--- Day changed Wed Jun 12 2019 01:01 -!- udiWertheimer [sid190185@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vweuneprcszgxias] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 01:01 -!- udiWertheimer [sid190185@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wkktqfxokqywdegq] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:55 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 01:58 -!- Zenton [~user@unaffiliated/vicenteh] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:00 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:12 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:33 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:43 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 04:46 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:47 -!- booyah [~bb@193.25.1.157] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:48 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 04:49 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:49 -!- shesek [~shesek@5.102.219.50] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:49 -!- shesek [~shesek@5.102.219.50] has quit [Changing host] 05:49 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:00 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 06:15 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:25 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 06:29 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:57 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 06:58 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:03 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 07:06 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@2001:16b8:57bf:6700:a9e3:eef5:aa9:3a4b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:07 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 07:10 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:12 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Client Quit] 07:13 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:15 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Client Quit] 07:17 -!- hebasto [~hebasto@95.164.65.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:22 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:42 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 07:50 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 07:56 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:57 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Client Quit] 07:59 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:03 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@213.208.214.66] has quit [Client Quit] 08:09 < jnewbery> Reminder: we're reviewing https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15996 in two hours (17:00 UTC). It's a very minor change, but instructive in a few ways on the build system, RPCs and testing. Please make sure you've checked out, built and tested the PR before the meeting! 08:27 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:44 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-241-190.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:01 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:04 -!- Gavin [5965959a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.89.101.149.154] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:07 -!- Gavin [5965959a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.89.101.149.154] has quit [Client Quit] 09:16 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-241-190.dab.02.net] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 09:16 -!- zenogais [~zenogais1@cpe-76-175-74-114.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:16 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-241-190.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:19 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-241-190.dab.02.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:23 -!- xis10tial1 [49181f9d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.24.31.157] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:33 -!- sdupre [48172556@gateway/web/freenode/ip.72.23.37.86] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:37 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:44 -!- peevsie [peevsie@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/peevsie] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:46 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:47 -!- amiti [b84af09c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.74.240.156] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:49 -!- amiti_ [uid373138@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xeiqtuprdsurqmwk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:49 -!- amiti [b84af09c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.74.240.156] has quit [Client Quit] 09:49 -!- amiti_ is now known as amiti 09:49 -!- setpill [~setpill@unaffiliated/setpill] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:53 -!- jonatack [d598a195@gateway/web/freenode/ip.213.152.161.149] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:55 < jnewbery> we'll get started in 5 minutes 09:55 * pinheadmz runs to coffee machine 09:56 -!- jamaljsr [b84af09c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.74.240.156] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:57 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:57 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:00 < jnewbery> hi! 10:00 < moneyball> hi 10:00 * zenogais waves 10:00 < michaelfolkson> Hey 10:00 < nothingmuch> hi 10:00 < sdupre> hi 10:00 -!