--- Log opened Thu Oct 20 00:00:52 2022
00:01 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:01 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:08 -!- Zenton [~user@user/zenton] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:12 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:12 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:16 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
00:21 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
00:25 -!- chipxxx [~chip@2001:8a0:f61c:9200:9c3d:d55a:c1aa:516e] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:27 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:27 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@user/dermoth] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
00:27 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:28 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:28 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:40 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@user/dermoth] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:51 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:52 -!- Guest6268 [~Guest62@137.61.48.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:53 -!- Guest6268 [~Guest62@137.61.48.10] has quit [Client Quit]
00:53 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:56 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
00:57 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
00:57 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:04 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [Closing Window]
01:06 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:06 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:17 -!- jespada [~jespada@nmal-24-b2-v4wan-166357-cust1764.vm24.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
01:17 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:18 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:20 -!- jespada [~jespada@nmal-24-b2-v4wan-166357-cust1764.vm24.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:20 -!- SpellChecker [~SpellChec@user/SpellChecker] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:20 -!- vasild [~vd@user/vasild] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:22 -!- SpellChecker [~SpellChec@user/SpellChecker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:24 -!- murrayn [~murray@static.38.4.181.135.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:27 -!- jespada [~jespada@nmal-24-b2-v4wan-166357-cust1764.vm24.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
01:27 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:28 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:32 -!- jespada [~jespada@nmal-24-b2-v4wan-166357-cust1764.vm24.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:33 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
01:39 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #26351: guix: bump time-machine to 39dcbc7fa3c02ff5c9682f25e1c29667dbfe7827 (master...2022/10/guix-bump-timemachine) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26351
01:46 -!- vasild [~vd@user/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:47 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:51 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:08 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:09 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:19 -!- fanta1 [~fanta1@78.48.143.94] has quit [Quit: fanta1]
02:20 -!- fanta1 [~fanta1@2a01:c23:7156:2500:a98f:c325:a945:6964] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:22 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:31 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
02:32 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:33 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:36 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:36 -!- fanta1 [~fanta1@2a01:c23:7156:2500:a98f:c325:a945:6964] has quit [Quit: fanta1]
02:43 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
02:49 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
02:59 -!- TheRec [~toto@user/therec] has quit []
02:59 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:59 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:01 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:03 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@198.54.132.120] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
03:04 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@static-198-54-132-120.cust.tzulo.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:07 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
03:19 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:19 -!- TheRec [~toto@84-75-225-47.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:19 -!- TheRec [~toto@84-75-225-47.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Changing host]
03:19 -!- TheRec [~toto@user/therec] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:21 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:23 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:23 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:24 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
03:38 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:46 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:50 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:51 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:55 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:56 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:03 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:13 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:13 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:19 -!- jonatack1 [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:23 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
04:40 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
04:41 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:41 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:42 -!- bomb-on_ [~bomb-on@user/bomb-on] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:44 -!- bomb-on [~bomb-on@user/bomb-on] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:47 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Quit: = ""]
04:51 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:54 -!- fanta1 [~fanta1@2a01:c23:7156:2500:a98f:c325:a945:6964] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:55 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
05:08 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:09 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:09 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:15 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
05:26 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:45 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:56 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:20 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:22 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:22 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:23 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
06:29 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
06:41 -!- yanmaani2 [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
06:44 -!- vasild [~vd@user/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
06:45 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:45 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:47 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
06:48 -!- vasild [~vd@user/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:48 -!- yanmaani2 [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:57 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:00 -!- mikehu44 [~quassel@159.65.11.175] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
07:01 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
07:15 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:20 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
07:33 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:33 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:47 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:47 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:11 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2ac71d20b2eb...fabc0310480b
08:11 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f159378 furszy: bench: place benchmark implementation inside benchmark namespace
08:11 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 05b8c76 furszy: bench: add "priority level" to the benchmark framework
08:11 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3da7cd2 furszy: bench: explicitly make all current benchmarks "high" priority
08:11 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #26158: bench: add "priority level" to the benchmark framework (master...2022_bench_priority_level) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26158
08:15 -!- dviola [~diego@user/dviola] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:23 -!- bomb-on_ [~bomb-on@user/bomb-on] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:23 -!- bomb-on [~bomb-on@user/bomb-on] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:33 -!- hg [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:35 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:36 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:43 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@id-212594.hampstead.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:43 -!- hg [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
08:49 -!- jonatack1 [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:51 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:51 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:55 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:55 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:56 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
08:56 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
09:01 -!- hg [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:07 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:13 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:13 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:14 -!- _Sam-- [~sam@20.171.51.152] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:15 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:15 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:18 < dhruv> For the last couple days, when I try to run CirrusCI on my fork, most of the times, it fails with "Failed to checkout HEAD_SHA", and then occasionally it start to work. Are others seeing this too?
