--- Log opened Thu Oct 09 00:00:03 2025
00:31 -!- f321x [~f321x@user/f321x] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:43 -!- f321x_ [~f321x@user/f321x] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:43 -!- f321x [~f321x@user/f321x] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:48 -!- janb84 [~janb84@user/janb84] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
01:49 -!- janb84 [~janb84@user/janb84] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:33 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Aathish101 opened pull request #33583: Update .style.yapf (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33583
02:45 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko closed pull request #33583: Update .style.yapf (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33583
03:00 -!- sliv3r__ [~sliv3r__@user/sliv3r-:76883] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:03 -!- sliv3r__ [~sliv3r__@user/sliv3r-:76883] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:11 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko closed pull request #33218: refactor: rename `fees.{h,cpp}` to `fees/block_policy_estimator{h,cpp}` (master...08-2025-block-policy-refactor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33218
03:11 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko reopened pull request #33218: refactor: rename `fees.{h,cpp}` to `fees/block_policy_estimator{h,cpp}` (master...08-2025-block-policy-refactor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33218
03:30 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:33 < _aj_> maflcko: missing a "." in that pr title
03:34 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MamunC0der opened pull request #33584: Upgrade GitHub Action to download-artifact@v5 (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33584
03:34 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
03:47 -!- memset_ [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:51 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:16 < abubakarsadiq> _aj_: fixed
04:19 -!- flooded [~flooded@149.88.18.223] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:18 -!- bitdex [~bitdex@gateway/tor-sasl/bitdex] has quit [Quit: = ""]
05:20 -!- PaperSword [~Thunderbi@securemail.qrsnap.io] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:31 -!- l0rinc [~l0rinc@user/l0rinc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:34 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:57 -!- l0rinc [~l0rinc@user/l0rinc] has quit [Quit: l0rinc]
06:02 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:12 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:29 -!- l0rinc [~l0rinc@user/l0rinc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:54 -!- l0rinc [~l0rinc@user/l0rinc] has quit [Quit: l0rinc]
07:00 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:21 -!- l0rinc [~l0rinc@user/l0rinc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:21 < glozow> Could we get a "Tracking issue" label? It'd be a nice way to find all the tracking issues, and make it easier to label an issue as "the place to post updates about a longer-running project"
07:22 < glozow> Also requesting that we do tracking issues for minor releases, as a place to link all the PRs and post updates on bins, tags, etc.
07:25 -!- l0rinc [~l0rinc@user/l0rinc] has quit [Client Quit]
08:04 -!- Guest36 [~Guest36@syn-068-202-179-088.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:06 -!- Guest36 [~Guest36@syn-068-202-179-088.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Client Quit]
08:20 -!- Guest54 [~Guest54@syn-098-149-050-178.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:21 -!- Guest54 [~Guest54@syn-098-149-050-178.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Client Quit]
08:24 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:39 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #33584: ci: upgrade GitHub Action to download-artifact@v5 (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33584
08:42 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #33581: ci: Properly include $FILE_ENV in DEPENDS_HASH (master...ci-depends-hash-file-env) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33581
08:43 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
08:44 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] purpleKarrot opened pull request #33585: cmake: Use builtin support for .manifest files (master...win32-manifest) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33585
08:51 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b510893d0076...d44b860cd09e
08:51 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b35341b Coder: Update ci.yml
08:51 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d44b860 merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#33584: ci: upgrade GitHub Action to download-artifac...
08:54 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d44b860cd09e...90b2884ce4ba
08:54 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ceeb53a Ava Chow: ci: Properly include $FILE_ENV in DEPENDS_HASH
08:54 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 90b2884 merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#33581: ci: Properly include $FILE_ENV in DEPENDS_HASH
08:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] waketraindev reopened pull request #32741: rpc: add optional peer_ids param to filter getpeerinfo (master...2025-06-getpeerinfo-filterid) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32741
08:56 -!- Emc99 [~Emc99@212.129.74.46] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:57 < TheCharlatan> glozow: yes please, re. minor release issues.
