--- Log opened Thu May 29 00:00:56 2025
00:20 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:24 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:29 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
00:58 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:18 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
01:31 -!- nanotube [~nanotube@user/nanotube] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
01:45 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:59 -!- PatBoy [xyz@cryption.cn] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in]
01:59 -!- PatBoy [xyz@cryption.cn] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:03 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
02:26 -!- twistedline [~bitcoin@185.193.125.44] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
02:28 -!- nanotube [~nanotube@user/nanotube] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:42 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/370c59261269...1062df81eec7
02:42 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master df82c2d Hennadii Stepanov: windows: Add resource file for `bitcoin.exe`
02:42 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dbb2d4c Hennadii Stepanov: windows: Add application manifest to `bitcoin.exe`
02:42 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1062df8 merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32634: build: Add resource file and manifest to `bit...
02:42 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32634: build: Add resource file and manifest to `bitcoin.exe` (master...250528-bitcoin-rc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32634
02:44 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:48 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] l0rinc opened pull request #32638: blocks: force hash validations of blocks read from disk explicit (master...l0rinc/read-block-hash-check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32638
02:50 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1062df81eec7...aad5938c49f9
02:50 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4789436 Greg Sanders: functional test: add MAX_DISCONNECTED_TX_POOL_BYTES coverage
02:50 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master eaf44f3 Greg Sanders: test: check chainlimits respects on reorg
02:50 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 84aa484 Greg Sanders: test: fix transaction_graph_test reorg test
02:50 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32516: test: add MAX_DISCONNECTED_TX_POOL_BYTES, chainlimits coverage (master...2025-05-reorg_mempool_trimming) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32516
02:51 -!- saturday7 [~saturday7@59.167.129.22] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.9.1 - https://znc.in]
02:51 -!- saturday7 [~saturday7@59.167.129.22] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:58 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/aad5938c49f9...14c16e81598a
02:58 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 36bcee0 David Gumberg: log: Log start of compact block initialization.
02:58 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3733ed2 David Gumberg: log: Size of missing tx'es when reconstructing compact block
02:58 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 83df64d David Gumberg: log: Stats when fulfilling GETBLOCKTXN
02:58 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32582: log: Additional compact block logging (master...5-21-2025-block-reconstruction-logs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32582
03:07 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
03:15 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@77-174-98-73.fixed.kpn.net] has left #bitcoin-core-dev [Closing Window]
03:17 -!- twistedline [~bitcoin@185.193.125.44] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:43 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:01 -!- jespada [~jespada@179.26.252.87] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:07 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:46 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:46 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:47 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:47 -!- saturday7 [~saturday7@59.167.129.22] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
04:47 -!- saturday- [~saturday7@59.167.129.22] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:51 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
05:07 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:15 -!- Earnestly [~earnest@user/earnestly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:22 -!- jespada [~jespada@179.26.252.87] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
05:25 -!- jespada [~jespada@179.26.252.87] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:31 -!- thoragh [~username@user/thoragh] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:32 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #32639: [28.x] Backport guix: accomodate migration to codeberg (28.x...28_backport_32439) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32639
05:34 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
05:43 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:45 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:45 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:50 -!- jespada [~jespada@179.26.252.87] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
05:51 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/14c16e81598a...c540ede1cbca
05:51 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 55f1c2a Hennadii Stepanov: windows: Use predefined `RC_INVOKED` macro instead of custom one
05:51 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c540ede merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32633: windows: Use predefined `RC_INVOKED` macro in...
05:51 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32633: windows: Use predefined `RC_INVOKED` macro instead of custom one (master...250528-rc-invoked) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32633
05:57 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:17 -!- jespada [~jespada@179.26.252.87] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:34 < sipa> #proposedmeetingtopic Statement on transaction relay policy
06:35 < sipa> I think it's good to discuss this again, I made some changes in response to comments (https://gist.github.com/sipa/2521731e65ba779e3ce9f9305c6a538c), but I may also not be around during the meeting to bring it up. I guess my questions are (a) any further comments (b) do people agree on posting it on the website *without* explicit signatures (c) who would sign it if we put it on the website with 
06:35 < sipa> explicit signers
06:45 -!- SpellChecker_ [~SpellChec@user/SpellChecker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:47 -!- SpellChecker [~SpellChec@user/SpellChecker] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
06:47 -!- PaperSword [~Thunderbi@securemail.qrsnap.io] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:58 < bitcoin-git> [leveldb-subtree] fanquake pushed 2 commits to bitcoin-fork: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree/compare/113db4962b8b...aba469ad6a80
06:58 < bitcoin-git> leveldb-subtree/bitcoin-fork 7daf4ed Cory Fields: Fix clang thread-safety-pointer warnings
06:58 < bitcoin-git> leveldb-subtree/bitcoin-fork aba469a merge-script: Merge bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree#54: Fix clang thread-safety-pointer war...