09:18 < dhruv> starts**
09:19 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
09:21 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:24 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #26352: doc: add `scanblocks` to list of descriptor RPCs (master...202210-doc-add_scanblocks_to_doc_descriptors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26352
09:27 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:28 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:32 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
09:35 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@static-198-54-132-120.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
09:36 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:38 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@static-198-54-132-124.cust.tzulo.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:38 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:40 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
09:43 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
09:44 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:44 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:56 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:59 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:00 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:05 -!- jarthur [~jarthur@user/jarthur] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:07 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:07 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:10 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
10:15 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:18 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:24 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@cpc68289-cdif17-2-0-cust317.5-1.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:24 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
10:25 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
10:29 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:31 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@cpc68289-cdif17-2-0-cust317.5-1.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.]
10:33 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@cpc68289-cdif17-2-0-cust317.5-1.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:34 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@cpc68289-cdif17-2-0-cust317.5-1.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Client Quit]
10:36 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:36 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@cpc68289-cdif17-2-0-cust317.5-1.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:36 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:37 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:37 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:38 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:38 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:38 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:41 < luke-jr> dhruv: just a guess: are you force-pushing over it before it gets going?
10:44 < dhruv> luke-jr: nope, i didn't
10:44 < dhruv> here's another way it keeps failing too, in merge_base: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5956454321487872?logs=merge_base#L305
10:45 < dhruv> i felt like there might be some issue with the Github APIs being used by Cirrus, but then bitcoin/bitcoin builds seems to work fine
10:45 < dhruv> potentially relevant is also this: 
10:45 < dhruv> https://twitter.com/cirrus_labs/status/1573028317485211652
10:47 -!- Guest9119 [~Guest91@2606:54c0:76a1:3e90::11:181] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:50 -!- Guest9144 [~Guest91@2606:54c0:76e1:5408::11:d8] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:50 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:50 -!- Guest9119 [~Guest91@2606:54c0:76a1:3e90::11:181] has quit [Client Quit]
10:51 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:51 -!- Guest9144 [~Guest91@2606:54c0:76e1:5408::11:d8] has quit [Client Quit]
10:57 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:57 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:58 -!- hg [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.7]
11:00 -!- sebareca [~sebareca@190.194.221.154] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:05 -!- esneider [~esneider@190.194.221.154] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:06 -!- csgui [~csgui@221.194.115.89.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:20 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] dergoegge opened pull request #26355: p2p: Handle IsContinuationOfLowWorkHeadersSync return value correctly when new headers sync is started (master...2022-10-nbits-headerssync) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26355
11:22 -!- sanket_cell [~sanket172@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in]
11:22 -!- sanket1729 [~sanket172@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in]
11:23 -!- gnaf [~gnaf@2a02-a454-54e2-1-10f6-6b6f-5432-2697.fixed6.kpn.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:23 -!- sanket1729 [~sanket172@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:23 -!- sanket_cell [~sanket172@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:31 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
11:32 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:33 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:56 -!- yanmaani2 [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
11:56 -!- champo [~champo@host140.190-227-156.telecom.net.ar] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:57 -!- yanmaani2 [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:58 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:58 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:00 < laanwj> #startmeeting
12:00 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:00 < jarolrod> hi
12:01 < ariard> hi
12:01 < dergoegge> hi
12:01 < hebasto> hi
12:01 < stickies-v> hi
12:01 -!- mode/#bitcoin-core-dev [+o core-meetingbot] by ChanServ
12:01 < NorrinRadd> Hi
12:01 < glozow> hi
12:01 < achow101> hi
12:01 < brunoerg> hi
12:01 < lightlike> hi
12:01 < luke-jr> hi
12:01 < laanwj> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: achow101 _aj_ amiti ariard b10c BlueMatt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 darosior digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb glozow gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jarolrod jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral laanwj larryruane lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo
12:01 < laanwj> moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild
12:01 < laanwj> hi
12:01 < kanzure> hi
12:01 < vasild> hi
12:01 < instagibbs> hi
12:02 < LarryRuane> hi
12:02 < _aj_> hi
12:02 < ajonas> hi
12:03 < laanwj> four meeting topics have been proposedin advance this time: Drop GUI repo and bring GUI work back to the main repo for now (achow101), Adding (more) maintainers as GitHub org owners (achow101), Moratorium on refactors that are not part of larger projects that bring tangible features and fixes (achow101), defer fullrbf for 24.0(or not) (instagibbs)
12:03 < laanwj> any last minute ones?
12:03 < b10c> hi
12:04 < laanwj> #topic High priority for review
12:04 <@core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review
12:04 < laanwj> https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1 has 4 blockers, 6 chasing concept ACK
12:05 < laanwj> anything to add/remove?
12:05 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
12:05 < LarryRuane> could you add #16981 for me?
