--- Log opened Thu May 15 00:00:43 2025
00:17 -!- seaner [~sean@203.132.94.86] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:31 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:35 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
00:36 -!- tarotfied [~tarotfied@user/tarotfied] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:39 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:39 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/31d3eebfb92a...89c7b6b97ab4
01:39 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3b82416 fanquake: doc: remove Carls substitute server from Guix docs
01:39 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 89c7b6b merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32498: doc: remove Carls substitute server from Guix...
01:40 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32498: doc: remove Carls substitute server from Guix docs (master...remove_carl_substitute_server) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32498
02:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/89c7b6b97ab4...c779ee3a4044
02:17 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 75a185e fanquake: test: add skip_if_running_under_valgrind()
02:17 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c779ee3 merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32492: test: add skip_if_running_under_valgrind()
02:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32492: test: add skip_if_running_under_valgrind() (master...functional_tracepoints_skip_valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32492
02:34 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:34 -!- johnzweng [~johnzweng@zweng.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
02:35 -!- johnzweng [~johnzweng@zweng.at] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:39 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
03:00 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net] has quit [Quit: Christoph_]
03:33 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:46 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:59 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32507: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py from valgrind task for now (master...2505-ci-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32507
04:01 -!- jespada [~jespada@r167-61-130-171.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:02 -!- seaner [~sean@203.132.94.86] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
04:33 -!- jespada [~jespada@r167-61-130-171.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
04:35 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:42 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net] has quit [Quit: Christoph_]
04:44 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:47 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:58 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hodlinator opened pull request #32509: qa: feature_framework_startup_failures.py fixes & improvements (#30660 follow-up) (master...2025/05/30660_follow_up) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32509
05:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #32510: rfc: only put replaced txs in extra pool (master...2025/05/extra-pool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32510
05:19 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
05:21 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:24 -!- kevkevin_ [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:24 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:28 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Quit: = ""]
05:39 -!- zak77 [~zak@172.58.150.56] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
05:53 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net] has quit [Quit: Christoph_]
05:56 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:56 -!- Guest67 [~Guest67@102.89.83.172] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32511: refactor: bdb removals (master...2505-del-get-dest-key) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32511
06:03 -!- Guest67 [~Guest67@102.89.83.172] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
06:20 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] darosior closed pull request #32117: qa: make feature_assumeutxo.py test more robust (master...2503_more_assumeutxo_test_unbrittling) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32117
06:36 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] m3dwards opened pull request #32513: ci: remove 3rd party js from windows dll gha job (master...250515-remove-js-ci) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32513
06:48 -!- saturday- [~saturday7@59.167.129.22] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:49 -!- saturday7 [~saturday7@59.167.129.22] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
06:51 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [Closing Window]
06:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32514:  scripted-diff: Remove unused leading newline in RPC docs  (master...2505-rpc-newline) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32514
07:13 < instagibbs> Any reason MiniWallet shouldn't be picking up all the newly generated block coinbase outputs in tests? It's starting with 49 outputs, no more can be added, they can be consumed, then more can be added later, up to 49 on rescan?
07:21 < instagibbs> looks like it's stuck at the same 49 actually
07:29 -!- gerle [~quassel@212.186.78.187] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:40 -!- bugs_ [~bugs@user/bugs/x-5128603] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:01 -!- zeropoint [~alex@45-28-139-114.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:08 -!- fearbeag [~seanicide@216.209.44.189] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:11 -!- bob_x1 [~bob_x@user/bob-x1/x-8934932] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
08:13 -!- bob_x1 [~bob_x@user/bob-x1/x-8934932] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:13 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
08:13 -!- synexic [~syn@toucht.one] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:13 -!- dviola [~diego@user/dviola] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
08:14 -!- synexic [~syn@toucht.one] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:14 -!- diego [~diego@177.34.235.126] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:14 -!- diego [~diego@177.34.235.126] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
08:15 -!- dviola [~diego@user/dviola] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:17 -!- adys [~adys@149.106.235.56] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:17 -!- reardencode [~reardenco@shrugged.reardencode.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:19 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #32516: functional test: add MAX_DISCONNECTED_TX_POOL_BYTES coverage (master...2025-05-reorg_mempool_trimming) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32516
08:20 -!- midnight_ [~midnight@user/midnight] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
08:22 -!- reardencode [~reardenco@console.reardencode.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:24 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c779ee3a4044...bdc1cef1de84
08:24 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa981b9 MarcoFalke: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py from valgrind task for now
08:24 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bdc1cef merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32507: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py f...
08:24 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32507: ci: Exclude failing wallet_reorgsrestore.py from valgrind task for now (master...2505-ci-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32507
08:27 -!- antanst [~antanst@user/antanst] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
08:27 -!- gerle [~quassel@212.186.78.187] has quit [Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Komfortabler Chat. Überall.]