08:59 < lightlike> We could also have a tracking issue for tracking issues :)
09:00 < achow101> #startmeeting
09:00 < corebot`> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-10-09T16:00+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 < hodlinator> hi
09:00 < stickies-v> hi
09:00 < brunoerg> hi
09:00 < janb84> hi
09:00 < sipa> hi
09:00 < pinheadmz> 🥑
09:00 < maxedw> hi
09:00 < lightlike> Hi
09:00 < achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
09:00 < eugenesiegel> hi
09:00 < willcl-ark> hi
09:01 < TheCharlatan> hi
09:01 < glozow>  hi
09:01 < achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
09:02 < TheCharlatan> Review has been coming in on #30595, which is great to see. So far this has not triggered any additional major changes.
09:02 < corebot`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30595 | kernel: Introduce initial C header API by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #30595 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:02 < lightlike> hi
09:02 < cfields_> hi
09:02 -!- cfields_ is now known as cfields
09:02 < TheCharlatan> Also got some more people to test it out for various prototypes, and feedback so far has been positive.
09:03 < TheCharlatan> asking for even more people to look at it :)
09:03 < TheCharlatan> that's all.
09:04 < achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
09:04 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:04 < sipa> Hi.
09:04 < kanzure> hi
09:05 < sipa> Getting some good review on #33157 (thanks l0rinc and glozow), which I'm addressing, and will push soon. I think it's pretty close otherwise.
09:05 < corebot`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33157 | cluster mempool: control/optimize TxGraph memory usage by sipa · Pull Request #33157 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:06 < glozow> And then it's #28676?
09:06 < corebot`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28676 | Cluster mempool implementation by sdaftuar · Pull Request #28676 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:06 < sipa> sdaftuar and i are doing some more simulation work on figuring out the optimality of block building, and how far off we are; i posted about it on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28676#issuecomment-3362136518, but will post more graphs soon
09:06 -!- Emc99 [~Emc99@212.129.74.46] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:07 < sipa> glozow: yeah, though 28676 is rebased on top of 33157 already, and it doesn't really impact the interface, so 28676 can be reviewed fine right now too
09:07 < sipa> it doesn't need to actually blocked by it
09:07 -!- Emc99 [~Emc99@212.129.74.46] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:08 < sipa> that's it from me
09:08 < achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101)
09:09 < achow101> #29675 has been getting review which I've been addressing. It's got 3 ACKs now so I think it's probably rfm.
09:09 < corebot`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29675 | wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys by achow101 · Pull Request #29675 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:10 < achow101> #topic Releases
09:10 < achow101> v30.0rc3 is up, and the tag for final is scheduled for tomorrow. Have any new issues been found in testing?
09:11 < achow101> 28.3rc1 and 29.2rc2 are also up for testing as well
09:12 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:13 < achow101> Or any other topics to discuss this week?
09:13 < glozow> review nag for #33577
09:13 < corebot`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33577 | Revert "depends: Update URL for `qrencode` package source tarball" by achow101 · Pull Request #33577 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:13 < cfields> #33577 (and the ones around it) need some quick acks
09:13 < corebot`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33577 | Revert "depends: Update URL for `qrencode` package source tarball" by achow101 · Pull Request #33577 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:13 < cfields> heh
09:13 < glozow> jinx
09:13 < sipa> jinx!
09:13 < glozow> DOUBLE JINX
09:14 < sipa> how critical is #33517 ?
09:14 < corebot`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33517 | multiprocess: Fix high overhead from message logging by theuni · Pull Request #33517 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:15 < cfields> given how late things already are, I suppose we should just ship without it.
09:15 < achow101> that pr is also currently a draft
09:16 < cfields> the overhead was very significant for my bitcoin-p2p binary. Sjors[m]1 would know best how much it affects mining.
09:17 < sipa> ok
09:18 < achow101> Any other topics to discuss?
09:19 < Sjors[m]1> I'm not terribly worried because getting a block template and its header involve tiny messages.
09:20 < Sjors[m]1> Getting the full block, for inspection by the pool, is less urgent.
09:21 < cfields> Sjors[m]1: well the client side is fixed by bumping libmp. But I suppose the same is true of the messages sent/received on the Core side?
09:22 < cfields> (I have no idea how chatty/poll-y either side is)
09:24 -!- dzxzg2 [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:24 < Sjors[m]1> cfields: not very chatty, waitNext() doesn't poll, it blocks
09:25 < cfields> ok, good to know. thanks.
09:25 < achow101> Anything else to discuss?
