refactoring on the side until that's done: we need a universal explicit feerate rpc
08:13 < jnewbery> ok, thanks jonatack
08:13 < jonatack> dongcarl: yes, will post, that's it for now
08:13 < jnewbery> troygiorshev: priorities?
08:13 < troygiorshev> two p2p things I've been focusing on
08:14 < troygiorshev> big refactor: #19107, moving header verification from net_processing to net.  came out of a PR review club of a jonasschnelli pr.  it's not flashy, but cleaning up this interface will make everything easier going forward.
08:14 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19107 | p2p: Move all header verification into the network layer, extend logging by troygiorshev · Pull Request #19107 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:14 < troygiorshev> feature: #19031 addrv2.  tor v2 deprecation and obsolescence is quickly approaching, addrv2 is needed before we can update to tor v3.
08:14 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19031 | Implement ADDRv2 support (part of BIP155) by vasild · Pull Request #19031 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:14 < jonatack> +1
08:15 < jnewbery> ok, thanks troy
08:15 < jonatack> 15 sept tor v2 deprecation begins, obsolete next july
08:15 < jnewbery> dongcarl: priorities?
08:15 < dongcarl> mostly review
08:15 < dongcarl> focused on the PRs populating the Peer struct
08:15 < dongcarl> also, waiting on Shadow simulator v2 from Tor project
08:16 < dongcarl> which I think will be the best way to test our P2P
08:16 < dongcarl> Link: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/sponsors/Sponsor38
08:16 < dongcarl> that's it!
08:16 < jnewbery> (Peer struct is #19607)
08:16 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19607 | [p2p] Add Peer struct for per-peer data in net processing by jnewbery · Pull Request #19607 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:16 < jnewbery> thanks carl!
08:16 < jnewbery> ajonas: priorities?
08:17 < ajonas> I can wait until we move onto the next topic
08:17 < jnewbery> ok
08:17 < jnewbery> amiti: priorities?
08:17 < amiti> My main focus has been 19316- simplifying how we track different types of connections. Got some reviews yesterday & hopefully its getting close to merge, so planning to address outstanding review comments in a follow up. 
08:17 < amiti> (ps @dongcarl, @jnewbery if you wanna take another look :))
08:17 < amiti> After that I’m excited about #19315 to enable more p2p testing. And I want to make my way back to the rebroadcast work!
08:17 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19315 | [tests] Allow outbound & block-relay-only connections in functional tests. by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #19315 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:18 < amiti> In terms of review, there’s a lot of PRs I’m excited about and slowly making my way through. Currently reviewing #19670. Also on my list are #17428 (anchors), #19184 (tx logic overhaul). and the per-peer stuff #19509 & #19607 is also interesting
08:18 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19670 | Protect localhost and block-relay-only peers from eviction by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19670 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:18 < 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
08:18 < jonatack> dongcarl: https://gist.github.com/jonasschnelli/c530ea8421b8d0e80c51486325587c52
08:18 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19184 | Overhaul transaction request logic by sipa · Pull Request #19184 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:18 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19509 | Per-Peer Message Logging by troygiorshev · Pull Request #19509 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:18 < jnewbery> I left my ACK on 19316 this morning :)
08:18 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19607 | [p2p] Add Peer struct for per-peer data in net processing by jnewbery · Pull Request #19607 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:18 < amiti> oh I didn't see that yet. awesome thanks!! 
08:18 < jnewbery> thanks amiti
08:19 < jnewbery> fanquake: priorities?
08:19 < fanquake> Nothing I am/have been working on is really p2p related. Can probably skip me.
08:20 < jnewbery> ok
08:20 < jnewbery> pinheadmz: priorities?
08:20 < pinheadmz> sorry not much to contribute today
08:20 < jnewbery> no problem
08:20 < jnewbery> ariard: priorities?
08:21 < ariard> yes so AltNet (#18988) is pending on Russ multiprocess
08:21 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18988 | RFC: Introducing AltNet, a pluggable framework for alternative transports by ariard · Pull Request #18988 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:21 < ariard> it would make it far easier to leverage the new multiprocess framework introduced
08:21 < ariard> also spend a bit of time evaluating which package relay/RBF pinning flavor would solve pinning
08:22 -!- frankie1 [~frankie@178.239.168.171] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:22 < ariard> I'm also interested in tx-relay peer rotation, to improve transaction propagation wrt to pinning/mempool obstruction
08:22 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:23 < ariard> I would be glad to get #19645, even if utility is reduced until further mempool/transaction relay policy changes, that's a first step to solve wtxid-pinning issues
08:23 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19645 | Allow wtxid-acceptance to the mempool by ariard · Pull Request #19645 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:23 < ariard> and I'm staying available to review transaction request overhaul/erlay/others
08:23 < ariard> that's it
08:24 < jnewbery> thanks ariard!