06:58 < bitcoin-git> [leveldb-subtree] fanquake merged pull request #54: Fix clang thread-safety-pointer warnings (bitcoin-fork...fix-threadsafety-pointer) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree/pull/54
07:13 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
07:18 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #32629: Replace dead gnome link notificator.cpp (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32629
07:26 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:27 -!- jespada [~jespada@179.26.252.87] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
07:29 -!- bugs_ [~bugs@user/bugs/x-5128603] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:30 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-67-175.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:05 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:15 -!- robszarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:4dfe:737f:34:4b9c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:18 -!- rszarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:e02e:5e2d:e578:d3d4] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
08:21 -!- Guest87 [~Guest87@public-gprs542486.centertel.pl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:21 -!- Guest87 [~Guest87@public-gprs542486.centertel.pl] has quit [Client Quit]
08:21 -!- Guest87 [~Guest87@public-gprs542486.centertel.pl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:21 -!- Guest87 [~Guest87@public-gprs542486.centertel.pl] has quit [Client Quit]
08:30 -!- Cory94 [~Cory94@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
08:30 -!- Cory94 [~Cory94@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:30 -!- SpellChecker_ is now known as SpellChecker
08:35 -!- nanotube [~nanotube@user/nanotube] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
08:48 -!- bugs_ [~bugs@user/bugs/x-5128603] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
08:51 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:53 -!- twistedline [~bitcoin@185.193.125.44] has quit []
08:54 -!- twistedline [~bitcoin@185.193.125.44] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:58 -!- Emc99 [~Emc99@212.129.84.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:58 -!- twistedline [~bitcoin@185.193.125.44] has quit [Client Quit]
09:00 < achow101> #startmeeting
09:00 < corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-05-29T16:00+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 < 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 < stickies-v> hi
09:00 < hebasto> hi
09:00 < cfields> hi
09:00 < TheCharlatan> hi
09:00 < instagibbs> hi
09:00 < jonatack> hi
09:00 < b10c> hi
09:00 < abubakarsadiq>  hi
09:00 < lightlike> Hi
09:00 < achow101> There is one preproposed meeting topic this week. Any last minute ones to add?
09:02 < achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
09:02 -!- twistedline [~bitcoin@185.193.125.44] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:02 < TheCharlatan> nothing to report this week
09:03 < achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101, rkrux)
09:03 < achow101> No major updates, #31244 is still the PR to review and has been getting some review
09:03 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31244 | descriptors: MuSig2 by achow101 · Pull Request #31244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:03 < johnny9dev> hi
09:03 < achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
09:03 < johnny9dev> Since last meeting, The QR code component was merged in bitcoin-core/gui-qml#454, Initial loading animations were merged in (bitcoin-core/gui-qml#455 and bitcoin-core/gui-qml#459), and a minor compile error fixed bitcoin-core/gui-qml#458.
09:03 < johnny9dev> I also undrafted the multiple recipients PR as the core functionality is working now (bitcoin-core/gui-qml#450)
09:03 < johnny9dev> I decided to implement the fee selection menu next before doing validation and will have a PR for that before the weekend.
09:03 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/454 | Add QRImageProvider by goqusan · Pull Request #454 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
09:03 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/455 | Add Skeleton loading animation to the Wallet selector by johnny9 · Pull Request #455 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
09:03 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/459 | Disable forms when loading by johnny9 · Pull Request #459 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
09:03 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/458 | Add missing <cstdint> declarations by davidgumberg · Pull Request #458 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
09:03 < 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
09:04 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:04 < johnny9dev> thats all for now. I have a couple more weeks of QML work i want to complete and then I plan on shifting my efforts to deployment/packaging/depends research
09:05 < achow101> not many wg updates this week it seems..
09:05 < achow101> sipa: are you here?
09:05 < sipa> achow101: half
09:05 < achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
09:06 < sipa> Getting some review on the 3rd txgraph PR, #31553
09:06 < 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> hopefully it can get in soon
09:07 < instagibbs> 🤞
09:07 < sipa> the PR to replace the linearization algorithm, #32545, is also ready for review if people are interested, but it's not a blocker for.anything, just a drop-in replacemrnt
09:07 < corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32545 | Replace cluster linearization algorithm with SFL by sipa · Pull Request #32545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:08 < sipa> that's it for me
09:08 < achow101> #topic Statement on transaction relay policy (sipa)
09:08 < sipa> so repeating what i said before the meeting
09:08 < sipa> I think it's good to discuss this again, I made some changes in response to comments (https://gist.github.com/sipa/2521731e65ba779e3ce9f9305c6a538c), but I may also not be around during the meeting to bring it up. I guess my questions are (a) any further comments (b) do people agree on posting it on the website *without* explicit signatures (c) who would sign it if we put it on the website with 
09:08 < sipa> explicit signers
09:09 < sipa> if no comments here, feel free to leave them on the gist
09:09 < sipa> lots of conferences so not everyone is here
09:10 < achow101> reading through it quickly
09:10 < sipa> thanks!