- ajonas [~textual@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:01 < jonatack> hi 10:01 < ajonas> Hi 10:01 < amiti> hi 10:01 < lightlike> hi 10:01 < michaelfolkson> Nice attendance today. I thought everyone would be tired, jet lagged after Breaking 10:01 < jnewbery> This week we're looking at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15996 10:01 < sosthene> hi there 10:02 < ariard> hi! 10:02 < jnewbery> It's a pretty small change, but it's a follow-up to the PR we looked at in the first week (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15557) 10:02 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:02 < jnewbery> It also demostrates a couple of interesting aspects of the build system, the RPC and the tests 10:03 < jnewbery> Did everyone have a chance to check out and build the PR? 10:03 < zenogais> Yep, got it building and ran through commits this morning 10:03 < michaelfolkson> I haven't built it but I've looked through it 10:03 < jnewbery> Great. Any questions? 10:03 < sosthene> no sorry, I'm still on my way back from breaking 10:04 * nothingmuch is building right now, but on a new setup so can't be sure tests are going to work 10:04 -!- digi_james [~jamesc@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:05 < jnewbery> The first commit is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15996/commits/0c39465500af5309d6ca39686634c3f1e7d58d91 . It moves a function from src/rpc/server.cpp to src/rpc/util.cpp . Any idea why? 10:05 < kanzure> hi 10:05 < michaelfolkson> So the reason why totalFee was included initially in the RPC was in case the tx change output had to be removed because it was dust? i don't understand why it was included in the RPC in the first place 10:05 * setpill heard about this @ breaking, just here to see how things go this time around :) 10:05 < peevsie> hi 10:05 < nehan> hi! missed the message about the PR and haven't built yet but trying to do so now... 10:06 < sosthene> I have a very general question, about the process to deprecate a command or a feature, how is taken this kind of decision? 10:06 < zenogais> Yeah, seemed like the function move was more for code cleanup. But honestly not sure why it was moved. 10:06 -!- JulioBarros [~juliobarr@97-115-0-127.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:06 < zenogais> nevermind, see the answer in the commit message 10:07 < zenogais> > "I first moved IsDeprecatedRPCEnabled because bitcoin-wallet doesn't link libbitcoin_server." 10:07 -!- jamal [~jamal@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:07 < jnewbery> First place to look is in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/Makefile.am, which is where the different libraries are defined 10:07 < jnewbery> right, if we search for rpc/server.cpp, you'll see that's part of libbitcoin_server 10:08 < jnewbery> and moving it to rpc/util.cpp moves it to libbitcoin_common, which is linked by the wallet 10:08 < zenogais> interesting 10:08 < zenogais> are these libs designed to be extracted at some point? 10:08 < jnewbery> There's a good write-up of the different libraries by ryanofksy somewhere. Just trying to find it now 10:08 < zenogais> would appreciate that! 10:09 < michaelfolkson> Me too 10:10 < jnewbery> Ah. here it is: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15732 10:10 < jnewbery> Sorry, the comment was initially made by ryanofksy but the issue was opened by marcofalke, which was why I was struggling to find it 10:11 < jnewbery> So currently the code directory structure doesn't reflect the library organization. It'd be nice if we could fix that 10:11 < jb55> > totalFee argument is of questionable use why? 10:12 < zenogais> +1 to restructuring to reflect the library structure, would be much easier to follow intended organization. 10:12 < jnewbery> sosthene: same way for any change. Someone opens a PR if they think we should deprecate something. If it's considered controversial, then it can be discussed in a weekly IRC meeting 10:12 < michaelfolkson> : I think because you can calculate the totalFee based on the fee rate so it doesn't need to be included in the RPC? Am I right? 10:13 < jnewbery> jb55: miners pick transactions based on feerate, not total fee. The idea of bumpfee is to increase the feerate, the totalfee is kind of irrelevant 10:13 < jb55> I see 10:14 < michaelfolkson> Why was it included initially? 10:14 < jnewbery> when we weren't able to add new inputs in bumpfee and just decrease the amount on the change output, then the total fee is a proxy for the feerate 10:14 -!- hugo_ [b84af09c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.74.240.156] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:14 < jnewbery> but after the change in #15557, the replacement tx might be a different size from the original tx 10:14 -!- elichai2 [uid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-etiuntibtddorxes] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:15 -!- ajonas [~textual@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 10:16 < setpill> totalFee is still relevant in some corner cases of profitability estimation 10:16 < jnewbery> michaelfolkson: I guess it might have been easier to include a totalFee option than a feeratedelta option 10:16 < setpill> e.g. CPFP of a tx that has been invalidated via RPF 10:17 < jnewbery> setpill: can you elaborate? 10:18 < setpill> e.g. tx A1 has been RBF-replaced with A2, but then B1 spends from A1. in the case of non-full-blocks, a rational miner doesn't care about feerate as long as totalFee(A1)+totalFee(B1) > totalFee(A2) 10:19 < jnewbery> ah, that's taken care of by RBF rule 3 10:19 < jnewbery> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki 10:20 < jnewbery> The replacement tx must have a total fee greater than the sum of the fees of *all* txs that it replaces 10:20 < setpill> that can't take into account B1 being created after A2 :) 10:20 < setpill> (yes I know this scenario violates policy) 10:20 < jnewbery> right, A1 might as well not exist after it's been replaced 10:21 < jnewbery> there's not really much we can do about that - a node can't track all of the txs that have been replaced by RBF 10:21 < jnewbery> for starters, it might not even see the replaced txs depending on whether it saw A1 or A2 first 10:21 < setpill> right, because of potential for memory exhaustion attack vectors? 