08:24 < jnewbery> theStack: priorities?
08:25 < jnewbery> elichai2: priorites?
08:25 < jnewbery> sipa: priorities?
08:26 < jnewbery> (if you missed your turn you can jump in again later)
08:26 < sipa> so
08:27 < sipa> the next thing on my list is addressing some feedback in 19184 (tx overhaul), and rebasing on top of wtxid relay
08:27 < sipa> i'm also interested in helping with bip324 efforts and addrv2, though i haven't found much time for that
08:28 < sipa> outbound peer rotation also sounds interesting; i wasn't aware there was recent interest in that
08:29 < aj> jnewbery: (priorities?)
08:29 < elichai2> I don't work on anything p2p related right now, but I do plan to review a bunch of stuff, so if there'll be a high priority for review out of this it would be great 
08:29 < jnewbery> we haven't done adiabat and vasild yet, but I can go next
08:29 < jnewbery> My short-term focus is on the backports. I've reviewed #19680 and 19681. I've also backported wtxid relay in #19606, which I still think we should backport to v0.20.
08:29 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19680 | 0.20: Add txids with non-standard inputs to reject filter by sdaftuar · Pull Request #19680 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:29 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19606 | Backport wtxid relay to v0.20 by jnewbery · Pull Request #19606 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:29 < jnewbery> I also have a branch that backports the orphan relay stuff on top of that, which I think makes sense to PR separately, but I can add to v0.20 if that makes it easier for reviewers.
08:30 -!- b10c [~b10c@2001:16b8:2e78:9b00:885a:5088:eb3:4c5d] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:30 < jnewbery> I'd advocate for people to bump reviewing backports up their priority list (both for these backports and in general inBitcoin Core)
08:30 < jnewbery> Longer-term, I want to make progress on #19398, where the main goal is to clarify the interface between net and net_processing, while not expanding the scope of cs_main (and then eventually reduce the scope of cs_main by moving data into the new Peer struct).
08:30 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19398 | Move remaining application layer data to net processing · Issue #19398 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:31 < jnewbery> The first PR is #19607. theuni left some review comments last week which I need to respond to.
08:31 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19607 | [p2p] Add Peer struct for per-peer data in net processing by jnewbery · Pull Request #19607 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:31 < jnewbery> that's me
08:31 < jnewbery> adiabat: anything you want to add/share?
08:31 < jnewbery> vasild: priorities?
08:32 < vasild> my priority is to get BIP155 / addrv2 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19031 merged.
08:32 < jnewbery> great. Thanks
08:32 < jnewbery> Thanks everyone! I hope that topic wasn't too slow. I just wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to share what they're working on/prioritizing.
08:32 < jnewbery> we had one other topic suggestion from ajonas
08:33 < ajonas> hi
08:33 < jnewbery> #topic Opt-in review begging experiment
08:33 < vasild> so, I address review suggestions as quickly as possible and rebase it to resolve conflicts. But mostly it is in the hands of reviewers. While waiting on that I am reviewing some randomly picked PRs.
08:33 < ajonas> Let me start with the priorities I'm tracking: https://gist.github.com/adamjonas/85137e2623f12450f1978d291a28d680. I think there are some things on there that weren't mentioned or that other people who care about, but weren't here today to mention.
08:34 < ajonas> Please ping me if I got something wrong or there are things that you'd like to add
08:34 < vasild> maybe I can improve on what I pick to review. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 is the correct place to pick "important" PRs to review?
08:35 < ajonas> Ok. A few months ago, I was reading over https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2018-03-07-priorities/, which articulates some possibilities for how to better coordinate review. Since then, I've been experimenting with asking for reviews directly. (This was also the motivation of #18949).
08:35 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18949 | doc: Add CODEOWNERS file to automatically nominate PR reviewers by adamjonas · Pull Request #18949 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
08:36 < ajonas> Right now the sample size and the circle I feel comfortable bothering is small. Here are the results so far: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1INEN1RrZTsu-V4GH6kr0aVhFOVY8nGgx0ajHf3NEYlc/.
08:36 < jnewbery> vasild: importance is subjective. Being on that list doesn't necessarily mean that other people think it's important, but everyone is allowed to add one PR to the list, so you can see what each author is prioritizing.
08:36 < ajonas> To date, I've cherry picked the PRs that I think I have a chance to help out with so while the numbers look good, there are some notable exceptions where I couldn't move the needle.