09:11 < achow101> I would be ok with posting this to the website, with or without signatures.
09:12 < achow101> although my preference is to have signatures
09:12 < gmaxwell> There was a view expressed that having a name on it may target attacks, but that I think can be mitigated by putting in an effort to collect many.
09:13 < TheCharlatan> fwiw leaning towards explicit signers
09:14 < achow101> Any other comments on this? Or any other topics to discuss?
09:15 < fanquake> If there are ~50 people in the core orgs. How many do we want for posting? I have somewhat of a concern about a too small amount being a poor framing
09:15 < stickies-v> I think it's a great write-up and would be okay with both b) and  c)
09:15 < jonatack> i think it's a reasonable statement (nit, would drop the italics used for emphasis, unneeded imo)
09:15 < fanquake> *There are roughly 50 people
09:16 < jonatack> i don't believe it will make a difference at this point, however
09:16 -!- nanotube [~nanotube@user/nanotube] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:16 < jonatack> i don't believe we should request or post signatures either
09:16 < stickies-v> I think we need probably at least 15 or so signatures?
09:16 < jonatack> either there are "too few" and they may face targeting
09:17 < jonatack> or there are "many" and those who don't sign, not necessarily out of opposition, may face "you're either with us or against us" ostracization
09:17 < gmaxwell> just sort recent commit authors, and go obtain the top N or something. On the order of two dozen names probably avoids targeting.
09:19 < gmaxwell> I mean also if anyone actually doesn't agree with what the document says it would be useful to learn.  It would be fairly surprising to me.
09:19 < gmaxwell> (I mean any regular contributors)
09:19 < cfields> erm, that makes it opt-out rather than opt-in for those devs. And opting out doesn't necessarily mean disagreement. I don't love that.
09:19 < jonatack> cfields: same
09:19 < gmaxwell> wait what would be opt out?
09:19 < cfields> gmaxwell: some of us have learned the hard way against signing agreements :p
09:20 < gmaxwell> cfields: haha, though its not an agreement.
09:21 < cfields> Heh, yes, of course it's different.
09:21 < cfields> <gmaxwell> just sort recent commit authors, and go obtain the top N or something.
09:21 < gmaxwell> "go obtain" I mean go ask people.
09:21 < gmaxwell> Sorry for confusion.
09:21 < cfields> ^^ implies that those authors would need to opt out.
09:22 < achow101> cfields: i get not wanting to put your name on it for fear of being attacked, but also I'm concerned that without signatures people will perceive this as a small group enforcing their will onto everyone else
09:22 < achow101> if the altnerative is to point people to the pr and tell them to count the acks, I think that is also fairly equivalent to putting your name on it, and I would expect those who fear being attacked would not ack in public either
09:23 < gmaxwell> As in send them an email "Project is planning on publishing this, because you're recently the author of X commits, can we put your name on it?"
09:24 < achow101> if the concern is that many people sign and someone not signing for fear of being attacked is instead construed as not agreeing, then, idk. it might help in that case to make your org membership private though
09:25 < cfields> achow101: has nothing to do with being attacked (what, they gonna ping me here? :p), I just haven't been engaged with the issue and don't feel the need to weigh in on it. Maybe I'm alone there?
09:26 < jonatack> achow101: re the perception, that ship sailed long ago, and would require much more than a statement to change course
09:26 < achow101> cfields: that's totally fine, what does that have to do with attaching people's names?
09:26 < gmaxwell> cfields: hm. well this statement is not even so much about 'the issue' -- except inso far as it's laying out the project's collective thinking in a way that also answer the recent drama.
09:27 < cfields> No need for me to monopolize time here. 
09:27 < jonatack> gmaxwell: for some the drama is about the op_return change, but afaict for many more it's larger
09:28 < jonatack> yes, same for me, no intent to monopolize here
09:28 < achow101> Anything else to discuss?
09:28 < gmaxwell> jonatack: fair enough.