08:32 -!- nickler_ [~nickler@static.219.205.69.159.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
08:33 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@host-88-217-174-126.customer.m-online.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:36 -!- nickler [~nickler@static.219.205.69.159.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:36 -!- midnight [~midnight@user/midnight] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:39 -!- TallTim_ is now known as TallTim
08:40 -!- antanst [~antanst@user/antanst] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:40 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] pinheadmz opened pull request #32517: rpc: add "ischange: true" to decoded tx outputs in wallet gettransaction response (master...wallet-gettransaction-ischange) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32517
08:58 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bdc1cef1de84...725c9f7780e0
08:58 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d1fdc84 Nicola Leonardo Susca: doc: Remove Linux Kernel from dep. table
08:58 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a3520f9 Nicola Leonardo Susca: doc: Add dependency self-compilation info
08:58 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e62423d Nicola Leonardo Susca: doc: Improve dependencies.md documentation
08:58 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #31895: doc: Improve `dependencies.md` (master...doc-followup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31895
08:58 < darosior> #proposedmeetingtopic communication about Core's vision for relay policy from current contributors (1000 feet view executive summary, not the specific recent drama)
09:00 < achow101> #startmeeting
09:00 < corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-05-15T16:00+0000
09:00 < corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
09:00 < corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
09:00 < corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
09:00 < corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
09:00 < TheCharlatan> hi
09:00 < hebasto> hi
09:00 < brunoerg> hi
09:00 < achow101> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: abubakarsadiq achow101 _aj_ ajonas b10c brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto hodlinator instagibbs jarolrod jonatack josibake kanzure laanwj LarryRuane lightlike luke-jr maflcko marcofleon maxedw Murch pinheadmz provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK stickies-v sipa sr_gi tdb3 theStack TheCharlatan vasild willcl-ark
09:00 < sipa> hi
09:00 < Murch[m]> hi
09:00 < pinheadmz> Hi
09:00 < lightlike> Hi
09:00 < johnny9dev> hi
09:00 < eugenesiegel> hi
09:00 < achow101> There is 1 preproposed meeting topic, any last minute ones to add?
09:00 < stickies-v> hi
09:01 < marcofleon> hi
09:01 < achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
09:02 < hodlinator> hi
09:02 < maxedw> Hi
09:02 < TheCharlatan> Had a PR review club yesterday on #32317.
09:02 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32317 | kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #32317 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:02 < TheCharlatan> I also discussed some future optimizations that this might enable today, e.g. reducing the scope of cs_main, running block validation in parallel.
09:02 < furszy> hi
09:03 < TheCharlatan> #32427 has already received a bunch of conceptual feedback, thanks for that!
09:03 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32427 | (RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #32427 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:03 -!- rkrux [~rkrux@user/rkrux] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:03 < TheCharlatan> I'd be interested in hearing some more opinions on if this could allow us to get rid of much of the reindexing logic
09:04 < rkrux> hi
09:04 < TheCharlatan> though some have raised concerns in the PR already that reindexing also encompasses recovering from block file corruption.
09:04 < laanwj> hi
09:05 < TheCharlatan> that's all for today 
09:05 < achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
09:05 < sipa> 31444 got merged (yay!), #31553 is next to review
09:05 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31553 | cluster mempool: add TxGraph reorg functionality by sipa · Pull Request #31553 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:06 < sipa> On the research front, we found a counterexample to our earlief belief that the SFL linearization algorithm always makes progress: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/spanning-forest-cluster-linearization/1419/6
09:07 < sipa> That's unfortunate, though I don't think it has much practical impact - it's still far better than what we have, and logistically much more useful than the 1989 paper algorithm.
09:07 < sipa> So my thinking remains to in the near future work on replacing the current algorithm with that.
09:08 < Murch[m]> What is the practical implication of that?
09:08 < sipa> To clarify: it's a randomized algorithm, and the "no progress" possibility boils down to forever making terrible choices, it doesn't mean an inability to make progress.
09:08 < abubakarsadiq> hi
09:08 < Murch[m]> Would that mean that some clusters just never get linearized or just that some cycles would be wasted?
09:08 < Murch[m]> Okay
09:09 < sipa> In all examples found, there is something like a 50-80% chance of making progress anyway, whenever you're in such a (very rare) potential-not-making progress state.
09:09 < sipa> But of course, there may exist examples for which the situation is worse.
09:10 < sipa> 50-80% chance per step
09:10 < sipa> That's it for me.
09:10 < achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101, rkrux)
09:10 < achow101> Been addressing review and rebasing #31622
09:11 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31622 | psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking by achow101 · Pull Request #31622 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:11 < achow101> PRs to review are still #31622 and #31244
09:11 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31622 | psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking by achow101 · Pull Request #31622 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:11 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31244 | descriptors: MuSig2 by achow101 · Pull Request #31244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:11 < achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
09:11 < abubakarsadiq> TheCharlatan: is #32427 at a stage you need testing?
09:11 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32427 | (RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #32427 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:11 -!- cfields [~cfields@user/cfields] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:11 < johnny9dev> bitcoin-core/gui-qml#448 was merged this week. 