08:36 < ajonas> And on some of those I just got lucky I think,
08:37 < jonatack> ajonas: some of those are merged
08:37 < jonatack> e.g. 16756
08:38 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:38 < ajonas> Right. Column J shows the time from PR open to merge
08:38 < troygiorshev> ajonas: how did you define "review" in "review to merged (days)".  first ACK, first ACK on the current rebase, when you felt that there was enough review that it was RFM?
08:38 < ajonas> Sorry that's column I
08:38 < jonatack> ajonas: oic
08:38 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:38 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:39 < ajonas> yeah, that's misleading troygiorshev. I mean first nag to merge.
08:39 < vasild> Yes, importance is subjective. However, it would be convenient to have one place to look for important PRs, even if that place contains different people's lists.
08:39 < troygiorshev> ajonas: ah ok
08:39 < ajonas> Anyways, if anyone interested in p2p reviewing and would like to opt-in, I'd be interested in expanding my experiment that part of the code.
08:39 < jnewbery> I think there are so many other factors, that I
08:40 < sdaftuar> ajonas: you mean opt-in to being nagged by you, right?
08:40 < jnewbery> 'm not sure the numbers have much meaning
08:40 < aj> i had been maintaining https://github.com/users/ajtowns/projects/1 to track p2p/mempool PRs by category things, but hadn't automated it and slacked off this year, it's on my todo to try automating again
08:40 < ajonas> sdaftuar: yes
08:41 < jnewbery> aj: I found that project board useful to find p2p PRs
08:41 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:41 < ajonas> jnewbery: fair enough. I'm just trying to track the work I've done. Not trying to claim credit for the merges. Just trying to help coordinate.
08:42 < jonatack> vasild: i think it's fine to define one's own list of important PRs to review. e.g. longer term for me would be: BIP155/addrv2, BIP324, BIPs340-342, BIP325
08:42 < troygiorshev> vasild: I plan on using this meeting log as a "one place to look" :)
08:42 < aj> jnewbery: maybe ajonas should opt me in to nags about it then
08:42 < jnewbery> ajonas: I understand! I'm just saying that you might not find much signal in the quantative data there
08:43 < vasild> ack
08:44 < ajonas> That's all I had.
08:44 < jnewbery> ajonas: are you asking people to opt-in now or should they message you?
08:44 < ajonas> Either works.
08:44 < jnewbery> ok, thanks
08:45 < sipa> i am open to nagging
08:45 < jnewbery> no more proposed topics. Was there anything else anyone wanted to discuss? sdaftuar: it sounded like you might have wanted to go into a bit more detail on some of your priorities?
08:45 < sdaftuar> topic suggestion: feature negotiation (new bip proposal from me)
08:45 < fanquake> One related comment I'd make is that the "ACK recap" comments can sometimes be misleading. I think there can also be confusion as to why a PR which looks like it has *lots* of ACKs, maybe after a review-club bomb, hasn't been merged.
08:45 < ajonas> sipa: great!
08:46 < troygiorshev> fanquake: ack recap?
08:46 < jnewbery> #topic feature negotiation
08:46 < aj> troygiorshev: ajonas sometimes posts a PR comment summarising previous acks
08:46 < sdaftuar> i was planning to send this to the mailing list today or tomorrow, so figured this would be a good place to mention it
08:46 < sdaftuar> https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/2020-08-generalized-feature-negotiation/bip-p2p-feature-negotiation.mediawiki
08:46 < amiti> fanquake: can you tell me more? I find those ACK recap comments helpful when there's lots of convo on the PR. is there something that can be done to make them more useful? 
08:46 < troygiorshev> aj: thanks
08:47 < sdaftuar> basically wtxid-relay uses a new feature-negotiation method (exchanging messages between version and verack), that would be nice to codify as a method in the future
08:47 < jonatack> amiti: +1 i find them useful as well
08:47 < sdaftuar> however, i think we need to make sure software on the network knows to ignore unknown messages pre-verack to make this a possibility.  bitcoin core historically has disallowed unknown messages pre-verack
08:47 < sdaftuar> so i think it would be nice to get this out there and hopefully make this a standard way we can do things going forward
08:48 < sdaftuar>  (end)
08:48 < jnewbery> is the idea that each feature has its own p2p message for enabling the feature (like wtxidrelay)?
08:48 < sdaftuar> features that need to negotiate at connection startup time.
08:48 < ariard> sdaftuar: I think that's good it was unclear between matt and I on bip339 implemn in rust-bitcoin about why 339 bumps both protocol version and wtxid-relay
08:48 < troygiorshev> (like addrv2)
08:49 < sdaftuar> so many features don't need that, which is fine
08:49 < fanquake> amiti: it depends on the PR. Concept ACKs from months ago, after the code has changed significantly are not always relevant. A large amount of ACKs from new/unknown contributors obviously don't hold as much weight  as from contributors with more experience in that part of the code.
