--- Day changed Wed Jul 10 2019 00:04 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@cpc139350-aztw33-2-0-cust310.18-1.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 00:09 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@cpc139350-aztw33-2-0-cust310.18-1.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:22 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@cpc139350-aztw33-2-0-cust310.18-1.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 00:25 -!- jonas_ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 00:30 -!- jonas_ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 01:03 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@cpc139350-aztw33-2-0-cust310.18-1.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:04 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@cpc139350-aztw33-2-0-cust310.18-1.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:36 -!- Zenton [~user@unaffiliated/vicenteh] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:16 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@cpc139350-aztw33-2-0-cust310.18-1.cable.virginm.net] has quit [] 02:25 -!- jonas_ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:30 -!- jonas_ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 04:11 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@46.209.209.229] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:30 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@46.209.209.229] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 04:31 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@46.209.209.229] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:57 -!- jonatack84 [d598a14a@213.152.161.74] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:22 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@46.209.209.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 05:50 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@46.209.209.229] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:32 -!- nijak [~nijak@2604:2000:12c1:c8ca:fd09:ffbe:be94:4ff] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:33 -!- davterra [~tralfaz@178.128.106.205] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 06:46 -!- jonas_ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:02 -!- elichai2 [uid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-dwhojiikwxmoybms] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:05 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:26 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:5036:7ef8:adbd:76d2] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:32 -!- nijak_ [~nijak@cpe-66-108-32-173.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:33 -!- hebasto [~hebasto@95.164.65.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:33 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@46.209.209.229] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:33 -!- nijak [~nijak@2604:2000:12c1:c8ca:fd09:ffbe:be94:4ff] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 07:40 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:5036:7ef8:adbd:76d2] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 07:41 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:5036:7ef8:adbd:76d2] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:43 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:5036:7ef8:adbd:76d2] has quit [Client Quit] 07:50 -!- hugohn [uid304114@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qkoynoqrbwyiacnt] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:24 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 08:58 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:11 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-235-170.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:20 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@82-132-235-170.dab.02.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:26 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@178.131.250.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:27 -!- nijak [~nijak@2604:2000:12c1:c8ca:fd09:ffbe:be94:4ff] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:27 -!- nijak_ [~nijak@cpe-66-108-32-173.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 09:39 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@2001:16b8:572b:e500:5131:fa2b:f6f9:f149] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:52 < jnewbery> Hi folks. We'll get started in a little under 10 minutes. 09:55 -!- carla [b84af09c@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:55 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:00 < jnewbery> hi 10:00 < fjahr> hi 10:00 < behradkhodayar> Hi 10:00 < digi_james> hello 10:00 < elichai2> Hi :) 10:00 < pinheadmz> oy! 10:00 < hugohn> aloha 10:00 < nijak> hello hello 10:00 < lightlike> hi 10:01 < jnewbery> Notes and questionds here: https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/16244.html 10:02 < jnewbery> My internet connection is a bit flakey today, so apologies if I drop. You'll just have to continue without me! 10:02 < jnewbery> who had a chance to review the PR and notes? 10:02 < digi_james> Yup 10:02 < lightlike> me too 10:02 < fjahr> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ 10:02 < pinheadmz> read through the code 10:03 < elichai2> yea 10:03 < jnewbery> Great. First question should be pretty simple. Where is this code tested? 