12:05 <@gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16981 | Improve runtime performance of --reindex by LarryRuane · Pull Request #16981 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:05 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:05 -!- greypw2546002 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:06 < furszy> hi
12:06 < laanwj> LarryRuane: added
12:07 < sipsorcery> hi
12:08 < kouloumos> hi
12:08 < laanwj> btw PSA: rc2 binaries were uploaded a few days ago, please help testing https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/24.0-Release-Candidate-Testing-Guide
12:08 < dergoegge> #25515 has quite a few concept acks now, so no longer chasing i guess
12:08 <@gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25515 | net, test: Virtualise CConnman and add initial PeerManager unit tests by dergoegge · Pull Request #25515 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:08 < laanwj> dergoegge: move it to blockers?
12:08 < dergoegge> sure
12:08 < stickies-v> LarryRuane: should we wait with (re-)reviewing until you've added the benchmark test, as you just announced?
12:09 < LarryRuane> yes good idea, thanks
12:09 -!- Guest35 [~Guest35@197.210.77.43] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:09 -!- Guest35 [~Guest35@197.210.77.43] has quit [Client Quit]
12:10 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] NorrinRadd opened pull request #26356: test: Use a consistent assert functions: ref #23119 (master...issue/23119/part-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26356
12:10 < laanwj> #topic Drop GUI repo and bring GUI work back to the main repo for now (achow101)
12:10 <@core-meetingbot> topic: Drop GUI repo and bring GUI work back to the main repo for now (achow101)
12:11 < jarolrod> i don't have a strong opinion on wether we move in the development from bitcoin-core/gui into bitcoin/bitcoin
12:11 < achow101> I was speaking with some contributors last week at CoreDev about repo separation, and some dissastisfaction with the current GUI repo split was discussed. In particular, some contributors felt that the separation makes it difficult to work on the GUI as it is not that obvious that there is a separate GUI repo. This has lead to things in the GUI repo getting little review since many forget that it even exists. It is also confusing to new 
12:11 < achow101> contributors as the GUI is in the main repo, so work can be done in a fork of the main repo before realizing that the GUI repo exists. There was also a concern about funding as some funders may not recognize that the GUI repo is in fact part of Bitcoin Core.
12:12 < luke-jr> a fork of the main repo can push to the GUI repo just as well…
12:12 < achow101> While I agree that we should want to have components of Bitcoin Core separated into separate repos, I think doing so now is premature. We should perhaps wait until it is possible to fully separate componenets before doing so. That way, cloning the main repo does not fetch the GUI repo, and work on each specific component requires going to each individual repo to even get the code.
12:12 < vasild> it is somewhat confusing for me too
12:12 < glozow> fanquake is asleep, so i'm relaying this gist from him on the topic https://gist.github.com/fanquake/2448cfac814c633c9109670ed4152ea8
12:12 < luke-jr> and funding issues should be sorted out at the funding level, which really should not be specific to Core at all, much less a single repo :/
12:12 < hebasto> quoting fanquake from oct 15 "I think merging GUI development back into the main repo would quite be a regression. As far as I'm aware, for non-GUI contributors, it's been a great filter for keeping all the not-related-to-bitcoin GUI stuff out of their inboxes (probably similar for the thousands of bitcoin/bitcoin subscribers)."
12:13 < laanwj> it's mostly to have the PRs and issues separate, we can't really move them back
12:13 < hebasto> agree with fanquake 
12:13 < jarolrod> The reality with gui development is that sometimes trivial things are discussed or trivial pr's are opened, if it's really annoying for some to see these discussions pop up, then it's best to keep the repo's as they are
12:13 < laanwj> it would involve closing everything and reopening it in the main repo, which, yeah seems a lot of hassle
12:13 < luke-jr> I don't feel strongly for keeping them split, but I don't think all the reasons are great for a re-merge
12:13 < ariard> i think you're point is bundling few different things: a) a communication issue about the component existence, b) the management of interdependency and c) the social/professional recognition of working on the GUI
12:13 < achow101> luke-jr: AFAICT GitHub does not allow you to open PRs unless the repo is a direct fork
12:13 < luke-jr> achow101: you can still push your git repo to the fork of the GUI
12:14 < achow101> luke-jr: yes, but this may be confusing to new contributors
12:14 < hebasto> re "is not that obvious that there is a separate GUI repo" it is clearly documented, starting from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/README.md
12:14 < achow101> hebasto: personally there are some gui things that I would like to review, but they always fall off my list because I forget it's existence
12:14 < luke-jr> perhaps better docs?
12:15 < luke-jr> and/or getting Github to fix it
12:15 < luke-jr> if we move to Gitlab, does that resolve it?
12:15 < achow101> I would find it easier if its issues and prs would be in the same repo
12:15 < laanwj> add a link in the top-level README maybe?