08:49 < sdaftuar> but the next time we want to negotiate something that is in place before a connection is fully setup, i think this is the best way to do it
08:49 < sdaftuar> in particular i'd like to leverage this method for negotiating block-relay only connections
08:49 < ajonas> fanquake: I have made an effort to stay away from review club PRs
08:50 < fanquake> It's also sometimes unclear what reviewers actually mean when they ACK. i.e if they've just run the functional tests after glancing at the diff on GH, that isn't necessarily meaningful.
08:50 < jnewbery> fanquake: can we discuss this next?
08:50 < aj> sdaftuar: i thought wtxid message made sense, so making it easily reusable makes sense
08:50 < amiti> sdaftuar: I'm a +1 to an explicit message/negotiation for block-relay only connections
08:51 < fanquake> jnewbery: sure. don't want to hijack.
08:51 < troygiorshev> sdaftuar: concept ACK
08:51 < jonatack> troygiorshev: i think vasild's addrv2 implementation can set itself anytime during the connection, not only at handshake 
08:51 < sdaftuar> one point that occurred to me, is that might update the draft i pasted above to NOT further bump the version number to signal support
08:51 < ariard> if I understand well this bip is disentangling protocol version bump from feature negotiation by allowing feature signaling between version/verack
08:51 < sdaftuar> because software that chooses to not implement wtxid-relay should already be adopting this proposed bip, basically (if they bump their version number to 70016 or higher at any point)
08:52 < sdaftuar> that's a bit in the weeds though for there
08:52 < sdaftuar> here*
08:52 < jnewbery> I've always thought that extending the version message to include supported and required features would be a good way to negotiate features
08:52 < sdaftuar> ariard: yes. more importantly than that is that we're establishing that unknown messages should not cause peer disconnections, which could be problematic for network topology if we get this wrong in the future
08:53 < sdaftuar> even if those unknown messages are before VERACK
08:53 < troygiorshev> jonatack: right.  I think I remember discussion as to whether that was the right choice though
08:53 < sipa> sdaftuar: this all sounds reasonable
08:53 < vasild> https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/2020-08-generalized-feature-negotiation/bip-p2p-feature-negotiation.mediawiki -- something like that came to my mind when doing the BIP155 sendaddrv2 message. Is every new feature going to add its own message sendfoowhatever? Not very nice.
08:53 < sdaftuar> wtxid-relay BIP implied that, i'm just now making that more explicit. this would require a change to bitocin core as well
08:54 < sdaftuar> vasild: that's basically how we've done every p2p protocol upgrade in the last 4-5 years i think?
08:54 < sipa> i find the reliance on protocol versions to enable feature-negotiability a bit ugly still - less so than the earlier feature negotiation through version numbers directly, but still
08:54 < sdaftuar> well either that or a service bit i guess
08:54 < sdaftuar> but service bits are rare
08:54 < troygiorshev> vasild: your point is the motivation for jnewbery's "extended version" iirc
08:54 < jnewbery> sdaftuar: do you know whether there are nodes that disconnect on unknown message types? Bitcoin Core just drops them (which I think is the only sensible behaviour)
08:55 < sdaftuar> jnewbery: it's been the de facto standard (not documneted anywhere to my knowledge) that unknonw messages after a connection is setup are ignored by software
08:55 < vasild> jonatack: troygiorshev: yes, the BIP155 sendaddrv2 can come any time, but we try to do it early so that when the peer is about to advertise his own address to us, he has the option to send us addrv2 - would be important if his address is torv3 because he wouldn't be able to advertise it to us with addr(v1)
08:55 < sdaftuar> it has not been the standard, to my knowledge, to allow unknown messages pre-verack
08:55 < jnewbery> ah ok. That's the difference
08:55 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
08:57 < jnewbery> ok, any final topics?
08:57 < jnewbery> that's a wrap then. Thanks everyone
08:57 < ariard> sdaftuar: what do you mean by broad agreement? we need this BIP to be widely deployed before using the new feature signaling mechanism ?
08:57 < jnewbery> Let me know if you liked the format of this meeting or if you want to change it up for next time.
08:57 < aj> sdaftuar: my thinking on big changes priority-wise is: tx relay overhaul up next, then erlay if we can get to it; but package relay is back to the drawing board. happy to think about ...
08:57 < troygiorshev> jnewbery: this was great, thanks for organizing it!
08:58 < sdaftuar> aj: yeah that's where i'm at as well on that side of things
08:58 < aj> sdaftuar: ... some of the topology type stuff, in before erlay i guess?