10:03 < fjahr> functional/rpc_createwallet 10:04 < pinheadmz> well... funcitonal/wallet_createwallet.py ? 10:04 < jnewbery> Good guess, but it's not quite right. 10:04 < lightlike> functional/wallet_multiwallet.py 10:04 < jnewbery> All the wallet functional tests are prefixed with wallet_ 10:04 < jnewbery> Yeah, wallet_createwallet.py 10:05 < jonas_> รงรงรงรง 10:05 < jonas_> typo! 10:06 < jnewbery> So when reviewing this PR, I think it's worth reading through that test to satisfy yourselves that the functinoality is tested 10:07 -!- JulioBarros [~juliobarr@97-115-0-127.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:07 < elichai2> Is there a "integration test" that verifies that the wallet file was created correctly? 10:07 < hugohn> in the PR, variable decelerations are moved closer to where they are used (instead of being at the top of the function), is that a Core style thing? 10:07 < elichai2> (in case of modifications like this to the `CreateWallet` function) 10:08 < jnewbery> Next up: did people check taht the different failure modes are tested? 10:08 < digi_james> elichai2: In regards to the wallet files, I suspect in the db tests .... 10:08 < jnewbery> elichai: I'd call wallet_createwallet.py an integration test. It's creating the wallet and then running RPCs like `getwalletinfo` 10:09 < jnewbery> but there's no test on the actual wallet file 10:09 < fjahr> I did not get a complete overview but I think I did not see the 'wallet already exists' case being tested 10:09 < hugohn> *declaration 10:09 < jnewbery> I'd expect that to be covered by the wallet_multiwallet.py test, which tests wallets being unloaded and reloaded 10:09 < elichai2> but the fact that `getwalletinfo` workd correctly on `CreateWallet` doesn't mean the wallet format didn't change, right? 10:10 < jnewbery> hugohn: usually declarations are just above where the variable is used, but I think that's just convention rather than anything in the style guide 10:10 < lightlike> fjahr: that one is tested in wallet_multiwallet.py 10:11 < fjahr> jnewbery: true, it's there 10:11 < jnewbery> (and obviously don't open PRs to 'fix' code to use that convention) 10:12 < jnewbery> I think there are some error conditions that it's quite difficult to simulate in the test framework. For example if there are file system errors 10:12 < digi_james> I think thats what the warning string is for 10:12 < digi_james> (file system error) 10:12 < jnewbery> Right, I was about to ask. Where is the warning string used? 10:13 < digi_james> wait no, warning if it successfully recovers corrupt file 10:13 < digi_james> the berkeley db wrapper I believe 10:13 -!- fl [~fl@185.212.170.140] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:14 < jnewbery> Right, i found it quite interesting that this warning string that's passed up and down the stack is only actually used in one place 10:14 < fjahr> in VerifyWallets? 10:14 < digi_james> :) 10:15 < pinheadmz> Can I ask how the tests are calling the right function? 10:15 < jnewbery> here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6c1e45c4c41676f80ac6fb8d48cfbcf839593f19/src/wallet/db.cpp#L426 10:15 < pinheadmz> the tests call createwallet() 10:15 < pinheadmz> and I see CreateWallet in wallettool.cpp 10:16 < pinheadmz> this PR adds CreateWallet to wallet.cpp 10:16 < pinheadmz> but I dont undertand which function the tests used to call - and why they call the new one now 10:16 < jnewbery> pinheadmz: yes, the createwallet call in the functional test is to the RPC method 10:16 < pinheadmz> oh ok its just to the RPC 10:16 < pinheadmz> and the PR redirects the actual wallet creation to wallet.cpp 10:16 < pinheadmz> so whats the method in wallettool ? 10:17 < jnewbery> right, in a call like self.nodes[0].createwallet(), that createwallet() gets converted into an RPC call 10:17 < jnewbery> take a look at the TestNode() class in the test framework 10:18 < jnewbery> particularly the __getattr__() method 10:18 < pinheadmz> "Dispatches any unrecognised messages to the RPC connection or a CLI instance" -- clever 10:19 < jnewbery> pinheadmz: yes the PR creates a new CreateWallet() function in libbitcoin_wallet 10:19 < jnewbery> ok, last question from me. There are several suggestions for changing the function from ryanofsky, promag and empact. Are those good suggestions? 10:20 < behradkhodayar> So what about covering "Are all the failure modes tested? If not, why not?" 10:21 < jnewbery> behradkhodayar: did you have anything to add on that? Any failure modes you saw that aren't covered? 10:22 < behradkhodayar> jnewbery: Sorry, Just missed it. TBT, I was expecting a talk about candidate occasions may makes a kind of failure. 10:22 < behradkhodayar> Not yet! 10:22 -!- afigs [642bef32@100-43-239-50.static-ip.telepacific.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:23 < hugohn> RE: names. do you think the RPC* methods should be maybe prefixed with rpc_ or something, to avoid having the same function names everywhere? slightly confusing 10:23 < jnewbery> ok, did anyone have any other questions about the PR? 10:23 < jnewbery> hugohn: all RPC methods are lowercasewithoutspaces . Most functions in the codebase are CamelCase 10:24 < hugohn> ic 10:24 < jnewbery> once you know that convention, it's not confusing 10:24 < digi_james> I am unsure of the flags, some is handled before CreateWallet, some of the flag manipulation happen sin CreateWallet. The discussion in regards to consistency with QT i couldnt fully understand. 