12:15 < laanwj> if there isn't, i wouldn't know
12:16 < achow101> I don't think "user education" (dev education I guess) is really a good solution. It's just not intuitive
12:16 < ariard> achow101: tbh, few contributors have already to live in a multi repo world, in the sense monitoring libsecp256k1, the bips repo, the bolts repo, maybe a lightning implem, maybe bitcoin-inquisition, sounds more a question of personal time-management
12:16 -!- fanta1 [~fanta1@2a01:c23:7156:2500:a98f:c325:a945:6964] has quit [Quit: fanta1]
12:18 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:18 < jarolrod> I would be ok with either option, but in terms of not redoing a time of work moving between repo's, I'd think that we should keep the repo's as they are
12:18 < jarolrod> another point brought up was on the qml gui and the future of the gui
12:18 < brunoerg> jarolrod: +1
12:18 < jarolrod> information on that has been condensed here: https://bitcoincore.app/
12:19 < jarolrod> development on bitcoin-core/gui-qml has been slow, at times it's only been me working on it, but that is where the future of the gui is
12:19 < jarolrod> What I can promise is i'll be spending as much time as possible as I can to finish this before the next release, it doesn't mean we'd include it in core at that time, but the conversation can start on what we're going to do with the gui in terms of the development process and the structure of repo's
12:19 < jarolrod> We're building something special there, if you're interested in seeing how we're progressing you can join in on our calls every wednesday at 14 UTC here: https://meet.jit.si/BitcoinCoreAppDesignCall
12:19 < achow101> re trivial stuff in gui: I don't think that's a strong argument. we get lots of dumb and trivial stuff in the main repo too
12:20 < achow101> I don't think it would be any more annoying than it already is
12:20 < hebasto> merging repos is going to bring more dissatisfaction among developers then now...
12:20 < luke-jr> jarolrod: I'm against prematurely deciding QML is going to replace Widgets..
12:20 < jarolrod> ^ of course, not dictating, just my opinion :D
12:21 < achow101> ariard: for the most part, those repos don't share any code. right now, the main repo and the gui repo are completely clones of each other, so if you want the gui, you can still get it in the main repo. this is not the case for the others you mentioned
12:21 < achow101> my point was that repo separation should follow with code separation
12:22 < luke-jr> achow101: I don't think you've made a strong argument for that
12:22 < luke-jr> half of the reasons seem frankly like reasons _to_ keep them separated
12:23 < laanwj> right it's just an organizational thing, so you an ignore GUI stuff if you want to
12:23 < achow101> people forget that it exists and it's harder for new contributors is a reason to keep them separate??
12:24 < ariard> achow101: at least, they share libsecp256k1; though my point was more an answer to "oh wait i've to remember there is a GUI repo" thought, it sounds to belong more to one's workflow and personal priorities
12:24 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
12:24 < laanwj> if new contributors file a GUI pr/issue in the main repo it's not a big deal they usually just get pointed to the right one
12:24 < luke-jr> achow101: no, those are the arguments to re-merge; but ultimately problems better dealt with other ways even then
12:25 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:25 < luke-jr> I need to go pick up kids from school; but FWIW: there are some maintainers I don't trust with org ownership (and others I would); no opinion on refactor freeze; and against "anti-feature" fullrbf changes
12:25 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:26 < furszy> I personally haven't seen much movement on the current GUI repo, which pulled me down from continue contributing there. Not sure if that is because of the separated repository or because all our resources are focused on the QML project (which make sense if we are just going to replace the GUI entirely)
12:26 < laanwj> there's still 3 other topics left, we might want to move to a next one
12:26 < glozow> (meta-meeting comment: i wonder if we'll run out of time to discuss v24.0 full rbf? not to discount achow's proposed topics, but perhaps worth reordering based on urgency...?)
12:26 < laanwj> glozow: agree
12:27 < NorrinRadd> achow101 would it help if the gui code is removed from the main report and instead referenced?
12:27 < ariard> glozow: +1, we're already half-meeting time, and other subjects could be post-pone to next meetings
12:27 < achow101> glozow: yes (my topics are not urgent)
12:27 < instagibbs> glozow, sounds like volunteering to take on the topic]
12:27  * instagibbs logs off
12:27 < NorrinRadd> anecdote: I'm a very new comer and I came across the documentation that teh gui is maintained in a different repo 
12:28 < achow101> NorrinRadd: I think so. If we could get to a point where the gui could be removed from the main repo, and put into it's own repo with just the gui, then I think repo separation makes sense there
12:28 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:28 < laanwj> yes, true gui repo separation would definitely be better
12:28 < laanwj> i think that's something to work towards, not going backwards
12:28 < hebasto> our release process should be modified for that
12:29 < glozow> agree working towards true separation would be great
12:29 < jonatack> hi
12:29 < laanwj> hi
12:29 -!- bytes1440000 [~bytes1440@212-129-37-129.rev.poneytelecom.eu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:30 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
12:30 < laanwj> ok, ew can continue this next meeting if needed, going for next topic
12:30 < laanwj> #topic defer fullrbf for 24.0(or not) (instagibbs)
12:30 <@core-meetingbot> topic: defer fullrbf for 24.0(or not) (instagibbs)
12:30 < instagibbs> mempoolfullrbf in mainnet(or not): #26323 does two things: disables mempoolfullrbf on mainnet until ~6 months from now, then switches the argument to default true. The intention was to get it into 24.0 This needs to be decided
12:30 <@gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26323 | Make full RBF default, but defer mainnet enablement by ajtowns · Pull Request #26323 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:31 < ariard> this mail published today is a good resume of the alternatives and dimensions of analysis https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-October/021075.html 
12:31 < instagibbs> specifically the "disable on mainnet" or not part, due to release. I have my own opinion, and there are many others of course
12:31 < achow101> nack-ish. I don't like that I can't turn it on before the flag day.