08:58 < sdaftuar> aj: i'm trying to figure out how to squeeze in topology work too
08:58 < jonatack> there was an irc discussion on the pre-verack messages here: https://bitcoincore.reviews/18044#l-159
08:58 < adiabat> maybe tangential but... any thoughts on port flexibilty 
08:58 < adiabat> I've gotten servers shut down, and all they do is see that 8333 is open
08:59 < sdaftuar> ariard: well, if any software authors brought up concerns about why using unknown messages between version and verack is a problem, then we should factor that in--
08:59 < sdaftuar> if some software clients choose to not follow my proposal, that would create implications for us trying to use it down the road
08:59 < sdaftuar> as it could partition the network
09:00 < sdaftuar> i am not aware of any opposition; i brought this issue up with wtxid-relay and no one commented on it
09:00 < jnewbery> #endmeeting
09:00 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Tue Aug 11 16:00:20 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.2020-08-11-15.00.html
09:00 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-11-15.00.txt
09:00 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-08-11-15.00.log.html
09:00 < sdaftuar> but it has to be communicated
09:02 < jonatack> fanquake: did you want to expand on the acking question
09:02 -!- Highway62 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:03 < aj> adiabat: i think the reason not to do other ports was to prevent bitcoin nodes being used as a primitive botnet that'll start connecting to arbitrary services (or to be mistaken for being part of a botnet if someone spams military.gov's rsh port as a thing to connect to for bitcoin p2p maybe. never been able to judge if that makes much sense these days
09:03 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:03 < instagibbs> adiabat, really
09:04 < adiabat> I guess it's tricky; with 8333 it sticks out a lot and is really easy to identify for any one on the network
09:05 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:05 < adiabat> maybe some kind of udp-port knocking or something?  just an idea
09:05 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:05 < fanquake> jonatack: I might write up some thoughts and post them here tomorrow. The gist is that 1 ACK is not always equal to another (obviously). It's not always clear what people mean when they say they've reviewed something. Recapping ACKs from some previous head or a concept ACK from a previous implementation isn't always useful. You can just as easily open a buggy PR, as you can introduce a bug in the last rebase.
09:05 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:06 < ajonas> Some more feedback would be helpful
09:06 -!- Highway62 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
09:06 < troygiorshev> >it's not always clear ...
09:06 < troygiorshev> that's the issue, no?
09:06 < fanquake> It's not uncommon for a PR to have a few ACKs, and then an experienced contributor to turn up and start pointing out bugs. There's also no rush to merge things.
09:08 < ajonas> Understood. You don't have to do it now, but maybe we can talk about some of the ones that really stood out as unhelpful.
09:08 < fanquake> troygiorshev: sure; and comments like "I ran the functional tests" generally aren't useful unless you did it one some exotic machine/setup etc. In which case, you should point it out!
09:08 < fanquake> Obviously not referring to personally here.
09:08 < troygiorshev> didn't take it personally :)
09:09 < troygiorshev> certainly is difficult (i imagine) to distinguish between "this is a really clean PR and I really have no comments on it, it's RFM" and "I've done my best but I'm not familiar enough with bitcoin to really review this"
09:10 < jonatack> fanquake: agreed. contributing.md clearly states that all review is not equal. providing ack methodology is also pretty much inversely valuable to review experience, e.g. newer reviewers providing details on what they did and thought about and checked is probably more useful than if i more or less repeat the same process info  on each review ack 
09:10 < aj> troygiorshev: always seems best to qualify your ack if it's the latter
09:11 < sipa> yes, you are in no way restricted to just the word "ack" when leaving a review :)
09:11 < sipa> a one-line summary of what you did, or how qualified you feel about it, is very useful
09:12 < amiti> fanquake: ofc ACK review comments can't replace the job of the maintainer to make those more subtle judgments, but the reason I find them helpful is to maintain momentum on PRs with lots of comments. and give me (and other reviewers) a quick overview as a starting point. whether I already reviewed the PR or am just starting a review 
09:13 < amiti> sipa: earlier you referred to a mention of outbound eviction, what was that in regards to? 
09:13 < sipa> 08:07:11 < sdaftuar> more improvements to syncing our tips with more peers (possibly including tx-relay-peer rotation, which can help here as well)
09:14 < sipa> and apparently i misread; jonatack was talking about inbound eviction policy
09:15 < amiti> ah okay, thanks
09:15 < jonatack> i was specifically trying to observe and figure out how to test https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19500
09:16 < jonatack> which made me realise that i didn't know what was going on with my peer conns in enough detail
09:17 < jonatack> i'm running bitcoin locally with nLastBlockTime and nLastTXTime added to getpeerinfo for my peer connections dashboard
09:18 < jonatack> sipa: is there a good reason why that (eviction criteria) data is not exposed through getpeerinfo currently?