09:11 < johnny9dev> I'm continuing work on bitcoin-core/gui-qml#450 with just the list of recipients in the Review page remaining to be completed
09:11 < johnny9dev> Christoph has proposed a solution for initial loading state using a "skeleton" design pattern. He opened up a discussion at https://github.com/BitcoinDesign/Bitcoin-Core-App/issues/155 and has a prototype to go with it.
09:11 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/448 | Introduce Coin Selection page by johnny9 · Pull Request #448 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
09:11 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/450 | Add Multiple Recipients option to the Send form by johnny9 · Pull Request #450 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
09:12 < fanquake> johnny9dev: is the qml branch going to be rebased onto master at some point? I'd have assumed you'd want cmake + qt6 now that it's available
09:13 < johnny9dev> Thats the current thought
09:13 < Murch[m]> johnny9dev: I was a bit surprised at the sparse information in the coin control table, it looks like it is just amount and address. Is this going to be extended or is this the intended final state?
09:13 < hebasto> it makes more sense after restoring Android builds
09:13 < johnny9dev> I haven't had much slack time to experiment but I am very curious still about alternative deployments that have been discussed 
09:14 < pinheadmz> fanquake: I am working on that rebase
09:14 < pinheadmz> (For fun!)
09:14 < pinheadmz> 400 commits and hundreds of conflicts. Mostly multiprocess interface and build system
09:15 < sipa> pinheadmz: i'm impressed, can i ask what sort of thing you would consider not fun?
09:15 < pinheadmz> Changing diapers ?
09:16 < pinheadmz> Anyway. Once rebase is done idk what to do with it (force push to qml master?)
09:16 < sipa> pinheadmz: are you trying to maintain the commit history? i can imagine that squashing parts or even all of it would make this a lot easier
09:16 < johnny9dev> @murch: there is a discussion on github for a more final implementation. https://github.com/BitcoinDesign/Bitcoin-Core-App/issues/155
09:16 < pinheadmz> I am not
09:16 < pinheadmz> I actually used a script to filter out pairs of revert commits, etc
09:16 < johnny9dev> Sorry, https://github.com/BitcoinDesign/Bitcoin-Core-App/issues/153 for Coin Control details
09:17 < Murch[m]> ah, was gonna say that it seems unrelated
09:17 < Murch[m]> Thanks, I’ll take a look
09:17 < pinheadmz> I think ideally qmlgui ends up with bitcoin/bitcoin as a git sub module
09:17 < pinheadmz> Or muktiprocess something something
09:18 < johnny9dev> I agree with that
09:18 < hebasto> ^^ as pointed by darosior 
09:19 < TheCharlatan> abubakarsadiq, marcofleon has written a differential fuzz test for the PR. Further testing would also be appreciated, what did you have in mind? 
09:21 < achow101> #topic communication about Core's vision for relay policy from current contributors (darosior)
09:21 < darosior> Hi everyone. My proposal for the OP_RETURN standardness rule change has been severely mischaracterized online. This has led to genuine concerns from Bitcoin enthusiasts about the change itself, but also about Bitcoin Core. I do not think there is any ground for these concerns, but what is done is done. From my experience engaging with the community
09:21 < darosior> in the past weeks i think we should hold off the change for some time (if it's gonna be merged doesn't matter if it is now or in 2 weeks) and work on our communication. To this end i suggest we post on the website a broad view of how Bitcoin Core approaches relay policy, to be signed off by people working in this area of the codebase. It should be
09:21 < darosior> short, in the form of an executive summary. I think it would go a long way for people who heard about the drama but cannot afford to spend time digging on Github or the mailing list and interpret our technical discussions.
09:22 < achow101> similar to what instagibbs tried to write up last week?
09:22 < darosior> No
09:22 < achow101> or more generic?
09:23 < darosior> instagibbs' writeup was specific and technical, so much that it just confused people who aren't already familiar
09:23 < Murch[m]> It sounds like it would be more about the goals and approaches, not the concrete case
09:23 < darosior> Yes exactly
09:24 -!- cfields [~cfields@user/cfields] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:24 < cfields> hi... ircd troubles.
09:24 < darosior> cfields: got the logs?
09:24 < sipa> I'm generally supportive of putting some statement on the website to have something to point people to, though obviously it'll depend on the content.
09:25 < achow101> sipa: +1
09:25 < achow101> darosior: do you have a draft to share?
09:25 < darosior> I don't i wanted to take the temperature first
09:25 < cfields> darosior: no, I'll catch up from context and read logs later. thanks though.
09:25 < abubakarsadiq> @thecharlatan: I remember using py-bitcoinkernel for my mining research https://github.com/ismaelsadeeq/mining-analysis and it's a bit annoying I have to shutdown my bitcoind, so I am thinking whether it is at the stage I can reproduce try reproducing the research without shutting down bitcoind and halting other node activities I am running.