12:32 -!- sebareca [~sebareca@190.194.221.154] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
12:32 -!- sebareca [~sebareca@190.194.221.154] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:32 < ariard> instagibbs: i think there are still voices of 0confs operators who sounds to oppose full-rbf itself, maybe a preliminary concern to think about before the deployment method we pick up
12:33 < instagibbs> ariard, I feel pretty safe not stalling to people who dont understand it's changing eventually
12:34 < achow101> I feel like we had this conversation 7 years ago
12:34 < instagibbs> Anyways, this is about the release specifically. If there's general consensus against disabling, we should just say we're not doing that
12:34 < instagibbs> then work on part 2 which is flag day window/strategy
12:34 < ariard> instagibbs: i think this is reasonable outcome, evaluating we have done a satisfying work of communication ahead, and those folks are running after a subject already reaching majority of opinions
12:35 < ariard> just notifiying the existence of those voices
12:35 < _aj_> achow101: wasn't the result of the conversation 7 years ago that people who wanted rbf would opt-in to it, per bip 125?
12:35 < instagibbs> I'd rather not relitigate, this is about 24.0 :)
12:36 < instagibbs> If we need more time to discuss flag day, we need more time to discuss it and should just work that direction
12:37 < ariard> i don't think 7 years ago the pinning issues which are affecting lightning/coinjoins and have been the original technical motivation of this renewed full-rbf deployment  were known by the community, to be fair
12:37 < achow101> I don't mind a flag day so long as it is _only_ to change the default to true. a flag day for disabling the option is nack from me
12:38 < achow101> but then in that case, it doesn't seem to be much different from just releasing 25.0 with -mempoolfullrbf=1
12:38 < instagibbs> so I motion to keep arg static and false, and continue conversation about flag day
12:39 < jonatack> (fwiw, i found the serge kotliar (bitrefill) ML post on the topic (relating to FX volatility in addition to zero conf) interesting as well, though i haven't finished parsing it; suggest reading it along with the post by dario (muun wallet) regarding zero conf
12:39 < glozow> I think whatever option we take, it should be made abundantly clear to users that Core does not control whether full RBF happens or not. We could revert 25353 and it could still happen. We could do a flag day activation and it could happen sooner than that. I imagine that a coordinated full RBF activation is the smoothest/safest if everybody reasonable agrees to it, but then others might yell at Core for "dictating policy."
12:39 < ariard> let's phrase the discussion in another way; do we think the activation of full-rbf X months from now would cause unsolvable dangers for 0confs apps/services ?
12:39 < instagibbs> achow101, heck 26.0. It's simpler yes
12:39 < ariard> in the sense, do we think the issues raised by full-rbf on their services, are technicall solvable if they allocate the engineering and operational efforts
12:41 < achow101> ariard: I think all of the issues these services have raised are solvable, with the most basic solution that most services have decided to use being wait for a confirmation
12:41 < instagibbs> "solve the free option problem" is a bit out of scope for Core
12:41 < glozow> the free option problem is already a thing, according to Sergej's ml post
12:41 < _aj_> ariard: for muun, which is lightning focussed anyway; 6 months sounds fine; for bitrefill, seems like it would take 2 years or more to get lightning adoption high enough to be smooth
12:41 < _aj_> ariard: (going from what they've said on list)
12:42 < instagibbs> _aj_, it would tie policy directly to a specific L2 protocol, so I nack on any metric like this
12:42 < ariard> instagibbs: to me, that's a bit of the crux of the discussions between core and business, what is the scope of policy mechanisms and from what they should be responsible of?
12:42 < _aj_> instagibbs: huh?
12:42 < instagibbs> _aj_, "my deposits must be X% in this specific type" 
12:43 < ariard> _aj_: yes, the last muun replied also underscore other 0confs services, with less manpower/engineering resources might need more time
12:43 < _aj_> instagibbs: it'd tie policy to having some replacement for on-chain zeroconf; with lightning being the most likely replacement
12:43 < _aj_> instagibbs: if fedimint or something comes along and takes over in the meantime, that's fine too?