09:18 < sipa> jonatack: nope; i suspect just nobody ever added it
09:19 < phantomcircuit> adiabat, it has to be easy to identify a bitcoin node that's listening, and it's inherently going to be easy to identify a bitcoin node based on the network traffic
09:19 < jonatack> e.g. timestamp of last block and last txn for that peer
09:19 < phantomcircuit> without significantly delaying block relay, it's impossible to hide that you're running a bitcoin node from the network operator
09:19 < adiabat> phantomcircuit: right I guess this would only make sense in the context of bip 324 or similar
09:19 < jonatack> sipa: thanks. will propose.
09:19 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincent@host-95-246-119-127.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:20 < phantomcircuit> adiabat, no even then you can trivially detect that it's a bitcoin node
09:20 < jonatack> it looks like this ATM: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19643#issuecomment-671093420
09:20 < phantomcircuit> just observe the traffic patterns, if you consistently see a spike in bandwidth after a block is found, then it's a bitcoin node
09:21 < sipa> phantomcircuit: probably less the case now with compact blocks
09:21 < sipa> i'm sure traffic analysis is still possible
09:21 < sipa> but it may be more subtle
09:21 < sipa> if you don't want false positives
09:21 < phantomcircuit> sipa, it's still going to be super obvious over time
09:22 < adiabat> phantomcircuit: I agree that if you want to find out you can, but it gets a lot harder
09:23 < phantomcircuit> if you're listening it's always going to be trivial
09:23 < adiabat> it's not going to stop the NSA or whoever, but may well stop ISPs who just have something that looks for 8333 and blocks that port
09:23 < adiabat> or scripts that shut down servers or flag that port as meaning a host is compromised
09:25 < adiabat> we got free google cloud credits to run some bitcoin tests / research, and they kept shutting our VPSs down
09:26 < adiabat> even though we were like, yeah this is the research you gave us the free credits to do...
09:29 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:38 -!- watersnake1 [~christian@24.61.159.12] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:51 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@2601:645:c200:f539:f85e:a648:fc27:2225] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:10 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef1c270059d098000ff6dbf7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:12 -!- baldur [~baldur@pool-173-56-240-14.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:13 -!- theStack [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has quit [Quit: leaving]
10:16 < jnewbery> if any maintainers are around, I think #19316 is RFM. ACKs on latest commit from laanwj, sdaftuar, jnewbery and vasild
10:16 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19316 | [net] Cleanup logic around connection types by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #19316 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
10:24 -!- baldur [~baldur@pool-173-56-240-14.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:30 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:31 -!- b10c [~b10c@2001:16b8:2e78:9b00:885a:5088:eb3:4c5d] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
10:34 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:37 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:39 -!- morcos [~morcos@gateway/tor-sasl/morcos] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:51 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:51 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:51 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gzhao408 opened pull request #19698: test: apply strict verification flags for transaction tests and assert backwards compatibility (master...test-verify-flags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19698
10:51 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
10:52 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:54 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:00 -!- frankie1 [~frankie@178.239.168.171] has quit []
11:02 < achow101> review beg for #18654. Has 2 acks, would be nice to have it merged soon
11:02 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18654 | rpc: separate bumpfees psbt creation function into psbtbumpfee by achow101 · Pull Request #18654 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
11:04 -!- gzhao408 [~textual@c-73-252-251-3.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:16 -!- jarthur_ is now known as jarthur
11:21 -!- davidfetter1 [~davidfett@217.146.82.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:29 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:32 -!- TallTim [~TallTim@216.15.20.214] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:38 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:46 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
11:50 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex]
11:50 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:52 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincent@host-95-246-119-127.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:54 -!- greypw [~greypw@unaffiliated/greypw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:54 -!- BGL [~twenty@75-149-171-58-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:55 -!- greypw [~greypw@unaffiliated/greypw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:59 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
11:59 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:13 -!- ghost43_ [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:14 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:27 < nehan> quick comment on the review nagging stuff from the p2p meeting: i think there is an implicit assumption in there that faster merges are better (by measuring time to merge and suggesting to optimize on it). i don't agree with that and want to point out it might not be great to encourage faster merges. i'd argue a better metric is quantity of high-quality review.