10:22 < jnewbery> setpill: yes, that's a good reason 10:22 < jnewbery> we can't allow our resources to be used without tx fees to add a cost to that resource usage 10:23 < setpill> hmm so... isn't totalFee used to enforce rule 3 of RBF? 10:23 < jnewbery> if an attacker could produce many replacement txs and we kept hold of all of those versions, then they'd be able to use a lot of memory/bandwidth with very little fee cost 10:23 < jnewbery> that's why rule 4 exists - to add a 'relay cost' to RBF 10:23 < nothingmuch> there's another scenario, when a RBFable child tx spends an unconfirmed tx, specifying only feerate on the child tx might not have a predictable effect on the combined feerate 10:24 < nothingmuch> (but totalFee doesn't fix that) 10:24 < jnewbery> setpill: rule 3 of RBF is enforced by AcceptToMemoryPool() looking at the total descendant fee of the tx being replaced 10:25 < jnewbery> nothingmuch: yes - good point. If you're bumping the fee on a descendant tx, then you can't know the new/old feerate of the package without looking at all ancestors 10:27 < jnewbery> ok, let's move on to the second commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15996/commits/888b8e9b8f86862f2f6269934392bd7fbc4d59b1 10:27 < jnewbery> This makes the behaviour change, and it's just a one-line change. We add a call to IsDeprecatedRPCEnabled() when a totalFee option is passed to the RPC. Can anyone say what that function does? 10:29 < jnewbery> jonatack: you wrote the testcase for this, so I think you should probably be able to answer that :) 10:30 < setpill> seems to check whether a specific deprecated RPC (in this case totalFee) has been explicitly enabled 10:31 < jonatack> jnewbery: sorry was afk 10:31 < jnewbery> setpill: right - exactly. So why do we deprecate instead of just removing? 10:31 < michaelfolkson> Bitcoin Core policy? 10:32 < michaelfolkson> GIve people time to adjust with an error message 10:32 < jonatack> to give warning and time to users before breaking functionality 10:32 < jnewbery> right 10:32 < jonatack> so they may adapt 10:32 -!- aseem_ [26589672@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.88.150.114] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:33 < jnewbery> if anyone has a client that relies on an RPC behaviour and we deprecate it, then when they upgrade to the new version the client will break and they'll get given the error message. 10:33 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [] 10:33 < jnewbery> they can restart bitcoind with the `-deprecatedrpc=` option and they'll be able to continue for another version before the feature is removed 10:34 < jnewbery> the act of having to restart bitcoind with the `-deprecatedrpc` option forces the user to acknowledge the change 10:34 < michaelfolkson> Is it always removed over two versions? Deprecated in the next version and then removed in the version after that? 10:34 < zenogais> so ensures clients that depend on the feature that upgrade to this version definitely know about the impending deprecation 10:34 < jnewbery> michaelfolkson: yes, unless we forget to remove it in the n+1 version 10:35 < jnewbery> zenogais: exactly 10:35 < setpill> they could always opt not to upgrade, but deprecating before removal allows them to upgrade (and reap any security/performance/other benefits) 10:35 < jnewbery> it's easy to do this for RPC changes because we can provide an error directly to the user. It's more difficult to deprecate P2P behaviour safely, because there's not necessarily a way to warn users 10:36 < jnewbery> an example of that would be trying to deprecate/remove REJECT messages from P2P 10:36 < jonatack> often the principle is to deprecate for one or more minor releases, then remove in the next major release 10:36 -!- hugo_ [b84af09c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.74.240.156] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 10:37 < jnewbery> setpill: yes, and having one version of deprecation gives them plenty of time to update the client before the next version 10:37 < jnewbery> jonatack: yes, we wouldn't remove a feature in a minor release 10:37 < setpill> ... so bitcoin core versioning is semver with a 0. prefix? 10:38 < jnewbery> no, it's not semver 10:38 < jnewbery> it's just major releases are every 6-9 months and we have some number of minor releases between them 10:39 < setpill> sorry for tangent, this is not really relevant, I'll ask about it elsewhere :) 10:39 < MarcoFalke> https://bitcoincore.org/en/lifecycle/#relationship-to-semver 10:39 < zenogais> One last note on that commit: Looks like 5 tests in wallet_bumpfee.py rely on the newly deprecated behavior so behavior is re-enabled for that set of tests. 10:39 < setpill> ah, thanks 10:39 < jnewbery> thanks Marco 10:39 < jnewbery> zenogais: right, and a new test is added to test the deprecation logic (thanks jonatack!) 10:40 < jnewbery> zenogais: makes sense to do it that way and minimize the changes in this PR. As instagibbs notes, the tests can be changed when the functionality is actually removed 10:41 < peevsie> was there a good reason for totalFee to be specified in satoshis, while the error message and results from bumpfee are shown in BTC? 10:41 < zenogais> Yeah, makes sense. Keeps this PR compact and focused. 10:42 < jnewbery> I should note at this point that we previously almost never changed the RPC interface (prior to around 0.16). That made some things quite difficult because we were stuck with some awkward logic, eg around the `getinfo` RPC which reached into network, wallet, mining components 10:43 < jnewbery> it's nice for clients to have a stable RPC interface, but not having the freedom to change them had detrimental impacts for the project (eg not being able to fully separate the wallet from the node) 10:43 * lightlike kind of misses the "generate" rpc - it was so easy... 10:43 < jnewbery> so we've been a bit more active in changing RPCs in the last few releases (while using the deprecation step to hopefully make things less disruptive for clients) 10:44 < jonatack> Regarding removing totalFee from the bumpfee tests, it made sense to wait to see if there was consensus on the change 10:44 < jnewbery> lightlike: sorry about that! generate called into both wallet and mining code 10:44 < jonatack> before taking the next step 10:44 -!