09:29 < jonatack> gmaxwell: https://x.com/jonatack/status/1922814114482532833
09:30 < achow101> #endmeeting
09:30 < corebot> achow101: Meeting ended at 2025-05-29T16:30+0000
09:30 < corebot> achow101: Raw log: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-29_16_00.log.json
09:30 < corebot> achow101: Formatted log: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-29_16_00.log.html
09:30 < corebot> achow101: Minutes: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-05-29_16_00.html
09:30 -!- Emc99 [~Emc99@212.129.84.176] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:31 < gmaxwell> jonatack: I can't say that some random X poll has any particular meaning for me.
09:32 < instagibbs> Might need an assurance contract for signatures :) 
09:33 < jonatack> gmaxwell: that's fair. it "supported" my hypothesis at the time.
09:34 < marcofleon> imo optimal would probably be if a lot of people clearly wanted to sign it and we had 40 signatures (or at least >20)
09:34 < marcofleon> second best would be no signatures (which seems okay to me)
09:34 < marcofleon> and worst would be 5-15 signatures
09:39 < gmaxwell> jonatack: I think the biggest driver is just that there is a vacuum in understanding about why the project has adopted the direction that it has.  Some people are out howling in public that "spam" is trivially fixed and that clearly the project has been taken over by shitcoiners and people paid off to enable spam because they haven't fixed it.  This is very obviously nonsense, but absent a 
09:39 < gmaxwell> shared understanding it's easy for falsehoolds like those to get spread.
09:42 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:45 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@138.199.6.197] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:01 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
10:03 < dzxzg> Why does every last person need to be convinced? At the extreme end, the brigadiers are not sincerely interested in changing their minds, and the majority in the middle are probably just gawking at the spectacle. I think it would be more productive to spend resources/time communicating a positive vision of the future of Bitcoin Core instead of trying to put out fires by people that are started by people that just want to throw sand into gears
10:03 < dzxzg> Why does every last person need to be convinced? At the extreme end, the brigadiers are not hearing any one out in good faith, and the majority in the middle are probably just gawking at the spectacle. I think it would be more productive to spend resources/time communicating a positive vision(s) of the future of Bitcoin Core (Kernel, Erlay, Multiprocess, Cluster mempool, Stratum V2, Package Relay, etc. etc.)  instead of trying to put out fires started 
10:03 < dzxzg> by people that just want to throw sand into gears.
10:03 < dzxzg> I acknowledge that the relay policy document is well written and is in some
10:03 < dzxzg> ways a start towards moving the conversation forward.
10:05 < gmaxwell> Yeah they don't and won't be-- particularly to the extent that some people aren't sincere.  But there is at least a bit of traction the insincere people can gain just because there it's not easy to point people to a clear view on why things are the way they are.
10:05 < gmaxwell> and so thats what the relay policy thing addresses.  Sometimes the gear-sand-throwing exposese a real issue for improvement.
10:05 < sipa> FWIW, my motivation for writing this was because i worry about a perceived lack of communication, much more so than correcting technical misunderstandings
10:12 < gmaxwell> dzxzg: it's also a big time and energy saver ultimately, like no need to have a quarterly useless debate PR by PR over questions that are answered by the policy doc. Which makes it easier to actually set a forward direction.  E.g. project collectively has a vision for the kind of bitcoin its building for.  I mean I think it always has, but it's not always well communicated.
10:13 < gmaxwell> There is probably room for similar statements on other points, but without any debate it's hard to priortize them and crystalize thinking about them.
10:17 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:38 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-67-175.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
10:41 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-67-175.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:52 -!- preimage [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:06 -!- Guest76 [~Guest76@2406:7400:bb:a255:ae80:415b:541c:54e6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:11 -!- Guest76 [~Guest76@2406:7400:bb:a255:ae80:415b:541c:54e6] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:14 -!- dzxzg2 [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:23 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:28 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #32641: Update libmultiprocess subtree to fix clang-tidy errors (master...pr/subtree-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32641
11:36 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:38 < Earnestly> sipa: If it's worth anything, based on what I've read over on this topic, everything you've written in the gist is quite clearly understood by the counterparty; it doesn't really address any of their points
11:39 < Earnestly> Insofar as communication goes, that is, it does seem like core just dosn't seem to see the other side's arguments
11:40 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:45 < sipa> Earnestly: i don't think i have the same counterparty in mind as you
11:46 < Earnestly> Perhaps you are focusing on those who are just angry, without the ability to express themselves properly
11:46 < sipa> Not at all.
11:47 < Earnestly> I do find it quite astonishing that users with legitimate concerns continue to be called "brigading" and no one puts to stop to that kind of language, for example
11:49 < gmaxwell> "puts a stop" to people's personal comments in irc?
11:49 < Earnestly> Yes, these comments are noticed elsewhere
11:50 < sipa> I really don't know what to say to this. If non-contributors show up, in masse, to comment on a technical issue, to the point where people can't use that place to work anymore, then that's abusive and disruptive.