12:35 -!- TallTim [~TallTim@216.15.20.214] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:39 -!- Davterra [~Davterra@104.200.129.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:53 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:00 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:01 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:13 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
13:15 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
13:20 -!- troygior1hev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:22 -!- PaulTroo_ [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:22 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:23 -!- troygiorshev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
13:26 -!- PaulTroo_ [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:27 -!- BGL [~twenty@75-149-171-58-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:34 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:50 -!- Guyver2_ [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)]
13:54 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:00 -!- davidfetter1 [~davidfett@217.146.82.202] has quit []
14:06 < sdaftuar> nehan: i think that's a fair point, but for a given amount of review from a given set of reviewers, the quality of that review is likely higher when not excessively drawn out over time. i think this is because people are more thoughtful in responding to other good review comments if their own thinking on how a PR works is fresh in their minds, and because errors can crop up due to rebases as the
14:06 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
14:06 < sdaftuar> underlying code base changes while a PR is open
14:07 < sdaftuar> so maybe it's not reasonable to expect merges to happen in very short periods of time and have that be a good thing... but 6-12 month review cycles strikes me as usually not very good outcomes for a PR
14:11 -!- PaulTro__ [~paultroon@193.32.127.234] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:13 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:13 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host]
14:13 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:14 -!- PaulTroo_ [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:21 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:21 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack closed pull request #18940: miner: fix off-by-ones in BlockAssembler::TestPackage (master...20200511-miner-fix-off-by-one-in-test-package) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18940
14:21 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
14:31 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:37 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:38 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:38 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:55 -!- kwm1 [~kwm@178.162.204.238] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:58 -!- Davterra [~Davterra@104.200.129.62] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:05 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:06 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:07 -!- marcoagner [~user@2001:8a0:6a45:1900:2fd7:e0f0:d356:dd70] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
15:14 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef1c270059d098000ff6dbf7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:15 -!- darosior [~darosior@194.36.189.246] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
15:17 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@ec2-3-211-34-208.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
15:19 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@ec2-3-211-34-208.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:25 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
15:28 -!- darosior [~darosior@194.36.189.246] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:29 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:32 -!- darosior [~darosior@194.36.189.246] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
15:39 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:53 < ajonas> nehan: Point well taken. To build on what sdaftuar mentioned, I've seen evidence that some are discouraged by month+ gaps in a review cycle or don't feel comfortable asking for review themselves. Each PR is different -- different complexity, different set of reviewers, etc. I don't think any apples to apples comparison on an individual PR basis makes sense.
15:53 < ajonas> In aggregate, however, I think there is the possibility of seeing some signal in those numbers by coordinating reviews or a designated entity to do the nagging. The goal is to allow authors to focus more on their contributions rather than rebasing. Time to merge is a first bad metric that I thought might be a decent proxy, but I'd certainly be open to other ways to measure progress.
15:59 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:00 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:04 -!- diogorsergio [~diogorser@97e70d7f.skybroadband.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
16:10 -!- darosior [~darosior@194.36.189.246] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:16 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:39 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:39 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:41 -!- darosior [~darosior@194.36.189.246] has quit [Quit: darosior]
16:42 -!- darosior [~darosior@194.36.189.246] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:42 -!- darosior [~darosior@194.36.189.246] has quit [Client Quit]
16:42 -!- darosior [~darosior@194.36.189.246] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:52 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@37.228.243.134] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
16:58 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:59 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:00 -!- kwm1 [~kwm@178.162.204.238] has quit []
17:03 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:04 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:13 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
17:20 -!- diogorsergio [~diogorser@94.1.122.189] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:22 -!- SukhE1 [~SukhE@184.75.221.195] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:27 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:29 -!- Davterra [~Davterra@104.200.129.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:33 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:44 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:48 -!- SukhE1 [~SukhE@184.75.221.195] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:49 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:49 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #19700: wallet: Replace -zapwallettxes with wallet tool command (master...zapwallettxes-wallettool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19700
17:49 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
17:58 < luke-jr> I thought that was already open O.o
17:59 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:59 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:05 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:06 < achow101> luke-jr: I've opened 3 prs, one for each option
18:06 < luke-jr> aha
18:09 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:10 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:13 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:25 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:25 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:27 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:31 -!- joeykrim1 [~joeykrim@84.39.117.57] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:31 -!- trash_mapache [~trash_map@2600:100e:b056:9a79:cef2:ba34:7d59:78b4] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:34 -!- Eagle[TM] [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:34 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:36 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
18:53 -!- promag [~promag@83.223.233.213] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:57 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
18:59 < luke-jr> where can I learn about this crazy(?) new RPC implementation syntax, and why it's better than the older more readable version?
19:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:02 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 20 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cb1ee1551cf3...ce3bdd0ed1bb
19:02 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3f1b714 Amiti Uttarwar: scripted-diff: Rename OneShot to AddrFetch
19:02 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 26304b4 Amiti Uttarwar: [net/refactor] Introduce an enum to distinguish type of connection
19:02 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1521c47 Amiti Uttarwar: [net/refactor] Add manual connections to ConnectionType enum
19:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
19:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:02 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #19316: [net] Cleanup logic around connection types (master...2020-06-conn-refactor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19316
19:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
19:03 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:07 -!- Davterra [~Davterra@104.200.129.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
19:08 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:09 -!- Davterra [~Davterra@89.46.114.243] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:12 < jeremyrubin> luke-jr: eh? example
19:13 < achow101> you mean the RPCHelpMan stuff?