09:25 < Murch[m]> Having spent a bunch of time discussing online in the past couple weeks, I do think that we should talk less about the nuanced trade-offs and more about what our priorities are
09:25 < sipa> TheCharlatan, abubakarsadiq: stick to topic, please?
09:26 < willcl-ark> hi
09:27 < Murch[m]> Trying to convey the finer details exacerbated the amount of follow-up questions and results in finer grained misconceptions that take even more time to address. darosior’s idea sounds good to me.
09:27 < sipa> It's a bit of a challenge I think to do this, as Bitcoin Core contributors are an ill-defined group and I think few people are comfortable speaking for others. But I can imagine a statement from some maintainers/regular contributors of the form "We believe many contributors feel the goal of relay/mempool/... should be", so rather than "Bitcoin Core believes X should happen", it is an observation 
09:28 < sipa> about current contributors' views
09:29 < darosior> That sounds good to me
09:29 -!- Guest66 [~Guest66@2601:189:8100:6980:bc79:2704:b212:60f] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:29 < achow101> yeah, i'd prefer to have it be a statement from the contributors who sign off on it, rather than a statement from the project
09:30 < fanquake> How many signatures do you need for it to be viable for the website?
09:30 < darosior> i think we should be able to make statements from the problem, but this is a different discussion. A letter signed off by contributors in this area relayed on the website sounds good to me
09:30 < Murch[m]> achow101, sipa: Would such a personal statement still be published on bitcoincore.org?
09:31 < darosior> *from the project, sorry, not problem
09:31 < darosior> I think a short explainer of why the binaries released by the project on the website are the way they are has absolutely its place on the website...
09:32 < achow101> Murch[m]: depends on the content, and if enough people sign it?
09:32 < darosior> I don't think it's the number of the signatures that matter, but who signs it
09:33 -!- rkrux [~rkrux@user/rkrux] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:33 < stickies-v> if there's enough consensus (among core devs) to merge it, there should be enough consensus to put a website post up
09:33 < sipa> Hmm, I think I'm not getting my suggestion across well. I don't mean at all a personal statement by some/many people, individually signed by all.
09:34 < darosior> stickies-v: exactly
09:34 < achow101> darosior: sure, but we also don't want it to be perceived as a small group of people setting the direction of the project
09:35 < fanquake> sipa: yea I think I'm missing the difference between "We believe many contributors feel" & "Bitcoin Core believes X",
09:35 < pinheadmz> why imply anything? why wouldnt it be "we the undersigned believe..." ?
09:35 < darosior> achow101: the set of people that would make such a change a reality (by signing off the PR) is not large. That's just the reality
09:36 < sipa> fanquake: well for one it doesn't need to claim to be inclusive of all views
09:36 < sipa> but yeah, maybe there isn't that much of a difference
09:36 < fanquake> Sure. I guess in my mind, the view of the project is what we are shipping in the binaries
09:37 < darosior> fanquake: +1
09:37 < stickies-v> exactly this. if we ship based on rough consensus, we should be able to blog post based on rough consensus
09:37 < TheCharlatan> there could be a difference between what is shipped, and what people believe the direction of policy over the next few years should be.
09:38 < willcl-ark> So would this be an educational post, something like the compact blocks FAQ? Or more of a report, or just a "we the undersigned agree x" type of thing?
09:38 < darosior> TheCharlatan: yeah i think there is a true distinction between what is and what should be in the future. That's up for debate too in my opinion, but here i am suggesting we do the former
09:39 < stickies-v> sure, but 32406 specifically includes direction of policy by changing a default and deprecating the option, right?
09:39 < darosior> heh, true
09:39 < sipa> but even deprecation is not a promise, just an intent
09:39 < sipa> and as contributors and their views change, intent can change
09:40 < instagibbs> sipa +1
09:40 < darosior> willcl-ark: something akin to "what we've been up to, and why"
09:40 < sipa> darosior: i like that
09:40 < achow101> I think I'll have more/stronger opinions once there's something to review
09:40 < willcl-ark> darosior: ok. that sounds nice
09:40 < abubakarsadiq> I think there is something similar on the website https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/09/01/open-letter/
09:40 < darosior> achow101: yeah, let me come up with a draft and we can reassess
09:40 < achow101> it's too early for abstract thought :p
09:41 < sipa> abubakarsadiq: wow, blast from the past :p
09:41 < darosior> By the way i think it would be nice if we published more PSAs about what we've been up to. But this one is most important now because of the recent controversy
09:41 < stickies-v> thank you for all your public work on this darosior (and others)
09:42 < darosior> stickies-v: thanks for the thanks, and sorry to have triggered this in the first place
09:42 < darosior> (although it was just unveiling resentment that was already there)
09:42 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32519: ci: Enable feature_init and wallet_reorgsrestore in valgrind task (master...2505-ci-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32519
09:42 < achow101> Any other topics to discuss?