11:50 < Earnestly> I think you should regard that as a signal
11:50 < lightlike> well, it's a signal that brigading is going on.
11:51 < gmaxwell> hah
11:51 < Earnestly> Sure, of course. But you need to have more reflection than that
11:52 < gmaxwell> I've talked to many of the people who have brigaded in various venues, and the vast majority have simply been lied to (specially by employees and investors of Ocean Mining LLC) about what up with core in ways that the relay policy document addresses.  
11:52 < gmaxwell> (not all, of course)
11:54 < Earnestly> Yeah of course, this is how it works. Information spreads fast, there's a lot of people who care about this, people are going to mislead for all petty, malicious, or misguided reasons
11:55 < gmaxwell> And of course, we live in a world where people can drive this kind of drama specifically to disrupt and impede the project, so it must as an element of security operate in a way that is robust against that kind of attack.
11:55 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@138.199.6.197] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
11:56 < Earnestly> All you had to do was focus on the signal; debacles like "define deprecated" or ignoring the prior straws which the camel is carrying does you no favours
11:57 < sipa> I don't know what that means/
11:57 < Earnestly> Exactly
11:57 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: You don't know what that means.
11:58 < sipa> Should people not work on what they believe is the correct technical course of action?
11:58 < Earnestly> Unbelievable
11:58 < sipa> Should people talk more about what they think?
11:58 < sipa> Should people spend more time on social media explaining themselves instead of doing technical work?
11:58 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: the faux outrage doesn't really contribute meaningfully to the discussion.
11:59 < Earnestly> sipa: This doesn't really have any impact on the work anyone does, for whatever reasons they do the work. The whole point is your concern about communication, I'm trying to give you the results of what I found
12:00 < sipa> Earnestly: as i told you, i think we have very different audiences in mind
12:00 < Earnestly> Who is your audience?
12:00 < sipa> someone who is already outraged isn't going to be swayed by anything
12:00 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:01 < sipa> but someone who sees drama, and allegations, without a proper response expect by individual scattered contributors arguing on social media, might get away with a very wrong impression
12:01 < Earnestly> That sounds like a truism but it isn't really in my experience. People don't maintain a singular emotion
12:02 < gmaxwell> If someone reads the realy policy thing, understands it, and disagrees with it-- well then thats a fine reason for them to just not us bitcoin core as it's being designed/maintained with values in mind that they don't agree with.
12:02 < gmaxwell> The project essentially can't exist if it can't decide the things that it is, and the things that it isn't.
12:02 < Earnestly> gmaxwell: I have measured that is exactly what is happening
12:02 < gmaxwell> Great.
12:03 < Earnestly> gmaxwell: Also I'd suggest it's not helpful to patronise these people. If they are emotional, telling them their emotions are fake doesn't help. I'd suggest you might do more good by not engaging at all
12:03 < gmaxwell> Whats the patronizing?
12:04 < Earnestly> sipa: The gist is fair though, it does articulate core's side of the argument quite well. I was probably hoping at this stage for some of the arguments to be addressed by now
12:06 < Earnestly> Anyway, back to watching the adoption curve. These events are interesting from a historical point of view to me
12:06 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: Please, what's patronizing?
12:06 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
12:07 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:14 -!- dzxzg2 [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
12:44 -!- preimage [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
12:45 -!- preimage [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:45 < instagibbs> Earnestly if the github hasn't been brigaded, I think that word has lost all meaning
12:46 < Earnestly> instagibbs: I don't disagree, but my point is that it shouldn't have mattered - it's not actually the important aspect
12:47 < instagibbs> that is your first example you gave
12:47 < Earnestly> Yes, I think it's counterproductive. This is just my view based on what I've seen
12:48 < instagibbs> speaking of patronizing
12:49 < Earnestly> That is, it's counterproductive to spend time attempting to psychoanalyse people and their behaviours, it's counterproductive to react at the same level, or to continue slandering people who are just caught up in the middle
12:51 < sipa> Something cannot be slander if it's true.
12:53 < sipa> And I don't think anyone using these terms uses them with the intent of harming people's reputation - it's just describing the reality of what is going on?
12:53 < Earnestly> sipa: I am trying to help, despite my opinion not being asked for admittedly
12:53 < sipa> Yeah I don't think you're helping.
12:53 < instagibbs> telling me I cannot use a word to describe reality isnt helpful :(
12:54 < Earnestly> instagibbs: Because not everyone involved in brigading was part of the brigade; do you understand?
12:54 < sipa> So there is a The Brigade, and apart from that, there are also people brigading, but they're part of something else?