10:25 < jnewbery> digi_james: which comment? 10:26 < digi_james> "new create wallet function [could take] separate option arguments instead of wallet flags 10:27 < lightlike> jnewbery: I found it interesting that the author decided not to address nits in order not to invalidate existing ACKs. Would prior ACKs really be ignored if he changed something small like enum to enum class? 10:28 < jnewbery> digi_james: the flags are persistant and stored in the wallet bdb file. I think Russ's comment was that the RPC method shouldn't really use these flags. It should just take options and pass them through as booleans to the CreateWallet() function 10:29 < digi_james> jnewbery: I see ... 10:29 < achow101> digi_james: I felt that a lot of bools would have the same effect as using the wallet flags because it basically is. it's also less typing to use the flags 10:29 < jnewbery> lightlike: Yes. When reviewers ACK, they ACK the commit hash. _Any_ change to the branch changes the commit hash, so invalidates the existing ACKs 10:29 < achow101> lightlike: the github-merge script used to merge PRs will not detect ACKs on hold commit hashes 10:29 < achow101> s/hold/old 10:30 < jnewbery> I thought this might be interesting for people here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#issuecomment-509974339 10:30 < jnewbery> One thing that you'll need to get used to if you want to be a Bitcoin Core reviewer is that you'll need to rereview PRs quite a lot 10:31 < jnewbery> whenever a PR needs rebase, then your ACKs will be invalidated and you'll need to rereview 10:31 < pinheadmz> are ACK, utACK messages and their commit IDs actually parsed by anything besides... people? :-) 10:32 < achow101> pinheadmz: github-merge.py script used for merging 10:32 < pinheadmz> oh interesting, so they really are invalidated by new commits 10:32 < achow101> take a look at recent PR merges, they all contain the ACKs of the PR for the commit that was merged 10:32 < hugohn> I do agree in principle that external-facing APIs should be more explicit regarding param names, options, etc. The optimization (turned into a bitmask) can be done at a lower level. Helps readability & debugging. 10:32 < jnewbery> what you want to check is basically an interdiff - that the diff of the pre-rebase branch is equivalent to the diff of the post-rebase branch. If it's a simple rebase, then often I'll just replicate the rebase myself and verify that I get the same end result as the author 10:32 < jnewbery> if so, I'm satisfied that I can ACK the new commit hash 10:33 < jnewbery> Yes, just run git log on your master branch and look at the PR merge commits - you'll see that they contain the ACKs that the PR received 10:34 < pinheadmz> very cool 10:35 < jnewbery> hugohn: yeah, I tend to agree, but also agree that it can be done as a follow-up PR 10:35 < jnewbery> pinheadmz: if we were super paranoid we could sign our ACKs 10:36 < pinheadmz> ive seen that before in bitcoin core reviews 10:36 < jnewbery> I think Marco is the only one who signs his github review comments 10:36 < pinheadmz> haha 10:36 < pinheadmz> and even with the merge script incorporating ACKs, etc - the commit is still signed by the maintainer's signign key 10:37 < pinheadmz> (thought I saw a luke-jr signed ACK before too :-) ) 10:38 < jnewbery> any other questions on the code changes? 10:39 < behradkhodayar> This was my first session here & I found it very useful. Thank you everyone 10:39 < behradkhodayar> Just one general question: Are we going to cover ALL upcomming PRs here in this series of meetings? 10:39 < digi_james> I am unsure of how the rpc methods of the wallet can be easily decoupled compared to node rpc methods. 10:40 < digi_james> I've been digging around and noticed the wallet rpc methods are registered in the RpcHandlerImpl constructor, the global rpcTable 10:40 < achow101> digi_james: decoupled in what way? 10:40 < digi_james> For example, if the wallet were to directly receive rpc calls 10:40 < jnewbery> behradkhodayar: we cover one per week. If you have any requests, please comment on https://github.com/bitcoin-core-review-club/bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/issues/14 10:40 < digi_james> I believe its all in rpcTable (all rpc methods) 10:41 < jnewbery> digi_james: is this in the context of process separation? 10:41 < digi_james> but wallet rpc methods sneak into this global via RpcHandlerImpl 10:41 < digi_james> jnewbery: exactly ... 10:41 < digi_james> I presume this PR is part of that effort? 10:41 < behradkhodayar> jnewbery: Sure, Thanks. 10:41 < achow101> digi_james: it isn't really part of that effort 10:42 < digi_james> achow101: got it. 10:42 -!