09:42 < sipa> darosior: *pew* (the sound of people shotting the messenger)
09:42 < darosior> lol
09:43 < cfields> I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish here. My understanding is that the hate isn't coming so much from the change itself so much as the perception of how decisions are made and priorities are set. I'm not sure that "this is why we're doing X" is a constructive response to that?
09:43 < Murch[m]> Aye, I think we should generally think a bit more about public communication, and even how we support users of Bitcoin Core
09:43 < darosior> cfields: a decent part of misunderstanding is also coming from the change
09:44 < darosior> Murch[m]: i agree, topic for the next Coredev? Also happy to discuss it during an IRC meeting
09:44 < glozow> Light concept ACK to "here's the north star / what we've been doing and why." Also agree that perhaps communication about how decisions are made might be even more important
09:45 < Murch[m]> I’ve been told by several people in the past couple months that they wish there were a way to contact Bitcoin Core if one had questions or support issues, and others have recommended that we might find a couple contributors that do public relations or developer advocacy in some form.
09:45 < stickies-v> cfields: I was starting to type a similar response too, i think a lot of people have already heard a lot of the reasoning, but just fundamentally believe we / contributors / maintainers are evil or compromised and should not be trusted, and more reasoning may not convince them
09:45 < Murch[m]> E.g., by trying to talk more about the big picture
09:45 < sipa> cfields: i think having a place to describe motivations for a change can very much help with some misunderstandings i'm seeing (as opposed to needing individual contributors' social media posts, which can be hard to find, scattered, and easily drowned in noise)
09:45 < stickies-v> but i don't know how to solve that, and having a brief, easy-to-point to statement might still be a helpful addition
09:45 < Murch[m]> Someone actually recently approached me that they want to make some educational videos about Bitcoin Core
09:46 < Murch[m]> It certainly doesn’t sound like stuff that’s close to our heart, but we also can’t lose three weeks on a good chunk of developers every time someone misrepresents a situation
09:47 < achow101> stickies-v: if people believe that contributors are evil / compromised, I don't think any communication that we do would really change that opinion?
09:47 < darosior> Murch[m]: this is more than 3 weeks of time that is at stake. It should not be overstated but i think it shook the trust in Bitcoin Core to some extent.
09:48 < sipa> achow101: yes, but i think that's only a minority, and maybe not the most important one
09:48 < Murch[m]> darosior: Yeah, I agree
09:48 < darosior> achow101: this is not about convincing people that already made their mind but the silent majority of people that are currently hearing from only the side of "Core is evil"
09:48 < Murch[m]> achow101: I think the perception that we are compromised or misguided is only tenable, because the actual motivations are not understood
09:49 < darosior> And a lot of people that is important to not lose the trust of, don't have the time to dig up through dumpster fire Github threads and ML threads for our arguments
09:50 < TheCharlatan> yes, my impression from the past three weeks is that people genuinely don't understand why and how we're nudging ecosystem behaviour with policy.
09:50 < darosior> I am not saying that as a project we should address every single tin foil hat conspiracy out there, but we should at least have a statement about our vision out. Anyone genuine can hear them and read us. Right now they can only hear them.
09:51 < achow101> sure, I think writing a statement is fine, I just don't think that a dissuading people who have that opinion should necessarily be a goal
09:51 < Murch[m]> Yeah, the conversation being on Twitter, Nostr, Stacker News, Delving, the Mailing List, the podcast sphere, and probably a gazillion chats that we aren’t in, doesn’t help with getting our message out when we don’t feel that strongly about it, while the other side thinks the world is on fire
09:51 < abubakarsadiq> I think more communication is always welcome and beneficial, but I don’t believe it will prevent misclassification or incidents like the one caused by the recent policy change PR.
09:51 < abubakarsadiq> In an open-source project like this, some people will always complain or create noise when developers make a decision that doesn’t align with their views.
09:51 < abubakarsadiq> I’m not sure there’s a clear way to address that.
09:51 < achow101> but certainly explaining motivations may help to that effect
09:52 < Murch[m]> There also generally have been a few things that the community has felt very strongly about that Bitcoin Core has not addressed, so it’s just been piling up
09:53 < darosior> abubakarsadiq: we will never sway disingenuous people. There is still plenty of genuinely confused people out there to be swayed. I think a letter on the website is a very cost efficient way of working toward that goal.
09:53 < Murch[m]> Given that we are such a small group compared to the Bitcoin user base, more simply resources served highly visibly might significantly reduce our effort
09:54 < darosior> Murch[m]: yes, this is not about that specific issue. Resentment has been piling up and lack of communication is fueling it
09:54 < achow101> anyways, it seems like the next thing to do is to have something written to review
09:55 < stickies-v> i agree it's worth doing effort to provide resources to people genuinely trying to understand
09:55 < glozow> Producing more and more text that nobody reads is a bad strategy imo. It seems like we''re always thinking "if I just write one more post, they'll get it" and that's not true. I don't think we can win an information war unless we devote significant resources to becoming influencers long term. We have code to write, and they don't.
