--- Log opened Thu Oct 15 00:00:47 2020 00:02 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 00:11 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:11 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:12 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:13 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:13 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider pushed 27 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f2e6d1443013...8ed37f6c8497 00:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 54729f3 Andrew Chow: Add libsqlite3 00:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e87df82 Andrew Chow: Add sqlite to travis and depends 00:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7577b6e Andrew Chow: Add SQLiteDatabase and SQLiteBatch dummy classes 00:13 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 00:14 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:14 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider merged pull request #19077: wallet: Add sqlite as an alternative wallet database and use it for new descriptor wallets (master...sqlite-wallet) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19077 00:14 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 00:14 < aj> \o/ 00:14 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00 [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:2143:af3d:c6b2:a825] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:15 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 00:15 < meshcollider> achow101: 🥳 00:16 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00_ [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:e05c:9fd2:1de6:ce2e] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 00:45 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:9867:273:d21b:c6c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:46 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:47 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:48 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:cdf:9623:201e:a1d8] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 00:56 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:57 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:57 -!- jouke [~jouke@unaffiliated/komkommer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:03 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:07 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:08 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:13 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:19 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 01:23 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:23 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 20 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8ed37f6c8497...3caee1694657 01:23 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f8c099e Pieter Wuille: --- [TAPROOT] Refactors --- 01:23 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 107b57d Pieter Wuille: scripted-diff: put ECDSA in name of signature functions 01:23 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8bd2b4e Pieter Wuille: refactor: rename scriptPubKey in VerifyWitnessProgram to exec_script 01:23 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 01:23 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:23 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #19953: Implement BIP 340-342 validation (Schnorr/taproot/tapscript) (master...taproot) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19953 01:23 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 01:24 < sipa> \\\o/// 01:25 < jonatack> boom \o/ 01:30 < wumpus> \o/ 01:30 * sipa does the tapdance 01:31 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:31 < sipa> actually wait no, i can't dance 01:31 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:31 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:35 < wumpus> (don't let it being merged stop you from reviewing further if you were still in progress) 01:35 * wumpus neither 01:37 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:37 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #20152: doc: Update wallet files in files.md (master...201015-sqlite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20152 01:37 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 01:37 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@67.23.55.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:42 < sipa> what is the meeting topic command? 01:42 -!- jonatack [~jon@109.202.107.147] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 01:43 < MarcoFalke> #proposedmeetingtopic 01:43 < MarcoFalke> Is there anything left to discuss, now that everything is merged? 01:44 < sipa> #proposedmeetingtopic taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet 01:47 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 01:47 < wumpus> also wanted to get it merged so that other pre-0.21 PRs don't make it require rebase 01:47 < wumpus> with that many ACKs 01:51 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex] 01:52 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:53 < MarcoFalke> Makes sense, and as the code is not active yet, it can still be changed freely 01:56 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:56 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3caee1694657...3956165903cf 01:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6020ce3 Gregory Sanders: DecodeHexTx: Try case where txn has inputs first 01:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 27fc6a3 Gregory Sanders: DecodeHexTx: Break out transaction decoding logic into own function 01:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3956165 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #17775: DecodeHexTx: Try case where txn has inputs first 01:56 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 01:58 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:58 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #17775: DecodeHexTx: Try case where txn has inputs first (master...decode_wit_first) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17775 01:58 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 02:00 -!- larsivi [~larsivi@s91904426.blix.com] has quit [] 02:07 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:10 < kallewoof> Won't be at meeting but my 2 sats on signet and taproot activation: I don't think there's a reason to delay activation. My suggestion is to set activation for a week or so from now (long enough for a trivial pull request to get ACKs and be merged + to update the servers issuing blocks). I guess the question is whether this is affected by feature freeze or not. If it is, I suggest we activate it after 0.21 branch split in 02:10 < kallewoof> master only. 02:11 < kallewoof> If people want to try out the actual real taproot activation mechanism for activation on signet, the story changes I guess. 02:12 < sipa> kallewoof: the nice thing about signet is that really consensus rules are decided by the signers - even if the rest of the network doesn't enforce 02:12 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 02:13 < sipa> the reason i brought it up is that i realize that master will now relay (valid) taproot spends... which may be unexpected, and feels wrong without activation plan 02:13 < kallewoof> sipa: yeah, but p2p layer is affected... propagation can be delayed or fail unless one peer is a miner 02:14 < kallewoof> sipa: in pre-activation? i thought it policy-rejected 02:14 < sipa> kallewoof: no 02:15 < sipa> i think segwit had special rules about relay before activation, because it was also a p2p change 02:15 < kallewoof> ohh! i didn't realize that. 02:15 < aj> sipa: (if the network enforces rules prior to "real" activation, and there's a hard-fork, you need more than just signers to fix things up) 02:15 < aj> sipa: (probably no need for hard-forks in the taproot implementation now though so, whatevs) 02:15 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:16 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:17 < sipa> the last softfork before that, CSV, was implemented & activated in the same release, 0.12.1 02:18 < sipa> but i think we should disable relay for networks which have no activation defined (i.e., all but regtest and maybe signet) 02:20 < kallewoof> sipa: my vote is to keep it enabled on signet, as that means we can just flip it on whenever and it will just work™️ 02:21 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:22 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.211] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:27 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:27 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack closed pull request #19874: cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers (master...getinfo-handle-older-servers-gracefully) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19874 02:27 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 02:28 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:28 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack reopened pull request #19874: cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers (master...getinfo-handle-older-servers-gracefully) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19874 02:28 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 02:28 < kallewoof> I get the sneaky suspicion that enum class with bit fiddling is... not the way to go. Tempted to just do const uint8_t's and skip the enum part altogether.. 02:30 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:30 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #19997: History for Taproot PR #19953 (master...taproot-history) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19997 02:30 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 02:32 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex] 02:33 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:33 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 02:37 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:38 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.211] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 02:38 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@67.23.55.162] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 02:40 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.172.104.51] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:43 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:45 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:45 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3956165903cf...e3b474c54866 02:45 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 883cea7 Pieter Wuille: Restore compatibility with old CSubNet serialization 02:45 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 886be97 Pieter Wuille: Ignore incorrectly-serialized banlist.dat entries 02:45 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e3b474c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20140: Restore compatibility with old CSubNet serialization 02:45 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 02:45 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 02:45 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:45 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20140: Restore compatibility with old CSubNet serialization (master...202010_subnet_ser_compact) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20140 02:45 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 02:46 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 02:47 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex] 02:47 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.172.104.51] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:50 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:51 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:51 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e3b474c54866...560dea9b26f7 02:51 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d681a28 Luke Dashjr: RPC: getpeerinfo: Deprecate "whitelisted" field (replaced by "permissions") 02:51 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5b57dc5 Luke Dashjr: RPC: getpeerinfo: Wrap long help line for bytesrecv_per_msg 02:51 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 560dea9 MarcoFalke: Merge #19770: RPC: getpeerinfo: Deprecate "whitelisted" field (replaced by... 02:51 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 02:52 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:52 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19770: RPC: getpeerinfo: Deprecate "whitelisted" field (replaced by "permissions") (master...deprecate_whitelisted) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19770 02:52 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 02:56 -!