12:43 < instagibbs> failed TTP business-y ideas have been around for almost 8 years
12:43 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:43 < glozow> ariard: the technical issues are solvable, it sounds like muun just wants more time. Bitrefill is able to detect payment replacements and already has some double spend protections, the problem there is UX
12:44 < ariard> glozow: i'm converging, though note a bad UX might be a source of users funds loss or freezing or mistakes, especially if they have to shipped it fast
12:44 < instagibbs> _aj_, well, if they said "2 years", maybe I'd be fine
12:45 < glozow> i mean they also told me they had revert using bech32 addresses because most users couldn't pay them
12:45 < glozow> back in the day
12:45 < _aj_> instagibbs: ziggamon just said "years", definitely not 2
12:45 < instagibbs> _aj_, 1.01 years
12:45 < ariard> on the other hand, advocating the coinjoin/lightning-side, the pinning vector has been exercised on mainet https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-July/020737.html
12:46 < ariard> and as we see more collaboritve constructions applications, we could deanonymizing attackers leveraging this vector during the next X months/years period of full-rbf transition, just saying
12:47 < ariard> s/collaboritve/collaborative/g
12:48 -!- _Sam-- [~sam@20.171.51.152] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:49 < NorrinRadd> have the workarounds for 0 conf operators been documented in any one place where they can be easily referenced? 
12:49 < _aj_> there aren't workaround, though?
12:49 < ariard> NorrinRadd: no single point documentation i'm aware of
12:50 < ariard> _aj_: distributed monitoring of network mempools, Bitrefill does something like this iiuc
12:50 < _aj_> ariard: they do that for txs that don't opt-in to rbf; things that are rbf-able just get excluded from zeroconf
12:50 < NorrinRadd> 'waiting for confirmation' doesn't seem desirable.  stores with large foot traffic would have people standing around for an hour sometimes waiting for their payment to confirm. 
12:51 < NorrinRadd> if bitrefill is waiting to see if replacement transactions appear, then they're essentially not doing zero conf anymore? 
12:52 < ariard> _aj_: so i'm following correctly, if full-rbf happens and all the incoming transaction traffic is repleacable such protection would still allow to accept 0conf traffic
12:52 < NorrinRadd> _aj_ oh thanks
12:52 < NorrinRadd> so once everything is rbf it would effectively kill their zero conf transactions. 
12:53 < ariard> okay as we're reaching end of meeting, do we think we prefer to go with a smooth, uncoordinated deployment or a flag day activation ?
12:53 < instagibbs> achow101, makes a reasoanble point, why not just flip it for future release
12:53 < instagibbs> like.... 26.0
12:53 < ariard> #26305 or #26323
12:53 <@gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26305 | Enable `mempoolfullrbf=1` by default by ariard · Pull Request #26305 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:53 <@gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26323 | Make full RBF default, but defer mainnet enablement by ajtowns · Pull Request #26323 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:53 < _aj_> ariard: at the moment, 15% of their txs are lightning, 20% are opt-in rbf, and the remaining 65% aren't rbf-able. of the 65% -- 60% are treated as zeroconf, 5% are excluded from zeroconf due to negative signals from the monitoring. with fullrbf, that entire 65% gets excluded from zeroconf, and lightning is the only way to get instant confirmations
12:53 < achow101> 26305 for a future release
12:54 < instagibbs> right
12:54 < _aj_> if we're not going to remove the mempoolfullrbf option from 24.0, we're going for an uncoordinated deployment either way
12:54 < instagibbs> im already running full rbf with preferential peering...
12:55 < instagibbs> ship has sailed, the question is will 5%+ set a variable. I suspect not
12:55 < ariard> _aj_: that's a correct, though i don't think it's something like binary, more uncoordinated with the option existent or something like preferential peering
12:56 < _aj_> instagibbs: uasf uacomment demonstrated it's easy to get ~11% to set a variable in just a couple of weeks
12:56 < lightlike> i think that if a meaningful number of node operators and miners want a specific policy, it shouldn't be on the devs to tell them "you can't have that now". Devs can and should give a recommendation (by picking the default), but providing options to informed users should never be a problem.
12:57 < bytes1440000> if 24.0 has mempoolrbf, devs have lot of time to discuss and convince a few nodes and miners to run it. no default required or will have better insights.
12:57 < laanwj> lightlike: +1
12:57 < bytes1440000> making default on signet, testnet still makes sense for testing
12:57 < instagibbs> _aj_, exception that proves the rule
12:57 < ariard> _aj_: about the 65% aren't rbf-able, what i don't understand is if Bitrefill is aware that you can still double-spend not rbf-able transactions, it's just higher technical bar?  