09:55 < achow101> that will probably help inform the questions about what the point is
09:55 < abubakarsadiq> +1 glozow
09:56 < darosior> glozow: this is not about writing one more blog post this is about writing the very first thing about it.
09:56 < Murch[m]> glozow: Yeah, what I’m tryìng to express is that we might want to communicate less often, but simpler and more visibly
09:57 < glozow> I think darosior, Murch, and many others have written a ton about op_return already. They are excellent and were worth the time. But who is the person who will be convinced by a bitcoincore.org post and not the ones you've already written?
09:57 < sipa> glozow: i think there may be some
09:57 < glozow> And how will they come across this post?
09:57 < darosior> glozow: I don't think an executive of a Bitcoin company will go read my thousand line detailed technical refutation of mostly tin foil hat stuff and made-up objections. They will read two paragraphs published officially on the Bitcoin Core website.
09:58 < Murch[m]> glozow: Yeah, I’m not talking about the spilt milk,  I’m thinking that in hindsight, e.g., darosior’s one long post was a much better at broadly addressing the issue than my ~200 posts
09:58 < glozow> Murch: that seems like a good strategy overall
09:58 < darosior> glozow: the same way they come across binaries. Somehow they find their way.
09:58 < Murch[m]> exactly what darosior said
09:58 -!- arminsdev [~arminsdev@2601:184:4181:ba20:e58f:9d0:9bf1:4ce1] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:59 < glozow> darosior: I don't think so. I think they message a dev or somebody dev-adjacent that they trust
09:59 < achow101> glozow: I think something that is jointly the opinion of multiple contributors will have more weight than the hundreds of separate posts arguing with specific people
09:59 < achow101> at least more easily pointed to as an opinion of several contributors to the project
10:00 < Murch[m]> Anyway, +1 on waiting with merging 32406, +1 on one or two simple statements of a few lines (that might take significant effort to craft) reserving the judgement after seeing the content ;)
10:00 < sipa> yeah, let's discuss when there is some text
10:00 < achow101> #endmeeting
10:00 < corebot> achow101: Meeting ended at 2025-05-15T17:00+0000
10:00 < corebot> achow101: Raw log: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-15_16_00.log.json
10:00 < corebot> achow101: Formatted log: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-15_16_00.log.html
10:00 < corebot> achow101: Minutes: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-15_16_00.html
10:01 < glozow> Sorry I don't mean to discourage you from writing a post, and I'm interested in contributing to it. I just think we should manage expectations about how it will be received.
10:01 < sipa> glozow: that's fair
10:01 < sipa> this will not Fix Everything(tm)
10:02 < glozow> I think it will be screenshotted and scrutinized just the same. You might send it to an executive, but they'll want you to hop on the phone and explain it to them.
10:02 < Murch[m]> Yeah, definitely, thanks for clarifying
10:03 -!- pablomartin_ [~pablomart@217.130.254.81] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:05 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:05 < cfields> +1 glozow. That's what I was getting at as well. A post isn't going to end this. Questions about policy/consensus and how those decisions are made will always exist, and they'll always be a magnet for vitrol. This isn't about appeasing anyone. It's an opportunity for us to reflect and decide if we really are working in the users' best interests. If we are, we should continue on with the understanding that we'll get hate anyway. If we're lacking, 
10:05 < cfields> we should improve. Anything containing "we, the undersigned" will just fan the flames. Imo any communication should be about what we've learned from this debacle and what we intend to change. Not an explainer about policy.
10:06 < Murch[m]> cfields: Thanks, that’s good food for thought
10:08 < Earnestly> Is there a ml post (I can't subscribe, it probably just sits in mod queue forever) which goes over the rationale/reason (from bitcoin core's view) for why op_return is to be changed (and the option to configure it potentially removed in the future)?
10:08 < cfields> lol
10:08 < instagibbs> Poe's Law
10:09 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:10 < Earnestly> I've been here for awhile and don't think I've ever really been antagnostic
10:11 < Earnestly> I've only seen a gist about this topic so far
10:11 < instagibbs> Earnestly it's just comedic how hard communication is
10:12 < Earnestly> Surely, but I was wondering if there was some ml discussion (I'm not sure if there is a ml anymore, I sort of just assumed the linux.org hosted one became an archive) about this other than PRs
10:12 < Earnestly> (As the PRs don't really provide much background iirc)
10:12 < instagibbs> Earnestly https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ
10:12 < Murch[m]> Earnestly: Antoine’s delving post is pretty comprehensive: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/addressing-community-concerns-and-objections-regarding-my-recent-proposal-to-relax-bitcoin-cores-standardness-limits-on-op-return-outputs/1697/1
10:12 < Earnestly> Hm, groups
10:13 < Earnestly> Murch[m]: Was hoping for content prior to the objections
10:13 < Murch[m]> And yeah, the mailing list moved to https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev
10:13 < cfields> Earnestly: just to be clear, I was just laughing at the timing of your question. Of course it's a reasonable one :)
10:14 < sipa> Earnestly: instagibbs' first link is the ML post that started it all, plus the discussion that followed
10:14 < Murch[m]> Earnestly: Instagibbs’s link from a few lines above has you covered
10:14 < Earnestly> Yeah it seems good
10:14 < Earnestly> Thanks, I'll have a read
10:15 < Earnestly> I'll also try to see if I can just get a feed from google groups to something, nntp or whatever it is
10:16 < Murch[m]> Earnestly: You can subscribe with any address, you don’t need a google account, if that is the problem
10:16 -!- enochazariah [~enochazar@197.210.53.77] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:17 -!- shytypes [~shytypes@104.28.198.116] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:25 < instagibbs> sipa sdaftuar is there supposed to be some upper limit to reorg depth where if it's exceeded, we don't try to re-enter txns to the mempool?