- BjarniRunar1 [~BjarniRun@185.163.110.116] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:58 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:01 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:01 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/560dea9b26f7...711ddce94377 03:01 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master faad92f MarcoFalke: test: Remove unused nVersion=1 in p2p tests 03:01 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 711ddce Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20131: test: Remove unused nVersion=1 in p2p tests 03:01 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 03:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:02 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20131: test: Remove unused nVersion=1 in p2p tests (master...2010-testnVersion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20131 03:02 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 03:10 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:12 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:14 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:18 -!- Coralie12Moscisk [~Coralie12@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:23 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.10] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 03:23 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:24 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:25 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.172.104.51] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:27 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:28 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:32 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Client Quit] 03:34 -!- lightningbot [~supybot@2400:8901::f03c:91ff:febb:bbc1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:35 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has quit [Quit: leaving] 03:37 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:38 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:38 -!- aj [aj@cerulean.erisian.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 03:39 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.172.104.51] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:40 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.172.104.51] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:41 -!- jonatack_ [~jon@37.172.104.51] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:41 -!- jonatack__ [~jon@37.172.104.51] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:43 -!- Coralie12Moscisk [~Coralie12@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 03:48 -!- braydonf [~braydon@gateway/tor-sasl/braydonf] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:53 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.164.124.179] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:55 -!- jonatack__ [~jon@37.172.104.51] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 04:00 -!- braydonf [~braydon@gateway/tor-sasl/braydonf] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:01 -!- mrostecki [~mrostecki@gateway/tor-sasl/mrostecki] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:04 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:09 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 04:14 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:14 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] S3RK opened pull request #20153: wallet: do not import a descriptor with hardened derivations into a watch-only wallet (master...importdesc_silent_fail) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20153 04:14 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 04:17 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:17 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.164.124.179] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 04:21 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:22 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:23 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:24 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:25 -!- filchef [~filchef@212.104.97.177] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:25 -!- aj [aj@cerulean.erisian.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:31 -!- lightningbot [~supybot@2400:8901::f03c:91ff:febb:bbc1] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:32 -!- tralfaz [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:32 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:32 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:32 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:33 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:34 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:35 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00_ [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:cd4c:702d:88ca:b535] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:35 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00 [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:2143:af3d:c6b2:a825] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 04:37 -!- Eagle[TM] [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 04:38 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:42 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00 [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:3450:12e3:687c:73f4] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:42 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00_ [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:cd4c:702d:88ca:b535] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 04:54 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00_ [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:5466:9bbd:3b64:fa0a] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:55 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00 [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:3450:12e3:687c:73f4] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 04:59 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00_ [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:5466:9bbd:3b64:fa0a] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 05:00 -!- BjarniRunar1 [~BjarniRun@185.163.110.116] has quit [] 05:04 -!- kristapsk___ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:04 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:08 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00 [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:5c74:cca3:7cf:56db] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:22 -!- kerbyu [~kerbyu@217.146.82.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:33 < jamesob> wow, big merge day. congrats sipa, achow101! 05:35 < elichai2> 🥳🥳🥳🥳 05:38 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00_ [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:c407:85d0:bcbe:4132] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:39 -!- Ga1aCt1Cz00 [~Ga1aCt1Cz@2a02:810a:8d40:5ebc:5c74:cca3:7cf:56db] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 05:46 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:49 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:49 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof opened pull request #20154: BIP-322 support (master...202010-bip322) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20154 05:49 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 05:50 < kallewoof> andytoshi: hope you didn't spend too much time on your implementation. I have begun working on a rough implementation of BIP 322 support here, FYI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20154 05:52 -!- willcl_ark is now known as [github-bot] 05:53 < hebasto> is #20120 rtm? 05:53 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 05:54 < andytoshi> kallewoof: no, i spent about 30 minutes on it :) the old spec was super straightforward (at least, with the existing rust-bitcoin/miniscript infrastructure i have) 05:55 < andytoshi> the new spec is bigger but i think will integrate much better with my descriptors library 05:55 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:56 < kallewoof> andytoshi: it seems to integrate really well with bitcoin core, from what i can tell so far. the old code was a split out thing of its own 05:56 < kallewoof> andytoshi: cool to hear you're working on it. feedback and such super welcome :) 05:57 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:57 < andytoshi> right, that's also what was going to happen with the rust-miniscript implementation ... de/serialization was easy but then providing a usable sign/verify API seemed pretty unnatural. i think this one will be better because i can write a function that takes a descriptor + message and converts it to a to_spend transaction 05:57 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:57 < andytoshi> (and i guess now, will also take a value ... i'm curious why you changed this this morning...i don't have strong feelings either way, i just don't understand it) 05:57 -!- [github-bot] is now known as wilcl_ark 05:58 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:00 < kallewoof> andytoshi: uh... i somehow thought the sum of amounts was required in the signature, but now that you mention it, i think i was confused.. 06:01 < kallewoof> andytoshi: I'll revert that one now. Thanks for pointing it out 06:03 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:05 < andytoshi> cool :) the value made it a little harder, API-wise, because it means that you need to know upfront whether you're going to use the to_spend purely as a dummy input when proving funds, or not (and you have to konw how many funds you're planning to prove) 06:05 < andytoshi> you sorta have to know this now, in choosing whether to use an OP_TRUE descriptor or a "real" one 06:05 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:06 < kallewoof> andytoshi: that makes sense -- yeah, i think i managed to convince myself that the signatures commit to the amounts, so we need to have those available and why not just stuff them in the virtual to_sign tx... but that's not how it works at all. 06:06 < luke-jr> oh blah, sqlite isn't optional? :/ 06:07 -!- Exho [~Echoplex@139.180.171.37] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:08 * MarcoFalke updates all build scripts to install sqlite-dev 06:09 < MarcoFalke> This is probably the first time a dependecy has been added in years. Others were only removals. 06:09 * luke-jr begins on a PR to fix it optional 06:10 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 06:18 * kallewoof calls it a day at "checker.CheckECDSASignature(vchSig, vchPubKey, scriptCode, sigversion)" returning false. :) Will compare sighashes tomorrow. Maybe I should've implemented this in btcdeb first. 