12:57 < ariard> (well i think they're aware of, what they say is they don't see that happening)
12:57 < vasild> lightlike: +1
12:57 < ariard> lightlike: that was the original thinking with #25600
12:57 < _aj_> ariard: "can" equates to "less than a 0.0001% chance of it actually happening" according to ziggamon
12:57 <@gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25600 | p2p: Advertise `NODE_FULL_RBF` and connect to 4 outbound full-rbf peers if `-mempoolfullrbf` is set by ariard · Pull Request #25600 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:58 < bytes1440000> 25600 is the worst possible way to make fullrbf default
12:58 < instagibbs> 2 minutes
12:59 < ariard> _aj_: so according to that statement, they might be still be fine to not exclude this future 65% traffic from zero-conf acceptance
12:59 < _aj_> ariard: no
12:59 < b10c> i think only having an option defaulting to false for 24 (no preferable peering) won't result in a lot of node operators actually enabling it. Especially if no Umbrel/RaspiBlitz/etc enables it by default
13:00 < NorrinRadd> someone can link to a document that shows the arguments for fullrbf?
13:00 < laanwj> we'll have to close the meeting in a minute... but feel free to continue afterwards ofc
13:00 < instagibbs> We'll put a blanket ban on hats in the interim
13:00 < ariard> _aj_: let me read again Sergej mails, what's Bitrefill position if full-rbf become the norm? (we might def invite 0confs operators to irc meetings)
13:01 < ariard> NorrinRadd: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-June/020557.html
13:01 < glozow> ariard: my impression is an agreement that it is inevitable, but if it happens before users have a lot of access to LN, it might just make Bitcoin worse
13:02 < lightlike> b10c: I think enabling it for the miners is more critical anyway. Anyone could set up some manually adjusted full-RBF nodes that make hundreds of outbound connections  to all reachable peers at quite low costs.
13:03 -!- gnaf [~gnaf@2a02-a454-54e2-1-10f6-6b6f-5432-2697.fixed6.kpn.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
13:03 < NorrinRadd> ariard i read it.  it basically kills zero conf but he also said there's something worse; replacements will be further incentized by changes in exchange rates, where customers will adjust their sats paid lower if bitcoin goes up in price after the purchase was made.  which creates business risk for the zero conf merchants. 
13:04 < NorrinRadd> ariard thank you 
13:04 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@cpc68289-cdif17-2-0-cust317.5-1.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:04 < ariard> glozow: and letting dual-funded lightning channels susceptible to a DoS vector might slow down further the access to LN, maybe a bit of "chicken-and-eggs" here...
13:05 < ariard> NorrinRadd: yeah see instagibbs thought expressed earlier, is fiat volatility risk really in the scope of Core, dik
13:05 < glozow> ariard: i agree.
13:05 < ariard> idk
13:06 < NorrinRadd> Sergej did also mention that when they've asked people to pay in bech32 before, instead of filing issues, they simple left the site.  so his thought is that if he's asking customers for LN, they will not seek out an LN wallet.  They'll simple leave and go somewhere else. 
13:06 < glozow> quoted from Sergej's post about the american call option, "It's already possible to execute this form of abuse with opt-in RBF"
13:06 < instagibbs> I noted that its in their incentive structure to CPFP if the price goes their way...
13:07 < instagibbs> Merchants can only offload so much of their business complexity to others, sorry
13:07 < ariard> NorrinRadd: i can opinate here, deploying a LN infrastructure server-side is a hard requirement on merchants, managing funds safety/liquidity, a different key management, hopefully we don't centralize the merchant ecosystem with short-timed full-rbf deployment
13:07 < _aj_> instagibbs: easy to diss on stakeholders that aren't present...
13:08 < instagibbs> not a diss, and I've personally discussed this issue with sergej many times
13:08 < ariard> _aj_: i share the sentiment, sounds we don't have the right crowd to have a best-informed technical view
13:08 < instagibbs> We just have different goals, and that's ok!
13:10 < instagibbs> when goals conflict, we try for maximum understanding, and that's what we're doing I hope
13:10 < jonatack> it may still be good to have this discussion with them present and participating 
13:10 < ariard> okay as it would be better to end the meeting at some point, i'm thinking to reply to last Dario's mail, saying while full-rbf is still liked people, there is no emergening majority opinion on the deployment method and what's an adequate timeframe would still benefit from more feedbacks from the merchant community
13:10 < jonatack> instagibbs: yes!
13:10 < instagibbs> the email thread is pretty high quality
13:11 < glozow> i guess something that should be said is "for the people who want to turn full rbf on their own nodes, does it matter if the -mempoolfullrbf option doesn't go in v24.0?"
13:12 < ariard> glozow: i think full-rbf setting is already used by at least one electrum server operator, and few other services
13:14 < laanwj> #endmeeting
13:14 <@core-meetingbot> topic: Bitcoin Core development discussion and commit log | Feel free to watch, but please take commentary and usage questions to #bitcoin | Channel logs: http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/, http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/ | Meeting topics http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt / http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedwalletmeetingtopics.txt
13:14 <@core-meetingbot> Meeting ended Thu Oct 20 20:14:25 2022 UTC.  
13:14 <@core-meetingbot> Minutes:        https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings/logs/bitcoin-core-dev/2022/bitcoin-core-dev.2022-10-20-19.00.moin.txt
13:14 < glozow> so then the question is, if this is one of our only blockers for v24.0, and the people who would use the option don't need it anyway... why not just take it out?
