--- Day changed Wed Jun 05 2019 00:13 -!- booyah_ [~bb@193.25.1.157] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 00:13 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:53 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:26 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.2+deb1+xenial2 - https://znc.in] 01:28 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:33 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@179.180.79.41] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 01:33 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@179.180.79.41] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:33 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.2+deb1+xenial2 - https://znc.in] 01:34 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:51 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@179.180.79.41] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 01:51 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@179.180.79.41] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:56 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.2+deb1+xenial2 - https://znc.in] 02:00 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:02 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has quit [Client Quit] 02:04 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:22 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@179.180.79.41] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 02:22 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.19.14] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:26 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.19.14] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 02:27 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.102] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:19 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.2+deb1+xenial2 - https://znc.in] 03:20 -!- achow101 [~achow101@unaffiliated/achow101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:58 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has quit [Quit: leaving] 04:25 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.102] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:26 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.102] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:29 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.102] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:31 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 05:10 -!- jonatack___ [58aba822@gateway/web/freenode/ip.88.171.168.34] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 05:15 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.19.110] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:12 -!- hrofu [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 07:12 -!- hrofu_ [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:18 -!- hrofu [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:19 -!- hrofu_ [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 08:02 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-220-61.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:14 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.19.110] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:22 -!- Tralfaz is now known as davterra 08:22 < jnewbery> Hi folks. We'll get started in about 40 minutes. I've written up notes here: https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/16060.html . Please review the notes before the meeting! 08:23 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.107] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:27 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-220-61.dab.02.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:27 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.107] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 08:28 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.107] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:36 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-220-61.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:42 < michaelfolkson> Is it a hour earlier this week? 08:42 < michaelfolkson> It is 15:41 UTC currently and it normally starts at 17:00 UTC 08:50 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.107] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:51 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.107] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:59 < jnewbery> ah, sorry. I'm in Europe and got time zones wrong. Let's do it at the normal time 17:00 UTC (one hour from now). 09:00 < jnewbery> see you all in one hour 09:00 < michaelfolkson> Cool 09:11 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@91-115-79-65.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:14 -!- hrofu_ [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:14 -!- merehap [~sean@c-73-97-167-6.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:15 -!- hrofu [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 09:18 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47.218.248.206] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:21 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.107] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 09:21 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.107] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:21 -!- jonatack__ [58aba822@gateway/web/freenode/ip.88.171.168.34] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:27 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:28 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.106.107] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 09:28 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.18.69] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:37 -!- peevsie [peevsie@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/peevsie] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:39 -!- b10c [~b10c@2001:16b8:2e79:4600:52a:4125:c61b:cb99] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:46 -!