06:20 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net] 06:21 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:26 -!- tralfaz is now known as davterra 06:28 < andytoshi> kallewoof: sounds good, hopefully i'll have some test vectors in the next 6-8 hours we can compare 06:29 < kallewoof> andytoshi: nice! 06:29 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.5 - https://znc.in] 06:30 -!- kerbyu [~kerbyu@217.146.82.202] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:31 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Quit: jonatack] 06:31 -!- doomas [~doomas@94.229.74.91] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:31 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:33 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:33 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host] 06:33 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:33 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:36 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 06:38 -!- jonatack [~jon@109.232.227.138] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:45 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@89.36.78.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:45 -!- glozow [uid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gxlwpojdyoxusxnv] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:53 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:53 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #20156: Make sqlite support optional (compile-time) (master...opt_sqlite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20156 06:53 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 07:06 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:9867:273:d21b:c6c] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:11 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:12 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:16 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:16 < jamesob> anyone ever seen "/usr/bin/ld: error: [...]: " during compilation before? I'm getting a truckload of them, but compilation seems to succeed anyway. Think it has to do with having installed the debian gcc-9 package, but not sure. Google turns up nothing. 07:16 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:16 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:16 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:18 < jamesob> s/compilation/link & ar time 07:24 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:31 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:32 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:34 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:34 < yanmaani> jamesob: yeah, me too 07:34 < yanmaani> what OS? 07:34 -!- promag [~promag@dsl-5-27.bl27.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:34 < jamesob> Linux slug 4.19.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.132-1 (2020-07-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux 07:35 < yanmaani> I use gcc 8.3.0 @ debian (devuan) 07:35 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:35 < jamesob> I get it when compiling with gcc or clang; I think it's an issue with ld/ar 07:35 < yanmaani> Linux hostname 4.19.0-10-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.132-1 (2020-07-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux 07:35 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:35 < promag> does it make sense to support multiple -blocksdir where one is rw but the others are ro? so that older blocks can be kept on a slower disk? 07:36 < yanmaani> promag: you may be interested in overlayfs 07:36 < yanmaani> or just some caching setup 07:37 < luke-jr> promag: probably 07:37 < promag> yanmaani: yes, I though about that, but then in instead of prunning it would move blocks the the other place 07:37 < luke-jr> promag: needs some thought, though, as it also makes sense to move them automatically 07:37 < promag> luke-jr: right 07:37 < yanmaani> uh, how are you going to automatically move blocks to a RO fs? 07:38 < luke-jr> FWIW Signet may be broken on master since it lacks Taproot activation params 07:38 < promag> yanmaani: no, I mean RO as in bitcoind doesn't writes new blocks there 07:38 < yanmaani> the simple solution is to have a cronjob that checks mtime/ctime and moves+symlinks them 07:38 < yanmaani> oh, not a RO fs 07:38 < yanmaani> just do overlayfs or something IMO 07:39 < promag> not ro fs, "RO" -blocksdir 07:40 < promag> yanmaani: I understand this can be overcome out of bitcoind, but the idea would be to add a -prunestrategy=archive for instance 07:40 < luke-jr> yanmaani: for example, it can be an external drive you unplug when you leave home 07:40 < promag> just a thought.. 07:41 < luke-jr> and blocks would just not prune-to-slow-storage while you're away from home 07:41 < luke-jr> when you get back, then they move 07:41 < yanmaani> luke-jr: But then you have a problem when you start bitcoind in such cases, no? 07:41 < promag> luke-jr: exactly 07:41 < luke-jr> and if you need to use (eg) a rescan RPC, you plug in the drive 07:41 < promag> it can be copy first, then delete old 07:41 < luke-jr> yanmaani: that's exactly what this would avoid 07:42 < yanmaani> I guess if you have the DB, yeah. Couldn't it just ignore missing blocks until they're needed? 07:42 < promag> yup 07:42 < yanmaani> so you can do whatever you want and bitcoind will just deal with it 07:42 < promag> this might interact with assumeutxo cc jamesob 07:42 < yanmaani> instead of re-implementing overlayfs in bitcoin core 07:43 < promag> yanmaani: overlayfs is cool if you dont care where each file is stored 07:43 < promag> and it's platform dependant 07:43 < yanmaani> you can move them around by yourself though 07:43 < yanmaani> or just set a cronjob to move+symlink 07:44 < promag> yes I could 07:44 < promag> or have it automatic 07:44 < jamesob> promag: should be compatible with assumeutxo since blocksdir access is largely unchanged; blocks have always come out of order anyway 07:45 < jamesob> well... not always, but for a while :) 07:45 -!- Mercury_Vapor [~Mercury_V@174-082-166-092.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:45 < promag> jamesob: but what happens if you have to validate and a block isn't there? 07:46 < jamesob> promag: validation doesn't require access to blockfiles per se because all the data you're relying on is stored in (i) the headers chain and (ii) the utxo set 07:47 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:47 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #20157: Bugfix: chainparams: Add missing (disabled) Taproot deployment for Signet (master...signet_taproot_fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20157 07:47 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 07:47 < provoostenator> I'd like to nominate https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96 for v0.21 too 07:48 < provoostenator> Also note it's impossible to create an unnamed wallet with the GUI atm 07:49 < promag> jamesob: https://github.com/jamesob/assumeutxo-docs/tree/2019-04-proposal/proposal#do-you-perform-any-extra-validation-on-a-loaded-snapshot-besides-comparing-its-hash-to-the-assumeutxo-value 07:49 < promag> jamesob: but if blocks are available locally then this is not required right? 07:50 < promag> "this" as in ibd 07:50 < jamesob> promag: ibd is still required to make sure that the blocks on disk render into the utxo set that you expect 07:51 < jamesob> I guess that'd be more like a reindex 07:52 < promag> thanks jamesob 07:52 < jamesob> sure thing 07:52 -!- Mercury_Vapor [~Mercury_V@174-082-166-092.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:00 -!- doomas [~doomas@94.229.74.91] has quit [] 08:01 < jamesob> man it is now amazingly hard to replicate the slew of CI errors locally 08:03 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7c62:66c0:4ac3:4969] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:04 < sdaftuar> i thought it was a video game where you keep clicking the re-run button til it passes? 08:04 * sdaftuar ducks 08:05 < promag> sdaftuar: like go away pls 08:06 < promag> luke-jr: another approach would be -prunedir which if set it would move there instead of deleting 08:06 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:06 < luke-jr> promag: keep in mind it may be desirable to actually prune too 08:07 < luke-jr> promag: eg, keep blocks with your own txs in them in storage, but prune everything else 08:08 < promag> that requires to have wallets loaded 08:08 < luke-jr> not necessarily (see prune locks) 08:09 < promag> ah you mean #19463 08:09 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19463 | Prune locks by luke-jr · Pull Request #19463 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 08:10 < luke-jr> promag: anyway, my point is it probably shouldn't literally hijack the pruning logic 08:10 < luke-jr> it is fundamentally different 08:10 < promag> don't want to change the logic 08:10 < promag> just want to s/delete/move 08:12 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 08:14 -!- Emcy [~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:15 -!- Emcy [~Emcy@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:22 -!- gonemad3 [~gonemad3@89.47.234.28] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:28 < luke-jr> #proposedmeetingtopic Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze 08:28 < yanmaani> https://travis-ci.org/github/namecoin/namecoin-core/jobs/736047101 What could cause this Travis failure? It seems to relate to #11394 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6e4e98ee8ce2da3cca2e2fd210e9e8dbc9b1c936 08:28 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11394 | Perform a weaker subtree check in Travis by sipa · Pull Request #11394 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 08:29 -!- kabaum [~kabaum@h-13-35.A163.priv.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:44 -!- kristapsk___ is now known as kristapsk 08:45 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:45 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/711ddce94377...0d2248235375 08:45 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6df7882 Jon Atack: net: add peer network to CNodeStats 08:45 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4938a10 Jon Atack: rpc, test: expose CNodeStats network in RPC getpeerinfo 08:45 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5133fab Jon Atack: cli: simplify -netinfo using getpeerinfo network field 08:45 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 08:45 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:45 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20002: net, rpc, cli: expose peer network in getpeerinfo; simplify/improve -netinfo (master...getpeerinfo-GetNetClass) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20002 08:45 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 08:51 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@c-73-34-43-4.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:51 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7c62:66c0:4ac3:4969] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:52 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7c62:66c0:4ac3:4969] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:55 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:04 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7c62:66c0:4ac3:4969] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:04 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7c62:66c0:4ac3:4969] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:13 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:15 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 09:17 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 09:21 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:22 < hebasto> provoostenator: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96 09:22 < hebasto> provoostenator: agree about 0.21 09:47 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7c62:66c0:4ac3:4969] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:47 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7c62:66c0:4ac3:4969] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:50 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:51 -!