19:13 < luke-jr> yes
19:13 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19550
19:13 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
19:13 < achow101> luke-jr: it's better because it aligns all the help text correctly
19:14 < achow101> the syntax is just matching brackets correctly
19:14 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
19:16 < luke-jr> achow101: I don't mean RPCHelpMan itself, I mean the new change of moving code inside it
19:17 < jeremyrubin> it looks like it has for some time now
19:17 < jeremyrubin> i don't see any changes from what it's been for a while
19:18 < achow101> luke-jr: oh, I see, 19550 is don't something funky
19:18 < achow101> *doing
19:18 < jeremyrubin> line 638?
19:19 < achow101> I assume so
19:19 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:19 < luke-jr> yeah
19:19 < achow101> did someone suggest him to do that? I haven't seen that syntax before
19:20 < luke-jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19550#discussion_r456865552
19:21 < achow101> luke-jr: I guess #19528 explains it
19:21 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19528 | rpc: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (misc) by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #19528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:22 < jeremyrubin> seems like a good change 
19:23 < achow101> this'll be one of those things that you just copy and paste
19:24 < luke-jr> I don't see the explanation
19:24 < achow101> " However, in the future they could be used to teach the server the named arguments. Named arguments are currently registered by the CRPCCommands and duplicate the RPCArg names from the documentation. This redundancy is fragile, and has lead to errors in the past (despite having linters to catch those kind of errors)."
19:25 < luke-jr> what does that have to do with this new RPC method definition stuff?
19:25 < jeremyrubin> it checks the args and then makes the call
19:25 < achow101> it makes the function return the RPCHelpMan which can then report the arg names
19:25 < luke-jr> it did that before this..?
19:25 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
19:25 < achow101> then the actual RPC stuff is a function within the RPCHelpMan
19:26 < jeremyrubin> but it required redundant and potentially inconsistent info
19:27 < luke-jr> this seems like a rather ugly way to accomplish it :/
19:30 < luke-jr> probably better to get rid of the function/return, and just declare it as a static variable?
19:31 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:32 < achow101> it's just a lambda
19:33 -!- troygior1hev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has quit [Quit: leaving]
19:34 < luke-jr> #proposedmeetingtopic Can we recreate bitcoin-core/gui so GitHub will let us do PRs from the same <user>/bitcoin forks instead of making a new remote for everyone?
19:34 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:35 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:52 -!- Highway61 [~Thunderbi@unaffiliated/highway61] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:00 -!- joeykrim1 [~joeykrim@84.39.117.57] has quit []
20:05 -!- Eagle[TM] [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
20:06 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:09 -!- Emcy [~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:13 -!- Emcy [~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:16 -!- trash_mapache [~trash_map@2600:100e:b056:9a79:cef2:ba34:7d59:78b4] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:21 -!- Phace [~Phace@84.39.116.180] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:41 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:41 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:43 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:43 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:45 -!- watersnake1 [~christian@24.61.159.12] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
20:46 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:46 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:50 < kallewoof> Signet pull request has been updated with ajtowns suggestions, and the network is up and running now. Please review! https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18267
20:53 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:55 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:25 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:25 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:35 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:35 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:55 -!- TheHoliestRoger [~TheHolies@unaffiliated/theholiestroger] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:55 -!- TheHoliestRoger_ [~TheHolies@unaffiliated/theholiestroger] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:56 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:56 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:57 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:05 -!- mdunnio [~mdunnio@208.59.170.5] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
22:21 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:21 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:30 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:30 -!- Dean_Guss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:33 -!- Emcy [~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
22:35 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248.16clouds.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:35 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:36 -!- Emcy [~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:36 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
22:42 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Quit: jb55]
22:44 -!- Deacydal [~Deacyde@unaffiliated/deacyde] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:00 -!- Phace [~Phace@84.39.116.180] has quit []
23:11 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
23:12 -!- vfP56jSe [sid321684@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uwvcbyhfvabbjrwk] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
23:14 -!- vfP56jSe [sid321684@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-oyvauoybnzfolude] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:22 -!- torax [~torax@185.204.1.185] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:23 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:37 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
23:47 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:47 -!- arowser_ [~arowser1@192.69.88.248] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:59 -!- marcoagner [~user@bl11-17-219.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
--- Log closed Wed Aug 12 00:00:48 2020