09:28 < achow101> #endmeeting
09:28 < corebot`> achow101: Meeting ended at 2025-10-09T16:28+0000
09:28 < corebot`> achow101: Raw log: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-10-09_16_00.log.json
09:28 < corebot`> achow101: Formatted log: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-10-09_16_00.log.html
09:28 < corebot`> achow101: Minutes: https://achow101.com/ircmeetings/2025/bitcoin-core-dev.2025-10-09_16_00.html
09:28 -!- Emc99 [~Emc99@212.129.74.46] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:32 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:33 -!- dzxzg2 [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:41 < phantomcircuit> sipa, on #33335, the behavior where a tie is broken by wtxid means it's more likely that nodes mempools match miners mempools for compact block reconstruction, tie breaking using random per node values would very likely make compact block reconstruction rates worse, though im not sure exactly how much worse
09:42 < corebot`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33335 | txgraph: randomize order of same-feerate distinct-cluster transactions by sipa · Pull Request #33335 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
09:42 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bavani-2024-aia opened pull request #33587: No remote repository configured (fatal: 'origin' does not appear to be a git repository)Add files via upload (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33587
09:42 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] DrahtBot closed pull request #33587: No remote repository configured (fatal: 'origin' does not appear to be a git repository)Add files via upload (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33587
09:43 < sipa> phantomcircuit: yeah, i considered that - but i think it really only matters in fairly adverserial settings, and in those, there are many ways to trigger inconsistencies
09:43 < sipa> (plus, wtxid ordering possibly opens an attack vector too, by grinding wtxids)
09:48 < phantomcircuit> sipa, i believe it matters in the non-adversarial setting where nodes mempools are yoyo'ing around being full for a bit and then empty completely, with random ordering the transactions that just barely survived being ejected will be random between nodes while the higher fee transactions will be consistent, but as the mempool drains we'll get into those transactions that were on the edge and have maximally different mempools
09:49 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:49 < instagibbs> looking at the last PR, IIUC this is only being used for INV ordering
09:49 < sipa> instagibbs: it should affect eviction too
09:50 < instagibbs> gotta re-read clearly
09:50 < phantomcircuit> grinding wtxid's seems like an acceptable issue since it doesn't help skip the queue or anything so unless there's some other issue im missing iono why that matters
09:50 < phantomcircuit> i mean it helps skip the queue but only if you're already at the very end which seems kinda irrelevant
09:50 < sipa> i hadn't really considered eviction here, only INV ordering
09:51 < phantomcircuit> yeah for inv ordering random is better, but for eviction deterministic is better
09:51 < instagibbs> ah hm right, changes ChunkOrder too
09:52 < _aj_> phantomcircuit: are you assuming no one rebroadcasts the evicted txs when they're no longer below the minimum fee?
09:52 < sipa> phantomcircuit: i think the same issue applies already, depending on the ordering of transactions received, you may evict just slightly more or slightly less transactions every time the max is hit
09:53 < phantomcircuit> _aj_, no im assuming that they do actually
09:53 < sipa> random ordering may make it somewhat worse, but i don't think it qualitatively changes anything - mempool ranges which spent lots of time near the eviction point will be inconsistent already
09:53 < _aj_> phantomcircuit: what's the problem you're seeing then?
09:54 < phantomcircuit> _aj_, the issue is when things get evicted and then re-broadcast after the mempool shrinks, then those transactions are the same feerate so won't be replaced and nodes will end up with mempools with transactions that are the same feerate but different transactions, which makes compact block relay worse
09:54 < sipa> i'm pushing back, because having multiple different orderings would be a huge pain, and random is easier just from an abstraction perspective (txgraph doesn't need to be aware of anything but fees/sizes/dependencies)
09:55 < _aj_> phantomcircuit: if the chunks have equal feerates but conflict because the signers of the txs are playing silly games?
09:55 < instagibbs> extremely flat mempools would get completely random evictions?
09:55 < sipa> instagibbs: yup, which is likely preferable over biasing low wtxids
09:55 < phantomcircuit> i haven't considered it enough to say it would effect more than like one block every 300/$MEAN_BLOCK_SIZE blocks
09:55 < phantomcircuit> and only when the feerate is dropping and the mempool is emptying
09:56 < sipa> at least they'll all get slightly degraded relay, as opposed to picking winners and losers that get perfect and terrible relay
09:56 < _aj_> oh, like the top feerate is 10sat/vb, but there's 600MvB of txs between 10sat/vb and 9.9sat/vb?