12:55 < sipa> I don't understand, no.
12:56 < Earnestly> That's a pity, but I'm clearly not able to explain this properly, so nevermind the details. I just want you to reflect a little more on this rather than being defensive
12:57 < instagibbs> kafka trap
12:57 < Earnestly> What? I'm not accusing anyone of anything
12:59 < sipa> Do you have any concrete suggestion of what could be done, or could have been done differently, apart from not using the word "brigade"?
12:59 -!- mode/#bitcoin-core-dev [+o achow101] by ChanServ
13:01 < Earnestly> sipa: Personally no, I don't know what would have been better (github is largely at fault for this too because it's difficult to manage lots of unwanted comments). My only view is that I think a level of maturity/respect shown by the core devs (generally) would have gone a long way to help the situation. I wouldn't have called it a "Brigade" even if it was one, for example
13:02 < sipa> Noted.
13:02 < Earnestly> Hm, if I was in your shoes I likely would have just not engaged for awhile, then let the dust settle and try to find out where the disagreement came from. In the beginning it was lots of misleading narrative about
13:07 -!- robobub [uid248673@id-248673.uxbridge.irccloud.com] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
13:13 -!- PaperSword1 [~Thunderbi@securemail.qrsnap.io] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:13 -!- PaperSword [~Thunderbi@securemail.qrsnap.io] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
13:13 -!- PaperSword1 is now known as PaperSword
13:15 -!- w473rm3l0n [~w473rm3l0@user/w473rm3l0n] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:35 < w473rm3l0n> Earnestly: re: brigading, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling it what it appears to be. Most of the NACKs are from Knots users who don't even review pull requests in the Knots repository. You won't see so many thumbs up and down reactions in other pull requests. There’s also a misconception that the review process is a form of
13:35 < w473rm3l0n> voting, where a higher number of irrational NACKs could influence the outcome.
13:36 < Earnestly> w473rm3l0n: I don't really disagree with this, the point is to understand why it happened. People will use whatever venue they can to express their views i they feel strongly enough about it
13:37 < Earnestly> (It does also happen to be the pr they care about, unlike the others, so I wouldn't expect to see them elsewhere)
13:46 < gmaxwell> sipa: plus anyone could be guilty of brigading at some time or another, I'm sure I've been suckered into it here or there.  Especially as a less expirenced person in the past.  It's no great crime.
13:46 -!- w473rm3l0n [~w473rm3l0@user/w473rm3l0n] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
13:48 < gmaxwell> When people in those PRs who *might* have been otherwise seen as brigading actually argued their points, they got reasoned replies. E.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406#issuecomment-2874791860  in my comment on instagibbs PR I took the time to specifically respond to points of k98kurz, who is someone I've never seen before, and might have guessed was there only due to being 
13:48 < gmaxwell> directed by an outside forum.
13:51 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
13:52 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:53 < gmaxwell> and as far as slandering goes, being part of a brigade is no great sin.  I'm sure its happened from time to time to most people.  The only reason it gets brought up at all are because it can be disruptive and because its relevant to the "look at all the thumbs down, this is widely opposed!"  when in reality that effect can be created by anyone bored enough with some vpn accounts, and doesn't 
13:53 < gmaxwell> mean anything to the project and shouldn't mean anything to the public.
13:54 < gmaxwell> But just because the brigading itself is disregarded that doesn't mean that reasoned points from a potential brigader are disregarded (except in so far as they're lost in the flood).
13:56 < Earnestly> There is also the option for a schelling point, without direction people decided on the same course
13:59 < Earnestly> (Without being able to measure the "genuineness" of the users (could be bots, etc.) in such an event you can only humbly wait it out. Paradoxically, communicating by not communicating, you allow all the arguments to form as it takes time in open/decentralised discussions to coalesse, and in the beginning the arguments will be rough. I've noticed that refinements come from each side
13:59 < Earnestly> talking amongst themselves rather than from cross-examination.)
14:00 < gmaxwell> I'm not sure if that matters even if were a significant factor. Ultimately, some body of people flooding into a PR without actually engaging in the dicsusion doesn't contribute to the discussion, even if their presence wasn't orchestrated at all.
14:01 < Earnestly> But that is "how it is", in open source, and you will have to accept that. Github could improve things though by giving users the tools to mute/block users rather than depending on a project to unilateraly do it for everyone else
14:01 < gmaxwell> Oh there are ways of knowing genuineness to varrious degrees, though obviously people aren't going to publish all the techniques at their disposal.  Ultimately I don't think that matters.
14:01 < gmaxwell> You can block people personally on github.
14:01 -!- dzxzg2 [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:02 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: also opensource != github.  Github is particularly bad in some of these respects.