- ajonas [~textual@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:45 < jnewbery> peevsie: I guess we want the user to provide a number in satoshis because a fee will always be 0.0000something BTC 10:45 < nothingmuch> doesn't it make more sense to remove the tests only when the functionality is removed in the next release cycle? otherwise a regression might be introduced 10:45 < setpill> is there some step between deprecation warning and removal from code? e.g. a release in which the RPC call is not built by default (but can be included in a manual build)? 10:46 < setpill> er, RPC interface 10:46 < jnewbery> it's easier to get the number wrong if you're writing it as several zeros trailing the decimal point 10:46 < jnewbery> and overpay the fee by some orders of magnitude 10:46 < jnewbery> nothingmuch: yes, tests shouldn't be removed for deprecated behaviour, only once the functionality is totally removed 10:47 < michaelfolkson> And that's what happens here too. No tests are removed but one is added 10:48 < jnewbery> setpill: no. And it seems unlikely to me that a user would want to do a manual build rather than either just stay on the old version or update the client 10:48 -!- hugo_ [b84af09c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.74.240.156] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:48 < jnewbery> in general we don't want a bunch of #ifdefs litering the code for build configurations 10:48 < jnewbery> it makes it more difficult to maintain 10:48 -!- aseem_ [26589672@gateway/web/freenode/ip.38.88.150.114] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 10:49 < setpill> gotcha 10:50 < nothingmuch> michaelfolkson: yep, that was in response to jonatack's remark responding to zenogais (i think), not the PR itself 10:50 < michaelfolkson> Ah ok 10:50 < peevsie> jnewbery: makes sense, it just seems odd to have an error message that says e.g. "Insufficient totalFee, must be at least 0.00004316" instead of showing it in satoshis as well 10:51 < jnewbery> yeah, I agree. That doesn't seem like a very friendly error message 10:52 < zenogais> running build and tests again locally, if all goes well, ready to give this an ACK 10:52 < jnewbery> There's also a bit of historic context around difficulty using floats in the JSON RPC 10:52 < jnewbery> sdaftuar just reminded me of that 10:53 < jnewbery> 8 minutes left. If you've been waiting to ask your question, now would be a really good time to ask! 10:53 < wallet42> what's the current goal for floats/btc/satoshis per vbytes/tonal btc per kiloweight etc... unification? 10:54 < nehan> question about the new test: spend_one_input() is duplicated code. Is there a policy for that in tests? 10:55 < zenogais> jnewberry: IIRC ParseNonRFCJSONValue has some issues, I've briefly looked into it in the past 10:55 < xis10tial1> First time observer. Just want to say it is interesting. 10:55 < zenogais> Investigation is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14173#issuecomment-427605111 10:56 < michaelfolkson> Are you convinced on the questionable use part? That seems to be the critical question. I need to reread and understand some of the explanations above on why it was useful. Because the bias should surely be on conservatism when removing something people might be using. 10:56 < jonatack> nothingmuch: I saw it as updating the tests more than removing tests but could be wrong, point taken 10:56 < jnewbery> nehan: if the new test was going to be around forever, then I'd ask for the duplicate code to be moved into test/functional/test_framework, but since we're going to remove the test in the next version it doesn't matter 10:57 < jnewbery> See the comment here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15996#issuecomment-491888247 10:58 < michaelfolkson> Cool. Attend again next week and come ready with a question :) 10:59 < jnewbery> wallet42: no particular plan that I'm aware of 10:59 < nothingmuch> btw, what's the reasoning for the magic number 110 in peer.generate? isn't 100 enough for coinbase maturity and rbf always enabled on regtest? 11:00 < jnewbery> nothingmuch: I think generate(101) would have been enough 11:00 -!- ajonas [~textual@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 11:00 < jnewbery> I don't think we need to nit the test too much since it's not going to be around for long 11:00 < jnewbery> ok, let's wrap it up there. Thanks everyone! 11:00 < zenogais> Thanks all! 11:00 < peevsie> thanks! 11:01 -!- xis10tial1 [49181f9d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.73.24.31.157] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 11:01 < nothingmuch> that was more of a curiosity question than a critique one, seems borrowed from other test =) 11:01 < nothingmuch> thanks! 11:01 < jonatack> nothingmuch: yes 11:01 < jnewbery> See you next week for #15481 - Restrict timestamp when mining a diff-adjustment block to prev-600 11:01 < jonatack> thanks! 11:01 < michaelfolkson> Thanks 11:01 < setpill> thanks 11:02 -!- JulioBarros [~juliobarr@97-115-0-127.ptld.qwest.net] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews [] 11:03 -!- peevsie [peevsie@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/peevsie] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 11:04 -!- setpill [~setpill@unaffiliated/setpill] has quit [Quit: o/] 11:06 < moneyball> thanks jnewbery and all participants! 11:14 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 11:15 -!- fjahr_ [~fjahr@185.244.215.84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:16 -!