- satwo [~textual@909f-c055-5a1a-f54c-0680-8386-07d0-2001.dyn.estpak.ee] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:49 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 09:55 -!- xsb [~xsb@93.176.178.39] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:56 < michaelfolkson> There's a 404 error on your notes at the moment John 09:56 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@107.181.164.106] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:56 < jnewbery> michaelfolkson: are you sure? Seems to work for me 09:57 < b10c> https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/ works for me too 09:57 < jnewbery> https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/16060.html for this week's notes 09:57 < michaelfolkson> Your written up notes https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/16060.html 09:57 < michaelfolkson> Ok weird, yeah fine now 09:58 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:58 < jnewbery> let's just blame github pages 09:59 -!- hrofu [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:59 < davterra> Yeah, I also got a 404 on one attempt, then it was fine 09:59 -!- hrofu_ [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 10:00 < jnewbery> hi! 10:00 < jonatack__> hi! 10:00 < pinheadmz> Yo 10:00 < kanzure> hi 10:00 < davterra> hi 10:00 < merehap> hey 10:00 < peevsie> hi 10:00 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:00 < sipa> comcept nack 10:00 < sipa> :p 10:00 < schmidty> Hola 10:00 < jnewbery> welcome all (except sipa, who's trolling) 10:00 < lightlike> hi 10:00 -!- JulioBarros [~juliobarr@97-115-0-127.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:00 < pinheadmz> comcept! 10:01 -!- Irssi: #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews: Total of 56 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 56 normal] 10:01 < jnewbery> did everyone have a chance to read the notes? 10:01 < b10c> hi 10:01 < michaelfolkson> Haha. Is he nacking this channel? Nack overruled 10:01 < kanzure> http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-05-code-review/ 10:01 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@107.181.164.106] has quit [Quit: Mutter: www.mutterirc.com] 10:02 < jnewbery> hi folks. We're here at a Bitcoin Core meeting in Amsterdam 10:02 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@107.181.164.106] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:02 < sipa> i'm on my phone, sitting next to john, mildly intoxicated 10:02 < jnewbery> We talked about the review process today. kanzure's transcript may be of interest to people here 10:03 < kanzure> sipa is intoxicated by code review 10:03 < kanzure> hours and hours of code review today. 10:03 < jonatack__> :D 10:04 < jnewbery> This is the first PR that we've looked at that touches consensus code. It's a pretty minor change, but we always want to be especially careful when touching anything that goes near consensus 10:04 < michaelfolkson> That transcript was really interesting. Hopefully people experiment with some of the ideas in it in future 10:04 < merehap> I think this channel has to be shutdown if sipa nacks it. Not really sure we have a choice here. 10:04 -!- f0rks [32c869da@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.200.105.218] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:05 < michaelfolkson> Sorry John, please continue 10:05 < jnewbery> No, it's possible to NACK a sipa NACK to neutralize it 10:05 < jnewbery> it's a rarely used technique 10:05 < moneyball> sipa NACK 10:05 < xsb> snack 10:05 < jnewbery> did anyone have any questions about the PR? 10:06 < michaelfolkson> Yup 10:06 < jb55> what does it mean to bury a deployment 10:06 < jb55> start with something simple 10:06 < jnewbery> thanks jb55 10:07 < jnewbery> I think the terminology was introduced in BIP 90 10:07 < jnewbery> the idea is that the soft fork activation has been buried under so much work, that there's no longer any doubt about when it activated 10:07 < michaelfolkson> So it is effectively introducing a checkpoint right? 10:08 < jnewbery> the logic in the client that tests for activation (whether that's ISM or BIP9) is effectively obsolete 10:08 < merehap> Can LOCK(cs_main) be removed from IsNullDummyEnabled? It looks like it. It was already removed from the similar IsWitnessEnabled. 10:08 < jnewbery> so instead of relying on difficult-to-understand logic, we just hard-code the activation height 10:08 -!- hardforkthis [~hardforkt@li120-195.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:09 < pinheadmz> Does this make the bip9 signal bit reuseable? Or is that already true 10:09 < jnewbery> michaelfolkson: it's not a checkpoint, but there are similarities in the concept. We're asserting a fact about the valid chain, and hardcoding that into the client. 10:10 < jnewbery> but it's not a checkpoint. It doesn't limit the valid chain at that height to a certain block. 10:10 < michaelfolkson> Ah ok so a re-org is still possible before that block height but deactivating it at that block height becomes impossible 10:10 < peevsie> it's like a retroactive hardfork 10:10 < jonatack__> The "what" of any consensus change is interesting. Nevertheless, I found the pros and cons of "why" even more so. 10:11 < jonatack__> e.g. the discussion from here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12360#issuecomment-383342462 10:11 < jnewbery> peevsie: in a narrow technical sense, you could claim this is a hardfork, but I don't think this is a useful definition 10:12 < jnewbery> jonatack__: yes, I thought the discussion around whether such a change is desirable was more interesting than the code changes this week 10:12 -!- f0rks [32c869da@gateway/web/freenode/ip.50.200.105.218] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 10:12 < michaelfolkson> So the reasons why previous attempts failed was mainly lack of engagement? The only criticism seemed to be from Marco on splitting RPC and consensus changes 10:12 < jonatack__> yes... the discussion between you, marco and suhas 10:13 < jnewbery> merehap: I think you may be right. You should leave a review comment! 