10:25 < sipa> instagibbs: i thought there was
10:25 < instagibbs> ok, any idea where that would lie
10:27 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@138.199.6.197] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:27 < instagibbs> ah! found it
10:27 < sipa> where?
10:27 < lightlike> instagibbs: MAX_DISCONNECTED_TX_POOL_BYTES in disconnected_transaction.h
10:27 < instagibbs> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L3702
10:28 < instagibbs> I ran into a clear 10->11 transition where things stop getting submitted, couldnt figure out why
10:30 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:30 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:32 < instagibbs> invalidateblock path is quite different too, TIL
10:32 < lightlike> instagibbs: InvalidateBlock is only invoked in case of artificial reorgs (invalidateblock rpc). For actual reorgs, there is probably no depth limit, just MAX_DISCONNECTED_TX_POOL_BYTES?!
10:33 < instagibbs> lightlike 👍 
10:33 < sipa> that matches the understanding i got when looking at this code a few months ago
10:34 < sdaftuar> hmm. the way it's supposed to(tm) work is that we have a memory limit during any reorg, which once hit, will cause us to start evicting transactions from the pool of txs that we will eventually try to resubmit to the mempool.
10:34 < sdaftuar> you're saying that isn't how it's done for actual reorgs?
10:34 < instagibbs> invalidateblock is Special(TM)
10:34 < instagibbs> that's the answer here
10:34 < sdaftuar> ah ok
10:34  * sdaftuar goes back to lurking
10:34 < instagibbs> which like, I kind of wonder why
10:35 < sipa> sdaftuar: for invalidateblock there is a depth limit above which it won't even try to re-enter disconnected blocks; for normal reorgs, it is only a memory limit, not a height liit
10:35 < instagibbs> but yeah, will ignore it for now and make "real" reorgs instead
10:35 < sdaftuar> sipa: got it, thanks for clarifying
10:42 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:44 -!- Guest66 [~Guest66@2601:189:8100:6980:bc79:2704:b212:60f] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:59 -!- pablomartin_ [~pablomart@217.130.254.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:02 -!- pablomartin_ [~pablomart@217.130.254.81] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:08 -!- shytypes [~shytypes@104.28.198.116] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
11:13 -!- enochazariah [~enochazar@197.210.53.77] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
11:13 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
11:13 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:13 -!- arminsdev [~arminsdev@2601:184:4181:ba20:e58f:9d0:9bf1:4ce1] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
11:27 < darosior> We do have a limit on the number of blocks
11:27 < darosior> Or at least we used to
11:27 < darosior> IIRC it was 10 blocks
11:27 < instagibbs> rewrote my scenario, it is now only limited based on memory, it seems
11:28 < darosior> Oh that must be because of the invalidateblock difference that you pointed after, should have read scrollback
11:32 -!- pablomartin_ [~pablomart@217.130.254.81] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
11:36 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
11:37 -!- pablomartin_ [~pablomart@176.red-88-26-183.staticip.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:45 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:52 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:01 -!- pablomartin_ [~pablomart@176.red-88-26-183.staticip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
12:08 -!- skr0 [~skr0@user/skr0] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:15 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:16 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
12:25 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:25 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
12:26 -!- pablomartin_ [~pablomart@66.red-79-151-104.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:26 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:26 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@138.199.6.197] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
12:27 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
12:29 -!- pablomartin_ [~pablomart@66.red-79-151-104.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Client Quit]
12:33 -!- skr0 [~skr0@user/skr0] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
12:35 -!- entropyx [~blackbox@user/entropyx] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
12:38 -!- entropyx [~blackbox@82.86.130.246] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:44 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
12:45 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:52 -!- Guest41 [~Guest41@dsl-tkubng12-54f954-141.dhcp.inet.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:02 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:03 < jonatack> Caught up with the discussion in today's core dev meeting
13:04 < jonatack> I'm willing to help review the draft before publication
13:04 < jonatack> if that can be helpful
13:06 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32520: Remove legacy `Parse(U)Int*` (master...2504-int-parsing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32520
13:12 -!- entropyx [~blackbox@user/entropyx] has changed host
13:22 < kanzure> +1 to glozow's/cfield's comments. also, if there is no intention to change anything from this debacle (which might be a legitimate and correct outcome), then possibly it would make sense to say so, and indicate that we honestly believe that people did not read the pull request and made up misinformation: stating so may be helpful for helpful non-developers to understand that misinformation ...