14:02 < gmaxwell> I hope bitcoin core gets off of it some day.
14:02 < Earnestly> Hm, can you? I've tried awhile back to see if specific users can have their comments muted/hidden but couldn't find anything specifically
14:02 -!- Guest67 [~Guest67@102.90.103.93] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:02 -!- Guest67 [~Guest67@102.90.103.93] has quit [Client Quit]
14:03 -!- Guest24 [~Guest12@102.90.103.93] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:03 < Earnestly> gmaxwell: Yeah I don't disagree with you there, it will likely have to always maintain a mirror unless something really bad happens to github's "availability bias", so to say
14:03 -!- Guest24 [~Guest12@102.90.103.93] has quit [Client Quit]
14:03 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: yes go to the user's github.com/user and click "block or report".
14:04 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: It should just be wiped with a "go over here" pointer on it, I think. Bitcoin isn't the kind of obscure project dying for the last possible user that it matters if someone gets lost on the way.
14:04 < Earnestly> Probably, but I would think it might end up like linux
14:05 -!- mudsip [~mudsip@user/mudsip] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:05 -!- mudsip [~mudsip@user/mudsip] has quit [Client Quit]
14:05 < Earnestly> I'll try that block idea, I want to see how it renders in a comment stream (for irc I don't /ignore, instead filter so the nick is visible but the message is not. This avoids the problem of "ghost conversations")
14:05 < gmaxwell> The most widely used operating system in the world? :P
14:06 < Earnestly> gmaxwell: Yeah, I mean that it hosts a mirror on github while still coordinating via mls
14:06 -!- Guest13 [~Guest12@102.90.103.93] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:06 -!- Guest13 [~Guest12@102.90.103.93] has quit [Client Quit]
14:07 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: I'm not a big fan of the individual block, causes a fractured reality. 
14:07 < sipa> 2025 will the year of Bitcoin on the desktop
14:08 < Earnestly> gmaxwell: Yes, however that's sort of a UI problem. Like in my IRC example, there are ways of "soft blocking" so you don't have to waste your time reading anything, but you can reveal the message as necessary for moderation purposes, etc.
14:09 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: my very long expirence in IRC is what happens when someone is widely ignored is that they pick dumb arguments with people who aren't widely ignored, and then everyone is bored with half the conversation, or they get sucked into it... and it's just kind of ineffectual.
14:09 < gmaxwell> Generally my view is that in a purpose-community like an open source software project, people are either willing and able to comport themselves within the norms of the project, and they should be welcome especially insofar as their participation aids the project's purpose.  Or they're not, and they just shouldn't be allowed in at all, until they will change their conduct.
14:10 < Earnestly> Yes
14:11 < Earnestly> gmaxwell: In that sense, "echo chambers" are good, not in the sense of everyone agreeing but that everyone has the right set if instincts/goals but differ in how to reach them
14:12 < Earnestly> if/of
14:12 < gmaxwell> I think on IRC point ignores are more useful for transitory issues like a spam bot or a join flood when maybe ops may not be around.
14:12 < gmaxwell> Earnestly: yeah they're good until they're not, good project management is partially about drawing the right line.
14:12 < gmaxwell> But fortunately people can be members of multiple communities.
14:12 < gmaxwell> Which, I think, helps a lot.
14:12 < Earnestly> For sure
14:15 < gmaxwell> a lot of these web platforms, including github, do weird and harmful stuff with blocks... amusingly somewhat due to some weird requirement in apple's app store that has demands on how your 'block' must work which are understood in a particular way by varrious trust and safety employee communities.  (Somehow I got myself on one of their lists years ago, and it's been ... interesting ... to 
14:16 < gmaxwell> watch).
14:16 < _aj_> sipa: i thought we were going for X is the year of a bitcoin full node on your phone?
14:16 < gmaxwell> Like on github if you block someone they can't comment on your PRs on any project unless they're a commiter (or something?) on that project.
14:16 < gmaxwell> Similar on reddit, blocking someone makes them unable to see your comments.  
14:17 < gmaxwell> So it's quite easy to use blocking abusively,  e.g. block all the smart and honest people, go spread misinformation-- they don't even see it to get a way to reply.
14:17 < Earnestly> Oh that's not good for github, it needs to be more finely grained than that
14:18 < sipa> also if you block someone, they cannot comment on your PRs, which is bad - it shouldn't be the PR author's decision, but the project's
14:18 < gmaxwell> The problem the T&S employees are trying to solve is like you block your X spouse who is stalking you online, and your comments should vanish from their view so as to not feed their obsession.  Which seems like a thing to be sincerely concerned about, but the actual implementation is very abuse prone.