10:13 < lightlike> jnewbery: in the first PR #11398, you suggested that this might need might need a BIP itself and got some approval. In the subsequent PRs, this was not even a topic. What did change? 10:13 < merehap> jnewbery: Will do. 10:13 < jnewbery> pinheadmz: bip9 bits are reusable as long as the activation dates don't overlap. That was part of the design motivation for BIP9 10:15 < jnewbery> michaelfolkson: yes, I closed the previous PR because I couldn't convince other contributors to review 10:15 < jnewbery> I think this change is useful, especially with the upcoming schnorr/taproot softfork changes 10:15 < michaelfolkson> Is there a certain time period that we would want since activation before "burying"? 10:16 < michaelfolkson> Or does it not matter? 6 months, 12 months, 18 months whatever? 10:17 < jnewbery> I think if Bitcoin experienced a 6 month re-org then we might question the usefulness of the system 10:17 < jnewbery> so I'd consider a softfork that's buried by 6 months' work as a historic fact 10:18 < pinheadmz> Where do you think that line is? 10:18 < pinheadmz> Like how big a reorg is really “were done let’s go home” 10:18 < jnewbery> I don't know! 10:18 < michaelfolkson> Why do you say it is useful for upcoming Schnorr/taproot? Generally a good idea to address code complexity before attempting major change? 10:19 < michaelfolkson> The benefits of this are clearing up code complexity and testing right? Time of IBD isn't materially impacted 10:20 < jnewbery> Yes. This is just a tidy-up in the way softforks are reported. It also allows us to remove a bunch of tests for stuff that is no longer needed 10:21 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.18.69] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 10:21 < jnewbery> I think p2p_segwit.py and p2p_compactblocks.py 10:21 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.18.69] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:21 < jnewbery> lightlike: I don't know if a BIP is required. I think a post to the mailing list is probably sufficient 10:23 < michaelfolkson> Is there a good resource explaining the different activation methods? I didn't know what flag day, IsSuperMajority were. 10:23 < jnewbery> I don't know if there's a single resource that describes them all 10:24 < jnewbery> Here's a bitmex blog post on the history of consensus changes: https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/ 10:25 < jnewbery> I've given talks on the history of consensus changes before. Perhaps I'll turn that into a video or blog post at some point 10:26 < michaelfolkson> Cool, thanks 10:26 < jonatack__> Kudos on being persistent. Taking note of the good idea to recap the ACKs from the previous PRs to rope in support. 10:27 < jnewbery> until then, the links to the BIPs in the notes describe all the activation methods 10:27 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@107.181.164.106] has quit [Quit: Mutter: www.mutterirc.com] 10:28 < michaelfolkson> Yeah... As a thought experiment from discussion is there anything to try to get this pushed through? 10:28 < jnewbery> thanks jonatack__. Nagging is an important skill to cultivate :) 10:29 < jnewbery> michaelfolkson: f2f nagging is my next tactic 10:29 < michaelfolkson> Assuming it is agreed that PR doesn't need splitting between RPC/consensus 10:30 < merehap> I think that a lot of the cases where different decisions were made in very similar situations tend to be disorganized in most peoples' minds. If you were to make a blog post that gets everything about historical activation methods in one place, I think a lot of people would benefit. I'd certainly be happy. I think blog posts are better than videos for that kind of thing since they are easily skim-able/reference-able. 10:31 < jonatack__> f2f ? 10:31 < jnewbery> face to face 10:31 < jonatack__> ah! 10:32 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@107.181.164.106] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:32 < jnewbery> merehap: I'm planning to give a talk on this at our upcoming residency. I'll try to turn it into something more widely usable 10:32 < merehap> Awesome! Greatly appreciated. 10:32 < jonatack__> If we segue at some point to general questions, I have one about timestamping reviews. 10:33 < lightlike> i was a bit confused with the activation heights in test: in regtest, default heights are CSV:432, Segwit:0 (always active unless overridden). But in the tests, activation height for segwit seems to be hardcoded to 432 is as well. Why are CSV and segwit coupled like that? 10:33 < sipa> it's not hardcoded to 432; it just has bip9 start time in the past 10:33 < michaelfolkson> Cool. What they were and the pros and cons of each, followed by which is likely to be used in future 10:33 < sipa> so at block 144 (first period), it becomes active 10:33 < sipa> and blocm 288 it's locked in 10:34 < sipa> at block 432 it's active 10:34 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@107.181.164.106] has quit [Client Quit] 10:35 < jnewbery> I can't remember exactly why the PR doesn't change CSV actication height to 0. It might have been too much effort to change the tests 10:36 < jnewbery> michaelfolkson: Discussion of the pros/cons of activation method is a bit too broad to be discussed here 10:36 < michaelfolkson> Oh no I mean in the blog post 10:37 < jnewbery> ah ok 10:37 < jnewbery> jonatack__: go ahead with general questions 10:37 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:38 < jonatack__> Ok, so timestamping commits is easy thanks to the info at https://github.com/opentimestamps/opentimestamps-client/blob/master/doc/git-integration.md 10:39 < jonatack__> MarcoFalke: how do you timestamp reviews like here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15988#issuecomment-491949275 10:39 < jonatack__> to ensure GitHub doesn't change your review 10:39 < jonatack__> idk if Marco is afk 10:40 -!- stefano1 [~stefano@152.156.218.207] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:40 < jnewbery> MarcoFalke isn't here 10:40 < jonatack__> if away at least he might see it 10:40 < jonatack__> ok 10:40 < jnewbery> but feel free to ask in #bitcoin-core-dev ! 