- fjahr_ [~fjahr@185.244.215.84] has quit [Client Quit] 11:17 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 11:20 < jnewbery> Meeting log: https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/15996.html 11:28 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has quit [Quit: fjahr] 11:36 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:36 -!- zenogais [~zenogais1@cpe-76-175-74-114.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 11:37 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@2001:16b8:57bf:6700:a9e3:eef5:aa9:3a4b] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 11:37 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:38 -!- hugo_ [b84af09c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.74.240.156] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 11:49 -!- sdupre [48172556@gateway/web/freenode/ip.72.23.37.86] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 12:09 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:10 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has quit [Client Quit] 12:12 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:25 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has quit [Quit: fjahr] 12:25 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:30 -!- TheRec [~toto@drupal.org/user/146860/view] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:35 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 12:45 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has quit [Quit: fjahr] 12:48 -!- hebasto [~hebasto@95.164.65.194] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:50 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:56 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:57 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 12:58 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:09 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:12 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 13:16 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:05 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has quit [Quit: leaving] 14:10 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has quit [Quit: fjahr] 14:10 -!- jamal [~jamal@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [] 14:10 -!- jamaljsr [b84af09c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.184.74.240.156] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 14:22 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:28 -!- digi_james [~jamesc@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:30 -!- digi_james [~jamesc@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:44 -!- digi_james [~jamesc@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 14:54 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has quit [Quit: fjahr] 14:56 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:03 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 15:14 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:19 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 15:51 -!- jonatack [d598a195@gateway/web/freenode/ip.213.152.161.149] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 16:32 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:34 -!- fjahr [~FJ@185.244.215.84] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews [] 16:57 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 17:07 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 17:23 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 17:40 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 17:49 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 18:04 -!- digi_james [~jamesc@cpe-24-90-213-151.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:17 -!- carla [~carla@cpe-69-203-124-78.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:18 -!- xxxxxxx [45cb7c4e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.69.203.124.78] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:18 -!- carla_ [45cb7c4e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.69.203.124.78] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:19 -!- xxxxxxx [45cb7c4e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.69.203.124.78] has quit [Client Quit] 18:19 -!- carla [~carla@cpe-69-203-124-78.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Client Quit] 18:21 -!- carla_ [45cb7c4e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.69.203.124.78] has quit [Client Quit] 18:27 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:34 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:34 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 18:47 -!- digi_james [~jamesc@cpe-24-90-213-151.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.0.1] 18:54 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 18:58 -!- fjahr [~FJ@107.152.104.253] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:58 -!- fjahr [~FJ@107.152.104.253] has quit [Client Quit] 19:27 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:51 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 20:04 -!- elichai2 [uid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-etiuntibtddorxes] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 20:14 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:15 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:30 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 20:41 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:43 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit] 21:31 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 21:35 -!- ajonas [~ajonas@207.96.120.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 21:41 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 22:21 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:34 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:05 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 23:10 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:10 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@90-145-125-186.bbserv.nl] has quit [Client Quit]