- hebasto [~hebasto@95.164.65.194] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:42 < achow101> it was part of #15450 which someone asked to be split out into a separate PR. this is part of the multiwallet project 10:42 < jnewbery> digi_james: not really. It's to make sure that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15450 doesn't introduce a lot of code duplication 10:42 < jnewbery> it's really one of the final pieces of multiwallet: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/2 10:43 < digi_james> Ah ok, thx 10:43 < achow101> this is part of one of my long term projects of getting rid of the default wallet 10:44 < jnewbery> \o/ 10:44 < hugohn> achow101: what is wrong with the default wallet? 10:45 < jnewbery> digi_james: multiprocess bitcoin is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10102 . Probably worth chatting to Russ if you have questions about how the wallet RPC would be implemented 10:45 < achow101> hugohn: it's kind of unintuitive and uses a bunch of default settings which waste space and time. e.g. you can't make a born-encrypted default wallet, so if you want to encrypt your wallet, you first generate 2000 keys that will never be used, encrypt it, and generate 2000 more keys 10:46 < hugohn> achow101: gotcha, thanks! is moving to descriptor-based wallet part of this effort? 10:46 < achow101> or perhaps you don't want to use keys at all and just want a watch only wallet, well too bad, your gonna have to first have the default wallet and if you don't set your config files correctly, it will be loaded which can result in funds being sent there instead of the intented recipient of your watcho nly 10:46 < digi_james> jnewbery: Cheers 10:47 < jnewbery> hugohn: I think they're independent 10:47 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 10:47 < achow101> native descriptor wallets are a separate project and isn't really related to the default wallet. that's more for hardware wallets 10:48 < jnewbery> but obviously there are interactions between the two 10:48 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:48 < hugohn> achow101 jnewbery cool, thanks guys 10:48 < jnewbery> there was discussion in IRC some months ago about why removing default wallets is good 10:48 < elichai2> achow101: adding some sort of "setup" to the QT would be awesome :) 10:48 < jnewbery> Probably 3-6 months ago 10:49 < jnewbery> ok, about ten minutes left. Has anyone been holding back? 10:49 < achow101> probably coincided with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15454 being opened 10:50 < jnewbery> last chance! 10:51 < pinheadmz> thanks jnewbery ! 10:51 < jnewbery> ok, before we go, I have something new for you all. 10:51 < jnewbery> The point of review club is to _review_, not just to talk about reviewing! 10:52 < jnewbery> so as homework, I encourage you all to go to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244 and review 10:53 < jnewbery> if you don't have any comments on the code, you can still test and leave an ACK saying what you tested 10:53 < behradkhodayar> jnewbery: haha! Sure, Thanks 10:53 < jnewbery> there were at least 8 "hi"s at the start, so we should be able to have quite an impact if we all test and review the PR 10:54 < jnewbery> that's all! 10:54 < fjahr> jnewbery: Thanks! 10:55 < jnewbery> Next week, we'll cover #15169 Parallelize CheckInputs() in AcceptToMemoryPool(). digi_james is going to host (thanks digi_james!) 10:55 < digi_james> Thanks jnewbery achow101 and everybody else! 10:55 < digi_james> jnewbery: looking forward 10:55 < jnewbery> if anyone else wants to host in future, DM me and we can set it up. 10:55 -!- jonatack84 [d598a14a@213.152.161.74] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:56 < jnewbery> goodbye all! 10:56 -!- afigs [642bef32@100-43-239-50.static-ip.telepacific.net] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews [] 10:56 < lightlike> thanks jnewbery achow101 10:56 < hugohn> thanks jnewbery achow101 & everyone! 10:57 < behradkhodayar> Thanks everyone! 10:57 < jonas_> Merged in real time! 10:58 < MarcoFalke> Ah, missed that this was in this meeting 10:58 < lightlike> heh, so much for the reviewing recommendation :-) 10:58 < achow101> post merge reviews are good too 10:58 < MarcoFalke> Yeah, and addressing the feedback 10:58 < MarcoFalke> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16244#issuecomment-509651561 10:58 < jnewbery> haha. review club so good that PRs just merged 10:59 < jnewbery> Yes, addressing that feedback could be a fun task for anyone here 11:05 -!- JulioBarros [~juliobarr@97-115-0-127.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [] 11:06 -!- behrad_khodayar [~behrad@178.131.250.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:06 -!- behrad_khodayar [~behrad@178.131.250.162] has quit [Client Quit] 11:07 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@178.131.250.162] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 11:07 -!- carla [b84af09c@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:10 -!- takinbo [sid19838@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-khjxhymesieoomuc] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:10 < elichai2> tell me if I should move it to a different channel, but if the private key generation in tests is based off of a deterministic PRNG we could write a test that verifies that new wallet.dat files have the exact same hash as before, to make sure we didn't accidentally changed the format (breaking backwards compatibility) 11:10 < elichai2> (this is related to my question about verifying the wallet generated file) 11:17 < achow101> elichai2: the wallet includes timestamps, so you would need to fake time 11:17 < achow101> and current block hashes 11:59 -!