09:56 < _aj_> but everyone's going to just say "for a feebump to an 11sat/vb i guarantee next block? okay then"
09:56 < phantomcircuit> sipa, so the issue kinda exists now except that there's nodes with larger than default mempools re-broadcasting their entire mempool every so often, so things that get dropped at the edge tend to get re-added
09:57 < phantomcircuit> so as long as the re-adding is deterministic the top part of mempools tends to be similar
09:57 < phantomcircuit> sipa, yeah iono if im even making an argument for something here, just pointing out something that it seems should be considered
09:57 < sipa> also, wtxid ordering is pretty hard to make consistent with chunk ordering; it probably needs something like "among equal-chunk-feerate distinct-cluster transactions, sort by the wtxid of the first transaction in the cluster with that chunk feerate"
09:58 < sipa> it's not a simpe "sort by wtxid"
09:58 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit []
09:58 -!- dzxzg2 [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:58 < _aj_> sipa: sort by the *last* transaction in the chunk?
09:59 < phantomcircuit> _aj_, if the chunks have equal feerates but there's multiple conflicting chunks a deterministic decisions on who "wins" would "fix" that
10:00 < sipa> _aj_: it'd need to be sort by the last transaction in the last chunk in the cluster with the same feerate
10:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bavani-2024-aia opened pull request #33588: config.ini headers missing causes test framework failure (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33588
10:00 < sipa> _aj_: otherwise you get inconsistent if there are multiple equal-feerate chunks in a cluster
10:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] DrahtBot closed pull request #33588: config.ini headers missing causes test framework failure (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33588
10:00 < _aj_> phantomcircuit: should only matter if the feerate of the worst chunk in the top 1MvB of the mempool is the same as the feerate of the worst chunk in the mempool, though, which just seems vanishingly unlikely to me? anything else, you'll just be picking the txs up from slightly lower in the mempool which is fine
10:01 < phantomcircuit> sipa, anyways this is my monkey wrench for the day good luck *ducks*
10:01 < _aj_> sipa: sort the chunks in the cluster in the same way though?
10:01 < sipa> _aj_: they may have dependencies between them that require a particular order
10:01 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:02 -!- eugenesiegel [~eugenesie@user/eugenesiegel] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:02 < _aj_> sipa: fair, i guess
10:02 < phantomcircuit> _aj_, no you have to think about it overtime, consider that the bottom feerate cluster is where a tie actually matters, so one of 2 clusters gets evicted, then the overall feerate declines and that cluster ends up being in next mined block, you won't replace the decision you made on which cluster to pick
10:03 < phantomcircuit> i think with re-broadcasts this is only an issue if the clusters are *also* trying to spend the same outputs
10:03 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bavani-2024-aia opened pull request #33589: config.ini headers missing causes test framework failure (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33589
10:03 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] DrahtBot closed pull request #33589: config.ini headers missing causes test framework failure (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33589
10:04 < _aj_> phantomcircuit: if it's getting mined in the next block, why hasn't it been rebroadcast before then?
10:04 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
10:05 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:05 < phantomcircuit> sipa, actually i guess this is an issue for all feerates regardless if they're mutually exclusive in which case using random values would give an attacker trying to fragment the mempool an advantage
10:05 < sipa> we have no way of making mempools confluent in the case of conflicting transactions received in distinct order
10:05 < phantomcircuit> i think the ordering for eviction has to be consistent to avoid that
10:05 < phantomcircuit> i guess today we don't handle this and just whoever is first wins
10:06 < phantomcircuit> which is kinda a "speed of light wins" tie breaker
10:06 < sipa> sdaftuar points out that today we tie-break eviction by latest received first
10:06 < phantomcircuit> and i guess that prevents a DoS churn issue with grinding wtxids
10:09 -!- memset_ [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
10:13 -!- DurchDenMonsun [~DurchDenM@2001:e68:5419:a45a:9c7b:a31:f45e:e2f1] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:14 < phantomcircuit> sipa, so wouldn't that mean we leak the same ordering information you're trying to avoid leaking if nodes can figure out if we have a tx in our mempool?
10:15 < sipa> phantomcircuit: that's already the case due to conflicts, though
10:17 -!- jerryf_ [~jerryf@user/jerryf] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:17 -!- jerryf [~jerryf@user/jerryf] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:22 -!- DurchDenMonsun [~DurchDenM@user/DurchDenMonsun] has changed host
10:22 < DurchDenMonsun> Hi guys, How to disable logs complete in bitcoin core? new to this stuff and just want to run wallet without mining and without wearing out my ssd drive.