13:14 < glozow> *ducks*
13:14 < glozow> (just putting it out there)
13:15 < ariard> glozow: imho, their use-cases are as much legitimate than the 0confs ones, and i have no strong idea on how we should arbiter in the present case...
13:16 < instagibbs> I'm lobbying for it not to be a blocker
13:16 < instagibbs> :P
13:16 -!- bytes1440000 [~bytes1440@212-129-37-129.rev.poneytelecom.eu] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
13:17 < _aj_> glozow: if you really want answers to that question, create a PR reverting it, and collect the nacks
13:18 < glozow> well yes, that was #26287 and i nacked it. just wanted to put it out there
13:18 <@gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26287 | Temporarily disable -mempoolfullrbf for the main chain by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #26287 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
13:20 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:26 -!- esneider [~esneider@190.194.221.154] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
13:26 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
13:27 < hebasto> some discussions related to the GUI code separation can be found in #24911
13:27 <@gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24911 | [POC] [RFC] build: Separate GUI application build system · Issue #24911 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
13:30 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5281:8ae2:401d:2d18:c10d:4831] has quit []
13:32 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@d75-156-179-9.abhsia.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:37 -!- champo [~champo@host140.190-227-156.telecom.net.ar] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
13:37 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:37 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@d75-156-179-9.abhsia.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:38 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:43 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:48 -!- sebareca [~sebareca@190.194.221.154] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
13:49 -!- csgui [~csgui@221.194.115.89.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
13:56 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:00 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
14:06 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:10 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:31 -!- hg [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:07 -!- _andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:09 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:10 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
15:13 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
15:21 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:21 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:25 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
15:33 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@user/dermoth] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:45 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@user/dermoth] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:46 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
15:46 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:55 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:13 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:23 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:38 -!- sipsorcery [~sipsorcer@2a02:8084:6180:500::12b] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:43 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:45 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:48 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
17:00 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
17:10 -!- hg [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.7]
17:14 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:15 -!- yanmaani2 [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:18 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
17:18 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
17:18 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:19 -!- yanmaani2 [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:42 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:55 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:21 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:35 -!- dviola [~diego@user/dviola] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
18:41 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:45 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:45 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
18:55 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:58 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:00 -!- upekkha [~Advanced@2a01:4f8:1c0c:49df::1] has quit [Quit: upekkha]
19:00 -!- upekkha [~Advanced@2a01:4f8:1c0c:49df::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:13 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
19:15 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:15 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:16 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:19 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
19:32 -!- jonatack1 [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:32 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:44 -!- jonatack2 [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:47 -!- jonatack1 [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
19:47 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
20:04 -!- jonatack3 [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:07 -!- jonatack2 [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
20:17 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
20:29 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:31 -!- jonatack3 [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
20:35 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
20:37 -!- yanmaani2 [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:38 -!- yanmaani2 [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:42 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:47 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
21:01 -!- cmirror [~cmirror@4.53.92.114] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:01 -!- cmirror [~cmirror@4.53.92.114] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:03 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:03 -!- cm [~chaz@user/cm] has quit [Quit: Bye.]
21:03 -!- cm [~chaz@user/cm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:04 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:08 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
21:09 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] satsie opened pull request #26358: doc: Rearrange a few lines in the dependency graph of libraries (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26358
21:09 -!- Guest50 [~Guest50@196.2.14.138] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:10 -!- vasild [~vd@user/vasild] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:15 -!- vasild [~vd@user/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:15 -!- mikehu44 [~quassel@159.65.11.175] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:24 -!- Guest50 [~Guest50@196.2.14.138] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
21:35 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:40 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
21:42 -!- mikehu44 [~quassel@159.65.11.175] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
21:45 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:54 -!- jamesob [~jamesob@151.200.19.227] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
21:56 -!- mikehu44 [~quassel@159.65.11.175] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:57 -!- jamesob [~jamesob@151.200.19.227] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:07 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
22:08 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:16 -!- dviola [~diego@179.235.13.211] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:17 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
22:31 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:35 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
22:44 -!- z3nii [~z3nii@S010670a7416370cd.du.shawcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:50 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:51 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:52 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:53 -!- z3nii [~z3nii@S010670a7416370cd.du.shawcable.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
23:09 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
23:13 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
23:13 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:27 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:30 -!- chipxxx [~chip@2001:8a0:f61c:9200:9c3d:d55a:c1aa:516e] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
23:32 -!- amovfx [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te5ujpx628y9xci.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
23:34 -!- dhruv [~dhruv@165.227.49.220] has quit [Quit: leaving]
23:34 -!- dhruv [~dhruv@165.227.49.220] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:43 -!- face_ [~face@207.154.206.50] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:44 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:52 -!- amovfx_ [~amovfx@node-1w7jr9yi65te76avgv6tof5ba.ipv6.telus.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
--- Log closed Fri Oct 21 00:00:55 2022