- csknk [~csknk@unaffiliated/csknk] has quit [Quit: leaving] 12:03 -!- jonas_ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 12:07 -!- jonas__ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:28 -!- fl [~fl@185.212.170.140] has quit [Quit: fl] 12:31 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:16 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:20 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 13:54 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:58 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 14:03 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:39 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has quit [] 15:15 -!- jonas___1 [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:15 -!- jonas__ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 15:49 -!- jonas___1 [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-156.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 16:24 -!- TheRec [~toto@drupal.org/user/146860/view] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 16:30 -!- TheRec [~toto@84-72-172-174.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:30 -!- TheRec [~toto@84-72-172-174.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Changing host] 16:30 -!- TheRec [~toto@drupal.org/user/146860/view] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:42 -!- k-ho [6820f3ac@cpe-104-32-243-172.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:42 -!- k-ho [6820f3ac@cpe-104-32-243-172.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:11 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:d9cb:4a81:4f9e:bbf9] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 17:39 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@2001:16b8:572b:e500:5131:fa2b:f6f9:f149] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 17:42 -!- TheRec [~toto@drupal.org/user/146860/view] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds] 17:42 -!- TheRec [~toto@84-72-172-174.dclient.hispeed.ch] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 17:42 -!- TheRec [~toto@84-72-172-174.dclient.hispeed.ch] has quit [Changing host] 17:42 -!- TheRec [~toto@drupal.org/user/146860/view] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 17:46 -!- jonas___ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 17:50 -!- jonas___ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 17:52 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@208.69.41.101] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 18:16 -!- nijak_ [~nijak@2604:2000:12c1:c8ca:fd09:ffbe:be94:4ff] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:17 -!- nijak [~nijak@2604:2000:12c1:c8ca:fd09:ffbe:be94:4ff] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 18:52 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@207.189.24.179] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:55 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:d9cb:4a81:4f9e:bbf9] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 19:00 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:d9cb:4a81:4f9e:bbf9] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:15 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@207.189.24.179] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 19:30 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:d9cb:4a81:4f9e:bbf9] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 19:44 -!- elichai2 [uid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-dwhojiikwxmoybms] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 19:50 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@207.189.24.179] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:06 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 20:43 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@207.189.24.179] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 21:16 -!- la99 [~e99@181.164.39.43] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 21:42 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:02 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@c-73-92-181-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 22:09 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@207.189.24.179] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:38 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@207.189.24.179] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 22:57 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@207.189.24.179] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:15 -!- pinheadmz [~matthewzi@207.189.24.179] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 23:15 -!- la99 [~e99@181.164.39.43] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:28 -!- shesek [~shesek@5.22.134.97] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:28 -!- shesek [~shesek@5.22.134.97] has quit [Changing host] 23:28 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:47 -!- jonas_ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:51 -!- jonas_ [~jonas@rrcs-184-74-240-154.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]