10:26 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:26 -!- f321x_ [~f321x@user/f321x] has quit [Quit: f321x_]
10:26 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:28 < sipa> DurchDenMonsun: you can't disable logging entirely, but just synchronization with the network (downloading, storing, and processing new blocks as they are found) will have a much bigger impact on your drive
10:30 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@138.199.6.197] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:30 < sdaftuar> phantomcircuit: my conjecture is that it would be very rare that randomized eviction will cause an issue. i think we can get some kind of sense of whether that is true by measuring how often (on historical data) we might mine a block that would include mempool transactions below the minimum feerate required to be relayed.
10:32 < DurchDenMonsun> Hi sipa: thanks for replaying, any tips how to tweak the config so it will use less writing to my ssd?
10:32 < DurchDenMonsun> for 2 core 4gb ram system.
10:33 < sipa> DurchDenMonsun: this isn't really a place for support, but you can ask questions on https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com (i'm pretty active myself answering questions there)
10:33 -!- l0rinc [~l0rinc@user/l0rinc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:36 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:36 < DurchDenMonsun> Ok, i'll try that. I also tried to register on bitcointalk, but it seems that the IP I am using has been blacklisted. It's really unfortunate because the biggest ISP in my country provides dynamic IPs to home users.
10:40 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:45 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
10:47 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:47 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Aathish101 opened pull request #33590: newly Update funcs.mk (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33590
10:58 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/90b2884ce4ba...6b4a92b0fab8
11:00 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a1226bc Sjors Provoost: doc: how to update a subtree
11:00 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6b4a92b Ava Chow: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#33568: doc: how to update a subtree
11:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #33568: doc: how to update a subtree (master...2025/10/subtree-doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33568
11:05 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:06 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] maflcko closed pull request #33590: newly Update funcs.mk (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33590
11:18 < achow101> the "existing users" interaction limit is enabled for the next 24 hours.
11:31 -!- Ademan [~Ademan@user/Ademan] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:42 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:52 < glozow> achow101: thanks
12:04 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:06 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #33591: Cluster mempool followups (master...2025-10-rebase-cluster-mempool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33591
12:08 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
12:22 -!- DurchDenMonsun [~DurchDenM@user/DurchDenMonsun] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
12:24 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6b4a92b0fab8...cd1b7fa1ff7c
12:24 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a89a822 Ava Chow: Revert "depends: Use hash instead of file name for package download stamp"
12:24 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e4335a3 Ava Chow: Revert "depends: Update URL for `qrencode` package source tarball"
12:24 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cd1b7fa merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#33577: Revert "depends: Update URL for `qrencode` pa...
12:24 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow merged pull request #33577: Revert "depends: Update URL for `qrencode` package source tarball" (master...revert-qrencode-url) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33577
12:32 -!- sbddesign [~sbddesign@user/sbddesign] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:47 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@138.199.6.197] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
13:05 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow pushed 4 commits to 30.x: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d5e0077bef4c...d0f6d9953a15
13:05 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/30.x d7c89ba fanquake: build: bump version to v30.0
13:05 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/30.x f725754 fanquake: doc: update manual pages for v30.0
13:05 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/30.x d615eb6 fanquake: doc: re-import release notes for v30.0
13:05 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow merged pull request #33559: [30.x] Finalise v30.0 (30.x...finalise_30_0) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33559
13:05 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] glozow pushed tag v30.0: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v30.0
13:10 < achow101> \o/
13:11 < glozow> the end is near
13:11 < instagibbs> *cough* end of release cycle, yes
13:12 < phantomcircuit> sipa, yeah i meant that the current state was that we leak the ordering currently
13:12 < glozow> that's what I meant yes
13:14 < phantomcircuit> sdaftuar, that doesn't sound right to me, but im now too tired to really think about the edge off the edge case
13:15 < phantomcircuit> but also it does sound like the thing sipa is proposing isn't strictly worse than ordering based on speed of light race
13:16 < Ademan> congrats y'all
13:17 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:18 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:28 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:31 < sipa> yay
13:31 -!- thoragh [~username@user/thoragh] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:44 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:44 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:52 < darosior> \o/
14:01 -!- memset_ [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:05 -!- memset [~memset@gateway/tor-sasl/memset] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]