- andreacab [~andreacab@2a02:120b:2c22:e0c0:7c62:66c0:4ac3:4969] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 09:52 -!- ossifrage [~ossifrage@unaffiliated/ossifrage] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 10:15 < yanmaani> Do you get my posts to the bitcoin-dev list? I can see them online, but I get the "your message awaits approval" message 10:38 -!- davec [~davec@072-183-054-196.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 10:42 -!- davec [~davec@072-183-054-196.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:57 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 10:58 < provoostenator> #16546 can be dropped from the high priority list: it won't make it into 0.21 and hardware wallets already have a project 10:58 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16546 | External signer support - Wallet Box edition by Sjors · Pull Request #16546 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 10:58 < provoostenator> That said, it now works with Sqlite! 10:59 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [] 11:00 -!- gonemad3 [~gonemad3@89.47.234.28] has quit [] 11:02 -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer] 11:05 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:06 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:06 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:09 -!- Cory [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:16 -!- joerodgers [~joerodger@141.98.255.150] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:20 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:20 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 8 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0d2248235375...9855422e65ca 11:20 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 567008d Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add DumpAnchors() 11:20 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c29272a Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add ReadAnchors() 11:20 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bad16af Hennadii Stepanov: p2p: Add CConnman::GetCurrentBlockRelayOnlyConns() 11:20 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 11:21 -!- Lthere [~Lthere@185.204.1.185] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:22 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:22 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #17428: p2p: Try to preserve outbound block-relay-only connections during restart (master...20191109-anchors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17428 11:22 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 11:26 < phantomcircuit> sipa, can an attacker with access to the private key generate two signatures from the same private key for the same message? 11:26 < phantomcircuit> with schnorr signatures? 11:27 < phantomcircuit> i assume so 11:27 < sipa> generally you don't call someone with a private key an attacker ;) 11:27 < sdaftuar> "signer" 11:27 < sipa> but yes - the term you're looking for (i think) is a "unique signature", and no EC based signature schemes are 11:27 < phantomcircuit> sipa, if they're trying to abuse poorly written wallet software they are :P 11:27 < sdaftuar> "user" 11:28 < phantomcircuit> that's what i thought 11:28 < phantomcircuit> it's still an attacker... just not of the signature scheme itself 11:28 < jeremyrubin> I think phantomcircuit is more asking if a signing oracle will ever generate different signatures for same msg 11:28 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:28 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl opened pull request #20158: tree-wide: De-globalize ChainstateManager (master...2020-06-libbitcoinruntime) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20158 11:28 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 11:28 < sipa> phantomcircuit: to be clear, the bip340 signing algorithm is deterministic if no auxiliary randomness is used 11:29 < phantomcircuit> jeremyrubin, not if they will, but if they can, which sipa has answered 11:29 < sipa> but nobody is required (or can be verified to) follow that algorithm 11:29 < phantomcircuit> sipa, yeah i understand now, i was confused by the bip340 language about malleability 11:30 < sipa> there is one context where we actually treat someone with a private key as an attacker in BIP340, and it's a rather unusual requirement: nobody (even those with private keys) should be able to construct a signature for which the single-sig validation and batch-validation algorithm produce a different result (with more than negligible probability) 11:30 < phantomcircuit> i thought that my original reading was unlikely so im here asking :) 11:30 < sipa> well, i don't think it should be an unusual requirement - but in practice it seems it's not part of the standard attack model for signatures 11:30 < phantomcircuit> sipa, indeed cause then you could validate a transaction that is then rejected by block validation, would be a nasty issue 11:32 < sipa> in ed25519 land, this property clearly does not hold: https://hdevalence.ca/blog/2020-10-04-its-25519am 11:33 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:33 < sipa> and it's trivial to make signatures (with private key) that validate in some implementations and not others, with tons of variants 11:34 < phantomcircuit> sipa, for most signature scheme use the cost of rejecting a signature that would be valid elsewhere is typically zero 11:35 < phantomcircuit> this is a sort of unique case in which everybody has to actually 100% agree 11:37 < phantomcircuit> sipa, do you know ballpark how many signatures are in a typical 'full' block right now? 11:40 < sipa> around 6000 txins per block, and i assume only a fraction have more than one signature 11:42 < jeremyrubin> #proposedmeetingtopic small announcement on behalf of BGIN 11:46 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:46 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9855422e65ca...9ad7cd2887ab 11:46 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3069b56 Amiti Uttarwar: [doc] Improve help for getpeerinfo connection_type field. 11:46 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 41dca08 Amiti Uttarwar: [trivial] Extract connection type doc into file where it is used. 11:46 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9ad7cd2 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #20090: [doc] Tiny followups to new getpeerinfo connection type fiel... 11:46 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 11:46 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:46 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20090: [doc] Tiny followups to new getpeerinfo connection type field (master...2020-09-getpeerinfo-conn-type-release-notes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20090 11:46 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 11:49 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef18aa0064f9e41f2f81eec6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:50 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex] 11:58 -!- promag_ [~promag@dsl-5-27.bl27.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:59 -!- promag_ [~promag@dsl-5-27.bl27.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:00 -!- promag_ [~promag@dsl-5-27.bl27.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:00 < wumpus> #startmeeting 12:00 < lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 15 19:00:27 2020 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:00 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 12:00 < provoostenator> hi 12:00 -!- promag [~promag@dsl-5-27.bl27.telepac.pt] has quit [Disconnected by services] 12:00 < emzy> hi 12:00 < hebasto> hi 12:00 < jnewbery> hi 12:00 < luke-jr> hi 12:00 < kanzure> hi 12:00 -!- promag_ is now known as promag 12:01 < promag> hi 12:01 -!- promag_ [~promag@176.79.5.27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:01 < wumpus> two proposed topics taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet (sipa), Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze (luke-jr) 12:01 < luke-jr> wumpus: there was a third by jeremyrubin O.o 12:01 < luke-jr> [18:42:09] #proposedmeetingtopic small announcement on behalf of BGIN 12:01 < jonatack> hi 12:02 < elichai2> hi 12:02 < wumpus> PSA today is the feature freeze for 0.21, it seems we managed to merge all the features on the milestone 12:02 < wumpus> luke-jr: strange, didn't see it in http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt 12:02 < luke-jr> wumpus: thought it was tomorrow? :x 12:02 < provoostenator> Note that the GUI repo doesn't have a milestone 12:02 < MarcoFalke> provoostenator: Right. Is there any feature we missed from the GUI? 12:02 < MarcoFalke> bugfixes can go in any time 12:02 < luke-jr> [16:22:11] provoostenator: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/96 12:02 < wumpus> there are some PRs left of course, but nothing that can be labeled feature imo https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A0.21.0 12:03 < wumpus> provoostenator: good point, didn't look at the gui repo at all 12:03 < luke-jr> wumpus: would be nice to get some of BIP 8 in, so there's less backported with activation 12:03 < MarcoFalke> We still have 14 days to find and fix all bugs 12:04 < luke-jr> but I'll save that for the dedicated topic 12:04 < wumpus> luke-jr: well 10-15 is today here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18947 , but does it matter, everything tagged as feature was merged 12:04 < wumpus> (except for the GUI one apparently, if it's ready for merge it should go in) 12:04 < luke-jr> wumpus: doesn't mean much when only a few people can edit tags :/ 12:05 < wumpus> luke-jr: the idea is that things get proposed for the milestone in meetings, or in the channel at least 12:05 < dongcarl> hi 12:05 < luke-jr> oh well, BIP 8 isn't strictly feature anyway 12:05 < fjahr_> hi 12:06 < wumpus> #topic Pending bugfixes for 0.21 12:06 < wumpus> any bugfixes that we should get in for the release missing on the milestone? 