14:19 < gmaxwell> sipa: commiters in that project can still comment, right?
14:20 < sipa> gmaxwell: i'd assume if you were to block a project's maintainer, they can still comment
14:20 < gmaxwell> either way, very easy to abuse--  just block everyone credible and then propose something bad and now many people who would point out the error in your proposal can't.
14:20 < sipa> unsure about just people with write permission, i don't know to what extent those are treated specially
14:21 < gmaxwell> sipa: on reddit subreddit mods can always see your comments and reply, even across a block.  (however, reddit's outsourced site-moderators can often be conned into handing out a side wide ban against mods that reply to you "across a block" that you can't even tell is there, ::facepalm::)
14:25 -!- preimage [~halosghos@user/halosghost] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 4.6.3]
14:31 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c540ede1cbca...5471e29d0570
14:31 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b1ea542 Greg Sanders: test: test MAX_SCRIPT_SIZE for block validity
14:31 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5471e29 Ava Chow: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32304: test: test MAX_SCRIPT_SIZE for block validity
14:31 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #32304: test: test MAX_SCRIPT_SIZE for block validity (master...2025-04-max_script_size_test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32304
14:32 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:33 < sipa> _aj_: i had a full node on my phone in 2016 or so?
14:33 < gmaxwell> yeah, likewise.
14:34 < gmaxwell> someone managed to get bitcoin core running on android, it was called abccore or something like that?
14:34 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:36 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
14:38 < hebasto> qml branch runs on Android natively
14:41 < sipa> gmaxwell: yep, by lawrence nahum
14:42 < sipa> hebasto: i should try it at some point!
14:43 < hebasto> qml repo ci provides insecure android apk’s available for downloading
14:43 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:00 < _aj_> sipa: people running linux on their desktop hasn't stopped it being the year of linux on the desktop though
15:12 -!- Cory94 [~Cory94@user/pasha] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:17 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:22 -!- robszarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:4dfe:737f:34:4b9c] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
15:23 -!- szarka [~szarka@2603:3003:4eac:100:4dfe:737f:34:4b9c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:27 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:31 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
15:36 -!- Cory [~Cory@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:47 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
15:47 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:50 -!- Guest82 [~Guest82@102.216.203.133] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:51 -!- Guest82 [~Guest82@102.216.203.133] has quit [Client Quit]
16:06 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
16:12 -!- infernix [nix@spirit.infernix.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:13 -!- infernix [nix@spirit.infernix.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:17 -!- Randolf [~randolf@184.70.10.188] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:31 -!- Randolf [~randolf@184.70.10.188] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
16:34 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:54 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
17:02 -!- jespada [~jespada@r179-25-67-175.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
17:04 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #32642: test: update BIP340 test vectors and implementation (variable-length messages) (master...202505-test-update_bip340_test_vectors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32642
17:27 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:32 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:32 -!- robobub [uid248673@id-248673.uxbridge.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:48 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:51 -!- cm_ [~chaz@user/cm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:53 -!- cm [~chaz@user/cm] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
17:53 -!- cm_ is now known as cm
17:53 -!- cm [~chaz@user/cm] has quit [Client Quit]
17:58 -!- cm [~chaz@user/cm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:20 -!- cm [~chaz@user/cm] has quit [Quit: Bye.]
18:25 -!- cm [~chaz@user/cm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:15 -!- Cory [~Cory@user/pasha] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
19:15 -!- Cory [~Cory@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:18 -!- adil [~Thunderbi@2402:d000:8134:2f97:75b0:5109:bc04:3916] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:21 -!- adil [~Thunderbi@2402:d000:8134:2f97:75b0:5109:bc04:3916] has quit [Client Quit]
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
21:02 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:08 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:13 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
21:42 -!- PaperSword [~Thunderbi@securemail.qrsnap.io] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:48 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:53 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
22:09 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:14 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
22:26 -!- Christoph_ [~Christoph@2a02:810d:1399:b700:1874:2592:fe32:90bd] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:43 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:45 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@user/dermoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:56 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@user/dermoth] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:00 -!- Guest52 [~Guest52@2a0d:3344:15b7:5e00:2cb4:303a:e823:147] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:13 -!- Guest52 [~Guest52@2a0d:3344:15b7:5e00:2cb4:303a:e823:147] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
23:19 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@user/dermoth] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
23:41 -!- Guest60 [~textual@45.155.40.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:43 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Quit: = ""]
23:46 -!- Guest60 [~textual@45.155.40.176] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
23:47 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
23:47 -!- Guest60 [~textual@45.155.40.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:55 -!- Guest60 [~textual@45.155.40.176] has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
--- Log closed Fri May 30 00:00:57 2025