13:22 < kanzure> ...about code proposals is a real problem that we acknowledge exists. finally, there may be some value in placating the larger community by re-announcing the availability of e.g. pruning flag that already works on their installations. (or some variation of this)
13:32 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
13:35 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:50 -!- Guest41 [~Guest41@dsl-tkubng12-54f954-141.dhcp.inet.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:05 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] darosior opened pull request #32521: policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard (master...2503_nonstd_tx_sigops) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521
14:06 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:10 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has quit [Client Quit]
14:11 -!- zeropoint [~alex@45-28-139-114.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: leaving]
14:25 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:27 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
14:27 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:37 < gmaxwell> Making a post that explains whats up is just a good practice,-- it may not be at all helpful, but it's a good thing to do.  Care should be taken to not do any more rake stomping with it, (e.g. mark drafts as drafts!) :P
14:42 -!- bugs_ [~bugs@user/bugs/x-5128603] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:45 < gmaxwell> One of the reasons, I fear, is that the root 'concern' material is just not actually that sincere or authentic.   I've found that opponents of the change *reliably* disingage in discussions as soon as I join them, in a most unusual way.  plus the flood of "I just switched to knots" posts from accounts that have never before made a comment related to bitcoin.  I think it's likely that someone 
14:45 < gmaxwell> has found an oppturnity to fan drama and is exploiting it for some reason.  In any case, to whatever extent if any the traffic is an attack it will continue to be unresponsive to good communications.  But good communications is the right thing, so it just makes sense to keep doing the right thing.
15:53 -!- robszarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3ce0:e2e8:f86b:2c60] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:57 -!- szarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3855:996a:9be1:e359] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
16:04 -!- kevkevin_ [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:15 -!- Holz [~Holz@user/Holz] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:34 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:36 -!- AtleoS [~AtleoS@user/AtleoS] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:39 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
16:43 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-20-56.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:44 -!- zak77 [~zak@172.58.150.56] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:44 -!- zak77 [~zak@172.58.150.56] has quit [Client Quit]
16:50 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-150-22.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:51 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] w0xlt opened pull request #32522: util: C++20 `ToIntegral()` Improvement (master...to_integral) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32522
17:03 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-150-22.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
17:06 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:33 -!- robszarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3ce0:e2e8:f86b:2c60] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
17:34 -!- szarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3ce0:e2e8:f86b:2c60] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:18 -!- AtleoS [~AtleoS@user/AtleoS] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:19 -!- AtleoS [~AtleoS@user/AtleoS] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:53 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #32523: wallet: Remove watchonly behavior and isminetypes (master...delete-isminetypes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32523
18:55 -!- kingbankana [~kingbanka@197.211.58.62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:55 -!- entropyx [~blackbox@user/entropyx] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
18:59 -!- entropyx [~blackbox@82.86.130.246] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:04 -!- kingbankana [~kingbanka@197.211.58.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:04 -!- koolazer [~koo@user/koolazer] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
19:15 -!- seaner [~sean@203-132-94-86.ip4.superloop.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:49 -!- entropyx [~blackbox@user/entropyx] has changed host
20:15 -!- seaner [~sean@203-132-94-86.ip4.superloop.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
20:26 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
20:26 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:44 -!- Guest11 [~Guest11@c-107-3-120-53.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:45 -!- Guest11 [~Guest11@c-107-3-120-53.hsd1.ut.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit]
21:01 -!- cmirror [~cmirror@4.53.92.114] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:01 -!- AtleoS [~AtleoS@user/AtleoS] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
21:01 -!- cmirror [~cmirror@4.53.92.114] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:13 -!- Guest83 [~Guest83@2601:602:9000:bc30:5938:bae6:e6ed:65e8] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:15 -!- Guest83 [~Guest83@2601:602:9000:bc30:5938:bae6:e6ed:65e8] has quit [Client Quit]
21:18 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:19 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:23 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
21:39 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
21:39 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:04 -!- szarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:3ce0:e2e8:f86b:2c60] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
22:15 -!- szarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:a13d:fa36:80cc:d19a] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:15 -!- nexel [~nexel@102.89.85.61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:28 -!- nexel [~nexel@102.89.85.61] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
22:47 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:51 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
22:55 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:4069:f9f8:f618:2ead] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:25 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
23:25 -!- Cory38 [~Cory38@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:44 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32525: build: Revert "Temporarily disable compiling `fuzz/utxo_snapshot.cpp` with MSVC (master...2505-win-fuzz-rev) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32525
23:48 -!- Holz [~Holz@user/Holz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:53 -!- gyk [~gyk@209.141.55.105] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:54 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors closed pull request #32510: rfc: only put replaced txs in extra pool (master...2025/05/extra-pool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32510
--- Log closed Fri May 16 00:00:44 2025