10:41 < sipa> he's about 2.5 metets behind you, jnewbery 10:41 < sipa> *meters 10:41 < jonatack__> * suspense builds * 10:41 < jnewbery> That goes to everyone here. Please feel free to post in #bitcoin-core-dev if you have any questions. People are friendly there! 10:42 < jnewbery> he's just charged his wine glass. I wouldn't want to interupt a man with opentimestamps questions in such a condition. 10:43 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:44 < jnewbery> alright, any more questions? 10:44 < merehap> So there are a lot of magical int values used in these code sections for special block height conditions, potentially leading to missed error case handling cases. Would a drive to make some kind of int wrapper type for block heights that has helper methods exposing the special cases be well received? Or is that just the type of refactoring of consensus code that is considered too dangerous? Example magical block heights i 10:44 < merehap> nclude null, -1, and max int here: "consensusParams.SegwitHeight != std::numeric_limits::max()". 10:45 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@173.239.65.123] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:45 < jnewbery> merehap: I wouldn't personally be interested in reviewing such a PR :) 10:46 < merehap> (In general my potential value-add to a project is figuring out compile time ways to eliminate or reduce missed edge case, which is why I'm asking) 10:46 < jnewbery> The payoff doesn't seem worth the codechurn/review burden 10:46 < merehap> Makes sense. Is that in general for Bitcoin Core, or more just for consensus critical stuff? 10:47 < jnewbery> Mostly consensus-critical stuff, but in general too 10:47 < michaelfolkson> I have some on setting up your review process from last week John but let's leave that for another week. Or maybe I could just post in #bitcoin-core-dev. 10:47 < merehap> Gotcha 10:48 < sipa> morcos is applauding jnewbery's dedication to the cause 10:48 < michaelfolkson> Let's wrap up. I feel we're delaying the drinking haha 10:49 < jonatack__> I began setting up a twitter/mastodon bot for live Bitcoin Core PR activity and code reviews. The goal is to encourage quality review and reviewers. 10:49 < jnewbery> My thoughts about opening PRs: no-one owes you a review. Anyone who reviews your code is doing you a favour. If you open a PR, you're competing with other PRs for review time. 10:49 < jonatack__> Anyone against that idea please let me know ;) 10:49 < michaelfolkson> Sounds good to me 10:49 < jonatack__> Follow it on https://twitter.com/BitcoinCorePRs 10:49 < jnewbery> That shouldn't discourage you from opening PRs, but you should think about how to prioritize your PR against the other open PRs 10:51 < jnewbery> if in doubt about how useful other people think your PR will be, feel free to ask in #bitcoin-core-dev, or by directly asking other contributors 10:51 < michaelfolkson> Cool, thanks everyone, thanks John. Thanks for your guest appearance 10:51 -!- JulioBarros [~juliobarr@97-115-0-127.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [] 10:51 < jonatack__> The bot could hook into the PR reviews club website to broadcast the meetings if that is ok 10:52 < jnewbery> thanks jonatack__. I'm following! 10:52 < jonatack__> Thanks! 10:53 < jnewbery> Any other questions? 10:53 < pinheadmz> cheers! 10:53 < jnewbery> Did anyone build and test `getblockchaininfo` ? 10:54 < lightlike> i did. 10:55 < merehap> jnewbery: Yeah, I just want to figure out how we deal with potentially compile-time preventable bugs like the duplicate block validation bug (https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-17144). That kind of thing can't be statically prevented with the current code base, but there seems to be no feasible way to get the code base into a more compile-time safe state. 10:55 < jnewbery> lightlike: great! 10:56 < merehap> The tests didn't get that far for me, feature_dbcrash.py failed first unfortunately. I could manual run that as a one-off though. 10:57 < jnewbery> merehap: I think you're right thatCVE-2018-17144 can't be statically prevented. 10:57 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47.218.248.206] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 10:58 < jnewbery> I don't know how you'd catch it with testing 10:58 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:58 < jnewbery> merehap: that's a shame. That test isn't run by travis, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are intermittent failures in master 10:58 < merehap> But could be, with a moderate amount of refactoring/better class design. But that introduces different refactor risks, and refactor risks are what caused the CVE in the first place. 10:59 < merehap> Basically by encapsulating all the validation into an object, and passing that validated object around, you can avoid cases like the CVE. 10:59 < merehap> But it's probably a bridge too far. 10:59 < jnewbery> refactors are ok if they're motivated. I think what people react agaionst is when someone opens a PR to refactor something without any obvious reason why it's an improvement 11:00 < jnewbery> merehap: seems very ambitious! 11:00 < jnewbery> ok, let's wrap it up there 11:00 < jnewbery> Thanks everyone! Same time again next week 11:00 < merehap> Thanks jnewbery! Informative as always. 11:01 < pinheadmz> have fun at 'Breaking! 11:01 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews [] 11:01 < jonatack__> Thanks jnewbery, sipa, michael and everyone! 11:01 < lightlike> thanks! 11:01 < merehap> Also thanks to those who took the rare step of overruling a sipa NACK so we could have this discussion. 11:01 < jonatack__> PS - If anyone is interested in reviewing p2p tests of https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/15834.html that we looked at 3 weeks back, let's talk. I've been attempting to deep dive on it. 11:02 < jonatack__> The test is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...sdaftuar:test-15834 11:03 < michaelfolkson> Sure I would 11:03 < peevsie> thanks all! 11:04 < jonatack__> Great - DM on twitter? 