12:07 < jonatack> i'd propose 20120, 20115, 19961, and maybe 19874 12:07 < luke-jr> I found #20157, not sure how important it is 12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20157 | Bugfix: chainparams: Add missing (disabled) Taproot deployment for Signet by luke-jr · Pull Request #20157 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:07 < sipa> luke-jr: should definitely be fixed before release 12:07 < sipa> #20120 12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:07 < luke-jr> > #20120, #20115, #19961, and maybe #19874 12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20120 | net, rpc, test, bugfix: update GetNetworkName, GetNetworksInfo, regression tests by jonatack · Pull Request #20120 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:07 < jonatack> plus the upcoming fix for #19543 12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20115 | cli: -netinfo quick updates/fixups and release note by jonatack · Pull Request #20115 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19961 | doc: tor.md updates by jonatack · Pull Request #19961 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19874 | cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers by jonatack · Pull Request #19874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19543 | Normalize fee units for RPC ("BTC/kB" and "sat/B) · Issue #19543 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:08 < hebasto> #20080 or #19933 12:08 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:08 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19933 | wallet: bugfix; if datadir has a trailing / listwalletdir would strip lead char of walletname by Saibato · Pull Request #19933 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:08 < luke-jr> oh yes, one of those are important to get in ☺ 12:08 < wumpus> jonatack: i'm not convinced #19874 is really a bugfix 12:08 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19874 | cli, bugfix: degrade -getinfo gracefully for older servers by jonatack · Pull Request #19874 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:09 < luke-jr> afaik -getinfo has never worked with old servers gracefully 12:09 < ariard> hi 12:09 < jonatack> agree that it's optional. the doc/tor.md is still in draft but will open v soon 12:09 < sipa> i think documentation improvements can be done after feature freeze 12:09 < MarcoFalke> tests and docs can go in any time 12:10 < jonatack> sipa: agree, i held off on those to get the features in 12:11 < provoostenator> #18788 would be good tests to add 12:11 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18788 | tests: Update more tests to work with descriptor wallets by achow101 · Pull Request #18788 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:11 < wumpus> 19543 was already tagged 12:12 < luke-jr> oh, did achow101 want to make descriptor wallets tied to sqlite? where does that stand? 12:12 < luke-jr> #20156 is IMO a bugfix 12:12 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20156 | Make sqlite support optional (compile-time) by luke-jr · Pull Request #20156 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:12 < provoostenator> luke-jr: that's already merged 12:12 < wumpus> yes, that was his plan, to make it clearer that those are two different wallet formats 12:12 < meshcollider> Please can we decide which of 19933 and 20080 we want to keep and which one to close? 12:13 < luke-jr> provoostenator: tying the two together is? 12:13 < wumpus> luke-jr: i think 'return a null in a field' is graceful enough, it just shouldn't crash 12:13 < MarcoFalke> I like #20080 12:13 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:13 < provoostenator> luke-jr: descriptor == sqlite for new wallet yes 12:13 < provoostenator> see my comment as well 12:13 < promag> +1 #20080 12:13 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:13 < provoostenator> Unless achow101 changed his mind about that, but I think that was the point of getting it in before release 12:13 < wumpus> 20080 was already tagged right 12:13 < MarcoFalke> I promise to test 20080 soon 12:13 < wumpus> please don't repeat things 12:13 < luke-jr> wumpus: 'return a null in a field' ? 12:14 < wumpus> I'm having a lot of trouble keeping track of PRs mentioned here to add them to the milestone 12:14 < luke-jr> oh, for -getinfo; sure; or just an error even 12:14 < wumpus> luke-jr: yes 12:14 < meshcollider> Alright 20080 it is, I'll close 19933 12:15 < wumpus> meshcollider: yes makes sense 12:16 < wumpus> I think I've tagged everything mentioned, if not, please let me know 12:16 < promag> wumpus: maybe #20125 12:16 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20125 | rpc, wallet: Expose database format in getwalletinfo by promag · Pull Request #20125 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:17 < luke-jr> 20080 should get 0.19.x and 0.20.x tags too I think 12:17 < wumpus> promag: sounds like a feature to me 12:17 < MarcoFalke> luke-jr: It already has 12:17 < wumpus> (though maybe a necessary one, I don't' know) 12:17 < luke-jr> o 12:17 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider closed pull request #19933: wallet: bugfix; if datadir has a trailing '/' listwalletdir would strip lead char of walletname (master...wallet-fix-missing-chars-boost-1.47) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19933 12:18 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 12:18 < jonatack> agree with promag about 20125 12:18 < wumpus> luke-jr: let's discuss the 0.21 milestone now not other ones 12:18 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:19 < wumpus> ok adding 20125... 12:19 < promag> wumpus: not really... just adds "format" key to the rpc response 12:19 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:19 < wumpus> well it's not a bugfix at least 12:19 < wumpus> but I don't care it seems minimal enough 12:19 < promag> wumpus: right 12:20 < wumpus> that concludes the topic I guess 12:20 < luke-jr> I'm not sure it makes sense to expose that detail, but meh 12:21 < wumpus> #topic taproot relay policy / activation on testnet/signet (sipa) 12:21 < sipa> hi 12:21 < wumpus> luke-jr: especially if it's linked to descriptor wallets it seems a bit redundant, but yeah... 12:21 < promag> luke-jr: could still be rejected ;) 12:21 < sipa> there are a few aspects here 12:21 < wumpus> if it's useful for troubleshooting/diagnosis it should be in 12:22 < sipa> one is relay of v1 transaction outputs; bitcoin core will do that since #15846 12:22 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15846 | [POLICY] Make sending to future native witness outputs standard by sipa · Pull Request #15846 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:22 < sipa> but since the merge of #19953, we'll also relay spends of (valid) taproot outputs 12:22 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19953 | Implement BIP 340-342 validation (Schnorr/taproot/tapscript) by sipa · Pull Request #19953 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:23 < sipa> i think that's undesirable, at least until activation is defined, or even until actually activated 12:23 * luke-jr did suggest splitting that out of the PR a few months ago :P 12:24 < sipa> luke-jr: well, we do want it on regtest 12:24 < luke-jr> regtest supports acceptnonstdtxn, but ok 12:26 < sipa> talking to sdaftuar a bit, i think we should just reject creation and spending of v1 outputs until taproot is _active_ 12:26 < sipa> as a policy rule (not through script validation, which is more invasive) 12:27 < sipa> or at least creation as soon as an activation is defined 12:27 < sipa> (so that the behavior on mainnet before an activation is defined is essentially as if it didn't exist at all) 12:28 < sipa> i can open a PR/issue and discuss further there 12:28 < sipa> but i wanted to bring this up, as it may be unexpected that master is now doing taproot validation on the mempool 12:28 < wumpus> I think that makes sense, to do that as a policy rule 12:28 < MarcoFalke> so the spends would be valid taproot spends (with witness) only? 12:29 < sipa> so right now: all v1 creation is relayed, v1 spends are relayed only if valid according to taproot rules 12:29 < ariard> is there any disadvantage of doing this? 12:30 < sipa> my proposal: v1 creation is not relayed while taproot activation is defined but not yet active; v1 spending is only relayed after being actually active 12:30 -!- ossifrage [~ossifrage@unaffiliated/ossifrage] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:30 < provoostenator> Why not always relay? 12:31 < MarcoFalke> provoostenator: Someone will give away their coins, surely 12:31 < provoostenator> Doesn't seem ideal to have a bunch of nodes out there not relaying v1 transactions. 12:31 < sipa> provoostenator: they'd all start relaying as soon as activation happens 12:31 < sipa> before that point, we don't care 12:31 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 12:32 < ariard> sipa: so you want to hardcode the loosening policy change based on the consensus activation IIRC ? 12:32 < luke-jr> well, activation isn't in 0.21.0, so not these 12:32 < sipa> luke-jr: indeed, the only effect on 0.21.0 would be making spending of v1 non relayed 12:32 < jnewbery> sipa: what's the difference between 'not relayed while taproot activation is defined but not yet active' and 'only relayed after being actually active' 12:33 < provoostenator> Did we relay v1 to/from transactions before taproot was merged? 12:33 < sipa> jnewbery: creation would be relayed as long as no activation parameters are set (the idea being that without activation parameters, it should be treated as an unknown future upgrade that can still change) 12:33 < aj> jnewbery: 0.21.0 will be not-defined and not-active, so will always relay creation of taproot outputs, but not spends of them 12:34 < sipa> maybe this is a simpler principle: before activation is _defined_, behavior should be identical to before taproot was merged 12:34 < aj> sipa: i'm not sure it makes much sense to make it harder to spend a taproot output than to create one? creating one before activation is how you lose money? 12:34 < jeremyrubin> aj: i thought we checked outputs standardness? 12:35 < jnewbery> sipa aj: thanks 12:35 < aj> jeremyrubin: 15846 12:35 < luke-jr> aj: the spend we make harder, may be a theft 12:35 < luke-jr> you can't steal if you can't spend 12:35 < jeremyrubin> #15846 12:35 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15846 | [POLICY] Make sending to future native witness outputs standard by sipa · Pull Request #15846 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:35 < aj> luke-jr: prior to activation miners can spend trivially 12:35 < luke-jr> aj: miners don't rely on others' policy 12:36 < sipa> aj: my suggestion is that relay of creation and spending only differs before activation is defined... to match pre-taproot-implemented behavior 12:36 < sipa> after activation is defined, both are disallowed until it is actually active 12:36 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 12:37 < luke-jr> (OT: wumpus: #19502 should probably get milestoned) 12:37 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19502 | Bugfix: Wallet: Soft-fail exceptions within ListWalletDir file checks by luke-jr · Pull Request #19502 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:37 < sipa> aj: which is ultimately due to softfork safeness... if we treat taproot as subject to change still (which i think we should until activation is defined), we shouldn't permit spending it to be relayed 12:38 < wumpus> luke-jr: ok 12:38 < jeremyrubin> has that been reverted though somehow? 12:38 < sipa> jeremyrubin: what? 12:38 < jeremyrubin> looking at the current code and I'm not seeing that logic still 12:38 < aj> sipa: right, immediately after activation (supported by 0.21.1 say), you have all nodes relaying creation, but only 0.21.1 nodes relaying spends. vs having 0.21.0 and 0.21.1 nodes validating and relaying spends if we leave things as they are now 12:39 < jeremyrubin> Ah 12:39 < jeremyrubin> it went into Solver 12:39 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:40 < sipa> aj: i think permitting spends right now is bad... it's just gratuitous policy difference between 0.21 and pre-0.21 nodes 12:40 < sipa> the extra rule for suspending relay of outputs is user protection before activation 12:41 < sipa> anyway, will open an issue 12:41 < aj> sipa: the principle (no behaviour change prior to activation) makes sense, just doesn't seem like it has much benefit (people still lose money if they create outputs earlier, because miners will claim them via a non-std tx) and slight costs (will make relay slightly harder due to implementation-but-no-activation nodes not relaying) 12:41 < wumpus> 20 minutes left, we might want to move to the next topic 12:41 < sipa> aj: if their own node rejects relay, miners will never see the tx :) 12:41 < luke-jr> sipa: no reason their own node would :P 12:41 < wumpus> #topic Getting BIP 8 logic in before freeze (luke-jr) 12:42 < luke-jr> I've implemented the current BIP 8 as logic only (no activations) in #19573. This is probably not the final BIP 8 (aj's been working on some revisions), but having it merged in 0.21 means we can have a smaller diff to add Taproot activation later. 12:42 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19573 | Replace unused BIP 9 logic with draft BIP 8 by luke-jr · Pull Request #19573 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:42 < luke-jr> Would be nice to get this merged before 0.21.0rc1 if possible. Anyone who wants to help review (or other) can join ##taproot-activation to help get this done quickly. 12:42 < luke-jr> Note the PR depends on #19401 and #20157. These are fairly trivial, and the former already has 2 ACKs. 12:42 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19401 | QA: Use GBT to get block versions correct by luke-jr · Pull Request #19401 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:42 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20157 | Bugfix: chainparams: Add missing (disabled) Taproot deployment for Signet by luke-jr · Pull Request #20157 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:43 -!- rafaelpac [bfb09340@191.176.147.64] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:45 < wumpus> i don't know, it does feel a bit rushed to me, to merge something (that should be a no-op otherwise) last minute just to minimize the diff later, especially when we don't even know yet if it's the final state of the BIP 12:45 < wumpus> not a small project either 12:45 < luke-jr> hmm, true 12:46 < sipa> no strong opinion... it doesn't seem very invasive, but on the other hand, this can also easily be backported along with actual activation parameters 12:46 < sipa> it also may turn out to be wasted effort 12:46 -!- ossifrage [~ossifrage@unaffiliated/ossifrage] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:47 < luke-jr> not sure how it could be wasted effort 12:47 < luke-jr> sipa: your topic, you had mentioned signet/testnet activation - that might or might not be a reason to do this sooner 12:47 < jeremyrubin> i think it makes sense to wait for cleaner git history 12:48 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: I'm assuming the two trivial PRs would be merged first as part of this process 12:48 < sipa> oh right, i didn't bring that up... do we want to define an activation on testnet? 12:48 < sipa> that's something that was done historically, but with signet i think there may be less need now 12:48 < luke-jr> I think it makes sense to test BIP 8 with testnet 12:49 < wumpus> it should activate there at some time i guess 12:50 < sipa> always possible in .1 or whatever point release too, of course 12:50 < aj> probably shouldn't activate on testnet with a different activation method than we plan on using for mainnet? 12:50 < luke-jr> sipa: true 12:50 -!- rafaelpac [bfb09340@191.176.147.64] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:51 < luke-jr> maybe that's a good solution: testnet in .1, and mainnet not until .2 12:51 < sipa> it'd be nice to see things active on signet first before suggesting testnet changes 12:51 < wumpus> sipa: right 12:51 < aj> kallewoof's not awake, but i was thinking maybe lock taproot as it stands in immediately on the default signet, and if worst comes to worst just restart the signet chain if needed 12:51 < sipa> (as in signet it can be rolled out without code changes...) 12:51 < wumpus> that's great 12:52 < luke-jr> signet doesn't even need an activation, does it? 12:52 < luke-jr> just always-active? 12:52 < MarcoFalke> wait, if spends are made non-standard, it needs conde changes for signet 12:52 < aj> sipa: (not-relaying taproot-txs if activation hasn't happened will affect the "without code changes" part a bit 12:52 < aj> luke-jr: yeah, that's what i'm thinking 12:52 < aj> luke-jr: (i mean, "always-active" is an activation) 12:53 < luke-jr> the policy changes sipa suggested are conditional on the deployment state AFAIK? 12:53 < MarcoFalke> so I guess s/without/minimal/ 12:53 < aj> luke-jr: right, but *nodes* have to know the deployment state in that case, not just miners 12:53 < luke-jr> so always-active would trigger the spending policy 12:53 < sipa> i think we can flesh these things out the next few days 12:53 < aj> yep 12:54 < luke-jr> yeah, let's give jeremyrubin some minutes ☺ 12:54 < jeremyrubin> i need like 1 min 12:54 < jeremyrubin> so no rush 12:54 < wumpus> #topic Small announcement on behalf of BGIN (jeremyrubin) 12:54 < jeremyrubin> Matsuo has asked me to share the following 12:55 < jeremyrubin> FYI bgin-global.org is hosting an event for core devs the first week of Nov, please fill out this form https://forms.gle/99yUnQdtAkAwt5SW7 to assist scheduling or email schwentker@bsafe.network with any questions. Goal of the event is to help core dev sustainability, so should be of interest for all here. 12:55 < jeremyrubin> https://bgin-global.org 12:55 < luke-jr> during a pandemic? O.o 12:55 < achow101> Who's bgin? 12:55 < jeremyrubin> it's a virtual event 12:55 < luke-jr> i c 12:55 < luke-jr> "Blockchain Governance Initiative Network " 12:55 < jeremyrubin> BGIN is "Blockchain Governance Initiative Network (BGIN)" 12:56 < jeremyrubin> I'd ignore the acronym tho 12:56 < luke-jr> so this is like NY agreement in organization form? :x 12:56 < jeremyrubin> no 12:56 < aj> there's also coinbase looking to support bitcoin dev projects as of an hour or so ago https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/1316801517983334401 12:56 < jeremyrubin> it's the sort of name that you have to have to get intl participation from people in intl financial regulation 12:56 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: lol 12:56 < jeremyrubin> so it's started by Matsuo and others 12:57 < jeremyrubin> the point being that a lot of various regulators want to chat about how Bitcoin works and how they engage, but also understanding how standards emerge 12:57 < jeremyrubin> But a part of that is they want to understand and potentiall support development through research grants 12:58 < wumpus> that sounds pretty scary tbh 12:58 < jeremyrubin> so it's maybe folk you'd rather not talk to at all depending on your preferences, but it is a good faith effort afaict 12:58 < jeremyrubin> :shrug: 12:59 < jeremyrubin> I'd encourage you to email concerns to schwentker@bsafe.network 13:00 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: it sounds like they're just giving webinars and we'd simply watch it? O.o 13:00 < jeremyrubin> no i don't think so 13:00 < jeremyrubin> I think they want to hear from you directly 13:00 < MarcoFalke> end meeting? 13:00 < wumpus> ok, I think everything is said, thanks for the announcement 13:00 < wumpus> #endmeeting 13:00 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Oct 15 20:00:46 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) 13:00 < lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.html 13:00 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.txt 13:00 < lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-15-19.00.log.html 13:00 < luke-jr> >how they engage 13:00 < luke-jr> "don't 13:01 < luke-jr> jk, maybe should tell them to get rid of the travel rule tho ;) 13:01 < jeremyrubin> I mean, there are practical things that are relatively improtant to engage them on 13:01 < jeremyrubin> E.g., travel rule 13:01 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: yeah, joking 13:01 < jeremyrubin> do you owe taxes on BCash 13:01 < luke-jr> not anymore 13:01 < emzy> jeremyrubin: I also find it strange. But can I as a none dev also join? 13:02 < jeremyrubin> If you had a contract denom in Bitcoin do you owe BCash and Bitcoin after a fork? 13:02 < luke-jr> emzy: who is to say you're not a dev? ;) 13:02 < achow101> luke-jr: re: sqlite and descriptors. The intention for the foreseeable future is sqlite == descriptors and descriptors == sqlite. So adjust #20156 accordingly 13:02 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20156 | Make sqlite support optional (compile-time) by luke-jr · Pull Request #20156 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 13:02 < emzy> luke-jr: me :) 13:02 < luke-jr> achow101: what needs adjustment? 13:02 < sipa> achow101: no way to convert legacy bdb wallets to legacy sqlite ones? 13:03 < jeremyrubin> Anyways, i don't think there is malintnet but up to you to give benefit of the doubt or express concerns to them directly 13:03 < jeremyrubin> i am a mere herald 13:03 < aj> "legacy sqlite" wow, already :) 13:03 < luke-jr> wumpus: 20156 missed milestoning 13:03 < luke-jr> aj: lol 13:03 < sipa> aj: legacy meaning non-descriptor 13:03 < jeremyrubin> emzy: I think you'd be fine to join, just fill out the form 13:03 < achow101> luke-jr: to enforce that descriptor wallets can't be made of sqlite is disabled. Dunno of you already did that, still going through my email backlog 13:03 < aj> sipa: yeah :) 13:04 < emzy> jeremyrubin: I did. At least I can tell you here what happend :) 13:04 < luke-jr> achow101: I didn't remove any code enforcing it, at least 13:04 < achow101> sipa: maybe dump them createfromdump, but I'm not intending on making a migration for it 13:04 < jeremyrubin> emzy: wat? 13:05 < emzy> jeremyrubin: I submitted the form. 13:05 < sipa> achow101: well the question is if the format should be supported i think, regardless of how someone can create it 13:06 < luke-jr> error = Untranslated(strprintf("Failed to load database path '%s'. Data is not in required format.", path.string())); 13:06 < luke-jr> I guess that error could be clearer 13:06 < luke-jr> or maybe just remove descriptor support entirely 13:06 < sipa> it's ok to say non-descriptor-sqlite wallets are unsupported 13:06 < jonatack> achow101: right, the main reason for adding a db format field to getwalletinfo or -getinfo is because a bdb wallet can be descriptor 13:06 < sipa> if we don't test that 13:06 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 13:06 < sipa> but whatever combinations are supported should be tested 13:07 < wumpus> i'm all for not supporting too many combinations 13:07 < sipa> and those that aren't should at least get a warning 13:07 < wumpus> be careful here, anything you support for the wallet needs to be support for pretty much near forever 13:07 < sipa> (or otherwise be impossible to create) 13:07 < achow101> luke-jr: I'll have a look when I get home, but I was intending on writing a full without-bdb and without-sqlite thing that disabled legacy or descriptors respectively 13:07 < wumpus> as those files will be around for a long time 13:07 < wumpus> it's also confusing for users 13:07 < wumpus> two types of wallet is enough, avoid the combinatorial cmplexity 13:08 < sipa> yeah 13:09 < sipa> that's fair 13:09 < achow101> jonatack: I think that's useful for experts who do unsupported things, but for most users, the format should be tied to the type 13:09 < jeremyrubin> 2**256 wallets for added security 13:10 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:10 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dongcarl closed pull request #20050: validation: Prune (in)direct g_chainman usage related to ::LookupBlockIndex (bundle 1) (master...2020-09-libbitcoinruntime-v4) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20050 13:10 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 13:12 < wumpus> heh 13:12 < achow101> sipa: I think it will be supported but not recommended, aka you had to jump through a lot of hoops to get to legacy sqlite 13:13 < sipa> yeah, ok 13:13 < luke-jr> i can use sqlite wit uncompressed pubkeys? 13:13 < luke-jr> :P 13:13 < achow101> sure 13:14 < achow101> Descriptora can have uncompressed keys 13:14 < luke-jr> :o 13:14 < luke-jr> I meant the old wallet format tho 13:14 < luke-jr> we should probably drop support for that.. it isn't actually compatible post-segwit anyway :x 13:15 -!- filchef [~filchef@212.104.97.177] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 13:15 < sipa> you mean sqlite non-descriptor with uncompressed keys? 13:15 < achow101> Yeah but you and Matt will complain about it 13:15 -!- filchef [~filchef@212.104.97.177] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:15 < luke-jr> lol 13:16 < luke-jr> Qt should stop using camelcase so I don't need to guess at if they did ToolTip or Tooltip 13:17 < achow101> Is actually toolTip 13:17 < luke-jr> )(%#&)#_)# 13:17 < luke-jr> (I'm actually calling SetToolTip, so it's okay) 13:20 < promag> descriptors:true wallet doesn't mean it's sqlite right? 13:20 < promag> only true starting with 0.21, at least that's my understanding 13:21 < achow101> yes 13:21 < promag> that's why I'm suggesting "format" in getwalletinfo response 13:22 < promag> nit, and maybe in the gui we could have some thing/icon/whatever for these things - like getwalletinfo 13:22 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:23 < luke-jr> promag: descriptors:true will mean sqlite in all supported configurations AIUI 13:24 < promag> luke-jr: you can still open a 0.20 descriptors wallet? 13:25 < luke-jr> promag: 0.20 doesn't support descriptors 13:25 < luke-jr> I don't think.. 13:25 < promag> <.< 13:28 < promag> luke-jr: you are right 13:28 < promag> #16528 13:28 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16528 | Native Descriptor Wallets using DescriptorScriptPubKeyMan by achow101 · Pull Request #16528 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 13:30 < promag> 0.20 has some descriptors stuff, but not the option to create descriptors wallet 13:30 -!- ossifrage [~ossifrage@unaffiliated/ossifrage] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:34 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:9867:273:d21b:c6c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:35 < achow101> Irs only helpful for people who have descriptor wallets on old master 13:36 < promag> right 13:37 * luke-jr likes git-worktree 13:37 < promag> on the long run the plan is to enforce descriptors? 13:37 < promag> and as a consequence it will be sqlite? 13:38 < achow101> Yes 13:38 < promag> or we will also support non descriptor wallets in sqlite? 13:39 < achow101> It will be supported as in if you somehow make one, we won't explode 13:39 < luke-jr> will we explode on promag's bdb descriptor wallet? ;) 13:40 < achow101> But actually making one is going to be non trivial 13:40 < achow101> Same for bdb descriptor wallets 13:41 < achow101> luke-jr: I've been running the sqlite branch with 3 of the 4 combinations of format and type without any issue 13:41 < achow101> For the past 3 months or so 13:42 < promag> "non trivial" why? 13:42 < achow101> Only one I haven't run is legacy sqlite 13:42 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef18aa0064f9e41f2f81eec6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 13:43 < achow101> promag: to avoid combinatorial complexity in the migration code 13:45 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:46 < achow101> I'll open an issue that lays out the full plan and a timeline 13:52 < aj> luke-jr: git-worktree is the best. shame paths end up hardcoded so ccache stuff isn't shared across them though 13:53 < luke-jr> aj: wait, what? ccache doesn't care about paths, does it? 13:53 < sipa> your ccache cache is shared i think? 13:54 < sipa> it's in $HOME/.ccache 13:55 < luke-jr> hmm, I thought I configured my ccache to be on tmpfs tho 13:55 < luke-jr> ah yes cache directory /var/tmp/ccache-dev 13:55 < sipa> ah, or wherever you configure it to be 13:57 -!- promag [~promag@dsl-5-27.bl27.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:58 -!- promag [~promag@dsl-5-27.bl27.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:00 -!- Lthere [~Lthere@185.204.1.185] has quit [] 14:00 < aj> luke-jr: ccache doesn't directly, but the path ends up going into the preprocessed source somewhere or something which makes ccache's input different each time... not sure how though now that i look 14:00 -!- wilcl_ark is now known as willcl_ark 14:03 -!- promag [~promag@dsl-5-27.bl27.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 14:05 < aj> oh, i'm wrong, ccache has a `hash_dir` flag that makes it hash the working dir, and it's -g that puts the working dir in the .o files 14:06 < sipa> still, worktrees are very useful 14:06 < sipa> i have separate ones for fuzzer builds (so i don't need to re-run ./configure with the fuzzer flags all the time) 14:06 < sipa> and sanitizer builds 14:07 < sipa> you can't checkout the same branch in two worktrees simultaneously, but you can use git checkout --detach in one to just switch to code of a branch in another 14:10 < luke-jr> aj: it being in the .o should be okay? 14:10 < luke-jr> sipa: you can checkout the same branch if you really want to :D 14:10 < sipa> luke-jr: how so? 14:11 < sipa> is there some --use-the-force option? 14:11 < luke-jr> IIRC 14:12 < luke-jr> --force 14:12 -!- Guyver2 [Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)] 14:15 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincent@2001:b07:6474:9d49:9867:273:d21b:c6c] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 14:16 -!- filchef [~filchef@212.104.97.177] has quit [Quit: KVIrc 5.0.0 Aria http://www.kvirc.net/] 14:22 -!- Antimatter [~Antimatte@84.39.116.180] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:29 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 14:32 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:38 -!- Exho [~Echoplex@139.180.171.37] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 1.9.1] 14:39 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has quit [Quit: Pavlenex] 14:40 -!- rabidus [~rabidus@85.76.51.88] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:43 < sipa> if anyone gets this warning with gcc 9, it's a compiler bug (which just produces a bogus warning): 14:43 < sipa> src/ecmult_impl.h:496:48: warning: array subscript [1, 268435456] is outside array bounds of ‘struct secp256k1_strauss_point_state[1]’ [-Warray-bounds] 496 | secp256k1_gej tmp = a[state->ps[np].input_pos]; 14:59 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:59 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #20159: test: mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll.py improvements (use MiniWallet, add logging) (master...20201015-test-improve-mining_getblocktemplate_longpoll) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20159 14:59 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 14:59 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 15:04 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:10 < luke-jr> btw, why do we use "org.bitcoinfoundation.Bitcoin-Qt" on macOS? 15:11 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:12 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:14 < jb55> awkward 15:14 < phantomcircuit> luke-jr, iirc wasn't gavin the one signing the macos builds? 15:14 < phantomcircuit> probably just legacy from that 15:15 < sipa> i think changing it was brought up before, but would break compatibility with existing settings so wasn't done? 15:16 < sipa> (it's awkward that it was ever set to that - even when the foundation was actively sponsoring developers - but little that can be done about that now) 15:16 < luke-jr> sipa: it doesn't look like it would from the context :/ 15:19 < sipa> there is some discussion about it in #17462 15:19 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17462 | build: macOS fix Info.plist by RandyMcMillan · Pull Request #17462 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 15:22 -!- promag_ is now known as promag 15:24 < promag> achow101: is there anything preventing swaping CWallet::database in runtime? so 1) load with bdb 2) swap database 3) write all ? 15:24 < promag> *swap to sqlite 15:24 < achow101> promag: you might end up missing a few records 15:24 < achow101> I'd definitely wouldn't recommend doing that 15:24 < promag> not all records are loaded ok 15:25 < achow101> promag: all records are loaded, it's just a matter of making sure that "write all" wrote them all 15:25 < achow101> there's no existing "write all" 15:25 < promag> oh ok 15:26 < luke-jr> all records might not be loaded 15:26 < luke-jr> IIRC moves don't 15:26 < achow101> there are some records that aren't loaded because they aren't useful, just kept around for back compat. obviously back compat doesn't matter if you move to sqlite 15:26 < phantomcircuit> sipa, iirc the foundation was paying for the certificate, something about it being easier for a "foundation" to get one than for an individual 15:26 < luke-jr> achow101: uh, pretty sure we still show them 15:27 < phantomcircuit> who knows if that was true or if it was pretextual though.. 15:27 < achow101> luke-jr: no? I mean things like "default key" or the original "version" 15:27 < achow101> (version is now "minversion") 15:28 < promag> don't see a reason to remove load-bdb, that way the user could just send the funds to new wallet and we wouldn't have to do the migration tool 15:28 < achow101> The surefire way to migrate format is to grab a cursor on the original db, iterate it, and write every key/value pair in the new db 15:29 < luke-jr> achow101: well, I don't think moves get loaded either 15:29 < achow101> luke-jr: moves as in the old move rpc? 15:29 < luke-jr> yes 15:30 < achow101> I thought those records just got renamed and redefined for labels 15:30 < luke-jr> what? 15:30 < promag> bdb2sqlite.py incoming 15:30 < achow101> but also, that's for back compat, and if you are going to sqlite, back compat doesn't matter 15:30 < luke-jr> achow101: I would be annoyed if migrating my wallet lost data 15:31 < luke-jr> {"account": "a", "category": "move", "time": 1296345052, "amount": 0.00100000, "otheraccount": "b", "comment": ""}, 15:31 < luke-jr> this shouldn't disappear from listtransactions just because I upgrade 15:31 < achow101> luke-jr: right, which is also why I prefer the straight record-to-record migration rather than what is loaded in CWallet 15:39 -!- Livestradamus [~quassel@unaffiliated/livestradamus] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 15:39 -!- IPGlider [~IPGlider@45.76.34.219] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 15:40 -!- Livestradamus [~quassel@unaffiliated/livestradamus] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:41 -!- IPGlider [~IPGlider@45.76.34.219] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:47 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:47 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #20161: Minor Taproot follow-ups (master...202010_taproot_followup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20161 15:47 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 16:00 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [] 16:18 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:35 -!- snex [~snex@104.238.46.33] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:35 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:35 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #20162: p2p, compiler warnings: specify Announcement::m_state bitfield to be 8 bits (master...bitfield-too-small-warning) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20162 16:35 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 16:35 -!- snex [~snex@104.238.46.33] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 16:36 < fanquake> Yea I’m fairly certain we can’t change that MacOS string without breaking something 16:40 -!- fjahr_ is now known as fjahr 16:46 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@c-73-34-43-4.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 16:47 -!- _joerodgers [~joerodger@c-76-125-83-191.hsd1.ar.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:49 -!- _joerodgers [~joerodger@c-76-125-83-191.hsd1.ar.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit] 16:52 -!- joerodgers [~joerodger@141.98.255.150] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 17:00 -!- Antimatter [~Antimatte@84.39.116.180] has quit [] 17:00 -!- DeanWeen [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:05 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:08 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 17:09 -!- sailor [~Sailor@196.235.102.148] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:11 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:11 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:15 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-139-5.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 17:18 -!- sailor [~Sailor@196.235.102.148] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 17:22 -!- I440r [~I440r@195.206.169.184] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:24 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-30-112.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:39 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:39 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:52 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:52 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:58 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 18:00 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 18:07 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:24 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 18:24 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:30 -!- glozow [uid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gxlwpojdyoxusxnv] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 18:35 < aj> sipa: hmm, wouldn't it be better to have AreInputsStandard() return false for taproot spends prior to taproot actually activating? could pass down currentBlockScriptVerifyFlags to do that, I think? 18:39 < sipa> aj: there is no script validation flag that will reject a valid taproot spend 18:40 < sipa> one could be added, but that's a bit invasive... i'd rather do it through policy/policy.cpp alone 18:41 < sipa> aj: and yes, i suggest that (a) before activation is defined: creation is allowed, spending is not (b) while defined but unactivated: neither is allowed (c) when active, both are allowed 18:41 < sipa> an alternative - if we don't care about the theft protection - is making (b) identical to (a) 18:42 < aj> sipa: oh... maybe it was too early in the morning when i read what you were saying then, that sounds great 18:42 < sipa> and looking at implementation... (a) can easily be extended to "any situation in which it will never activate", including when it has failed 18:44 < sipa> one downside to have (a) and (b) have different behavior is that it introduces a trivial relay policy difference between nodes-with-activation and nodes-without-activation 18:44 < sipa> so if that's a concern, it should just be: whenever not active: creating allowed, spending not 18:45 < aj> there'll be a relay policy difference between (a) and (c) and (b)/(c) are the same nodes, so that seems fine? 18:45 < sipa> right, but we can expect that by the time activation happens, many nodes will have activation included 18:46 < sipa> so it's a synchronized event rather than dependent on upgrade time 18:48 < fanquake> Is anyone else seeing a number of the functional tests fail? https://gist.github.com/fanquake/f3df509a6f810a104b97a38753ef7a5a 18:48 < fanquake> Wondering if I've got some local issue 18:48 < aj> maybe make (b) while defined and in LOCKED_IN neither is allowed, would make it mostly safe and synchronised? 18:49 -!- promag_ [~promag@176.79.5.27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:50 < sipa> hmm, just have the theft protection while locked in and not yet activated? 18:50 < aj> sipa: yeah. so people spending to taproot a little early are protected 18:51 < aj> a little protected anyway 18:51 -!- promag [~promag@176.79.5.27] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 18:58 -!- Eagle[TM] [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:59 -!- EagleTM [~EagleTM@unaffiliated/eagletm] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 19:17 -!- afk11` [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 19:18 -!- afk11` [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:00 -!- I440r [~I440r@195.206.169.184] has quit [] 20:26 < fanquake> Seems there is at least some unwanted interaction between #20080 and the functional tests. Unclear why Travis / tests don't seem to be failing for anyone else: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20080#issuecomment-709708344 20:26 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 20:32 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 20:34 < kallewoof> promag_: I made https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13746 a few years ago. Closed it due to lack of interest, though, but it seems similar to what you're saying. 20:35 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:36 < sipa> #13746 20:36 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13746 | -masterdatadir for datadir bootstrapping by kallewoof · Pull Request #13746 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 20:37 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-30-112.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:38 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:38 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] riyasingh0799 opened pull request #20164: [test] undo truncation of digits in btc amount (master...rpc-testmempoolaccept-fee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20164 20:38 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 20:39 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:57 -!- Ahmuck1 [~Ahmuck@195.206.169.184] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:06 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:06 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9ad7cd2887ab...cbb5f3a2d584 21:06 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cccc752 MarcoFalke: rpc: Properly deserialize txs with witness before signing 21:06 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3333077 MarcoFalke: rpc: Adjust witness-tx deserialize error message 21:06 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cbb5f3a fanquake: Merge #19836: rpc: Properly deserialize txs with witness before signing 21:06 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 21:06 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:06 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #19836: rpc: Properly deserialize txs with witness before signing (master...2008-rpcDeserTxsWitness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19836 21:06 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 21:23 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:23 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #20165: Only relay Taproot spends if next block has it active (master...202010_taproot_policy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20165 21:23 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 21:25 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 21:29 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:29 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #20166: [0.20] Backports (0.20...more_020_backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20166 21:29 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 21:29 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 21:38 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:38 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #20091: doc: reflect the current status of Tor support. (master...pr-351-doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20091 21:38 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 21:38 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:41 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Client Quit] 21:45 < luke-jr> sipa: hmm, I wonder if, ideally, we would wait 100 blocks after activation to relay them 21:46 < luke-jr> similar to coinbase spends 21:46 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-30-112.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:51 < sipa> luke-jr: what would that protect against? 21:51 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:51 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #19635: param: add bool parameter -ephemeraltoronion to generate ephemeral tor addreses (master...ephemeral-tor-onion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19635 21:51 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 21:52 < luke-jr> sipa: reorgs invalidating them with a miner theft 21:52 < luke-jr> sipa: downstream of the actual taproot spend 21:52 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:52 < luke-jr> ie, a taproot spend is similar to a coinbase in that it can be claimed by any miner before the activation block 21:53 < aj> luke-jr: provided the pay-to-taproot tx has block height locktime, that's fine though 21:53 < sipa> luke-jr: that argument would apply to creation of outputs, not spending them 21:54 < luke-jr> aj: oh, that's true 21:54 < luke-jr> hmm, might have been interesting to have a consensus rule that taproot spends need a locktime after the activation height/time; probably also not worth the additional effort tho 21:54 < luke-jr> actually, that doesn't work 21:55 < luke-jr> because that rule wouldn't exist before activation either 21:55 < sipa> right 21:55 < luke-jr> hmm… maybe it would anyway? since it'd be an invalid taproot spend normally 21:56 < luke-jr> oh well, could just as well be a "wallets should do this" best practice 21:57 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:57 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #19419: wallet: let Listwalletdir do not iterate through our blocksdata. (master...wallet_351) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19419 21:57 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 22:14 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:35 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:38 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:50 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@174-29-30-112.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 22:53 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:53 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:56 -!- Pavlenex [~Thunderbi@141.98.103.251] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:00 -!- Ahmuck1 [~Ahmuck@195.206.169.184] has quit [] 23:04 -!- alko89 [~alko89@unaffiliated/alko89] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:05 -!- alko89 [~alko89@unaffiliated/alko89] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:22 -!- Wayno [~Wayno@185.163.110.116] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:28 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:28 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #20164: [test] undo truncation of digits in btc amount (master...rpc-testmempoolaccept-fee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20164 23:28 -!- bitcoin-git [~bitcoin-g@x0f.org] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [] 23:45 -!- jesseposner [~jesse@98.37.146.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 23:52 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 23:56 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:56 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:59 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:59 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev --- Log closed Fri Oct 16 00:00:48 2020