11:04 < michaelfolkson> Yup, sounds good 11:06 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@91-115-79-65.adsl.highway.telekom.at] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 11:07 -!- merehap [~sean@c-73-97-167-6.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Ex-Chat] 11:09 -!- xsb [~xsb@93.176.178.39] has quit [] 11:11 < jnewbery> meeting logs: https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/16060.html 11:12 -!- michaelf_ [~textual@82-132-245-42.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:13 -!- michaelf_ [~textual@82-132-245-42.dab.02.net] has quit [Client Quit] 11:14 -!- michaelf_ [~textual@82-132-245-42.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:14 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-220-61.dab.02.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 11:15 -!- michaelf_ [~textual@82-132-245-42.dab.02.net] has quit [Client Quit] 11:15 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-245-42.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:15 -!- peevsie [peevsie@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/peevsie] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 11:15 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-245-42.dab.02.net] has quit [Client Quit] 11:28 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 11:34 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:36 -!- pinheadmz_ [~matthewzi@c-67-170-233-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:39 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:39 -!- pinheadmz_ is now known as pinheadmz 11:47 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47.218.248.206] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:49 -!- stefano1 [~stefano@152.156.218.207] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews [] 11:52 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 12:18 -!- hrofu_ [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:19 -!- hrofu [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 12:21 -!- satwo [~textual@909f-c055-5a1a-f54c-0680-8386-07d0-2001.dyn.estpak.ee] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 12:26 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47.218.248.206] has quit [] 12:28 -!- b10c [~b10c@2001:16b8:2e79:4600:52a:4125:c61b:cb99] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 12:31 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has quit [Quit: leaving] 12:42 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:56 -!- jonatack__ [58aba822@gateway/web/freenode/ip.88.171.168.34] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 13:05 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 13:06 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:14 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:22 -!- hrofu [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:23 -!- hrofu_ [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 13:33 -!- shesek [~shesek@141.226.218.16] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:33 -!- shesek [~shesek@141.226.218.16] has quit [Changing host] 13:33 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:04 < r8921039> exit 14:04 < r8921039> exit 14:04 < r8921039> quit 14:04 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@173.239.65.123] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews [] 14:09 -!- b10c [~b10c@2001:16b8:2e79:4600:52a:4125:c61b:cb99] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:08 -!- gwillen [~gwillen@unaffiliated/gwillen] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:38 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@177.79.18.69] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 15:38 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@179.162.82.73] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:33 -!- b10c [~b10c@2001:16b8:2e79:4600:52a:4125:c61b:cb99] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 18:15 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-67-170-233-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 18:59 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:05 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 19:40 -!- hrofu_ [hrofu@gateway/vpn/mullvad/hrofu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:40 -!- hrofu [~hrofu@unaffiliated/hrofu] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 19:41 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:05 -!- Hayro [Ettercap@88.225.146.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:07 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@179.162.82.73] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 20:07 -!- accerqueira [~accerquei@179.162.82.73] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:08 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 20:13 -!- jason_ [~jason@101.132.74.90] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:14 * Hayro bitcoin canal #bitcoinfree 20:16 * Hayro bitcoin canal #bitcoinfree 20:32 * Hayro Real free bitcoin for channel bride #bitcoinfree 20:35 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 21:03 -!- Hayro [Ettercap@88.225.146.176] has quit [Excess Flood] 21:03 -!- Hayro [Ettercap@88.225.146.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 21:03 -!- Hayro [Ettercap@88.225.146.176] has quit [Excess Flood] 21:04 -!- Hayro [Ettercap@88.225.146.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 21:09 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 21:11 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 21:35 -!- Hayro [Ettercap@88.225.146.176] has quit [] 22:55 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@mx-ll-183.89.188-18.dynamic.3bb.co.th] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:57 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@mx-ll-183.89.188-18.dynamic.3bb.co.th] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:20 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz]