--- Day changed Wed Oct 09 2019 00:03 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 01:21 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 02:08 -!- jonatack [~jon@54.76.13.109.rev.sfr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:46 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:07 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 03:58 -!- felixfoertsch23 [~felixfoer@92.117.62.179] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:07 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@2001:16b8:5715:1c00:fd1a:8a7a:3407:bf9f] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:13 -!- harrigan_ [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:14 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 04:14 -!- felixfoertsch23 is now known as felixfoertsch 04:14 -!- felixfoertsch [~felixfoer@92.117.62.179] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews [] 04:45 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:46 -!- harrigan_ [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:52 -!- jonatack [~jon@54.76.13.109.rev.sfr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 04:58 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 05:00 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:04 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:06 -!- felixfoertsch [~felixfoer@2001:16b8:50da:d800:cc5f:5d3a:1709:a282] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:11 -!- setpill [~setpill@unaffiliated/setpill] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:21 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.4 - https://znc.in] 05:22 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:30 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 05:32 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:38 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@185.183.104.83] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:40 -!- fox2p_ [~fox2p@185.183.104.83] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:06 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 06:11 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:c523:2e03:35ad:5f1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:16 -!- harrigan [~harrigan@ptr-93-89-242-235.ip.airwire.ie] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:20 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 06:20 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:c523:2e03:35ad:5f1] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 06:26 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:c523:2e03:35ad:5f1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:28 -!- ajonas [uid385278@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-alzebldvxfmzxvck] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:29 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:c523:2e03:35ad:5f1] has quit [Client Quit] 06:32 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:51 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:55 -!- waxwing_ [~waxwing@193.29.57.116] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:55 -!- hkjn_ [~hkjn@207.109.198.35.bc.googleusercontent.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:55 -!- aj__ [aj@cerulean.erisian.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:55 -!- illlicit_ [uid109953@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vcusrrhcifgnbygx] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:55 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@unaffiliated/waxwing] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:55 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:55 -!- designwish [~designwis@51.ip-51-68-136.eu] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:55 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-121-126.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:55 -!- aj [aj@cerulean.erisian.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:55 -!- hkjn [~hkjn@207.109.198.35.bc.googleusercontent.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:55 -!- fengling [~qinfengli@45.32.53.207] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 06:55 -!- emilengler_ [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:56 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-121-126.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:56 -!- fengling [~qinfengli@45.32.53.207] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:56 -!- illlicit_ [uid109953@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lbeplwlnslaovyxh] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:59 -!- e4xit [~quassel@cpc123762-trow7-2-0-cust7.18-1.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:01 -!- designwish [~designwis@51.ip-51-68-136.eu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:01 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Quit: jonatack] 08:06 -!- aj__ is now known as aj 08:23 -!- emilengler_ is now known as emilengler 08:23 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.2+deb3 - https://znc.in] 08:25 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:27 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:29 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:c523:2e03:35ad:5f1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:45 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:c523:2e03:35ad:5f1] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 08:56 -!- setpill [~setpill@unaffiliated/setpill] has quit [Quit: o/] 09:08 -!- zenogais [~user@cpe-76-175-74-114.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:23 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:32 < jnewbery> hi folks. We'll get started in about half an hour. Notes and questions are posted here: https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/16939.html 09:42 -!- sebastianvstaa [~sebastian@HSI-KBW-091-089-090-188.hsi2.kabelbw.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:45 < zenogais> Sounds good! 09:49 -!- b10c [~b10c@2001:16b8:2e85:fe00:e531:68bf:d055:a6f4] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:54 -!- sprawl-unsolved [~sprawl-un@195.181.160.175.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:56 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:00 < jnewbery> hi 10:00 < sebastianvstaa> hi 10:00 < amiti> hi 10:00 < pinheadmz> hi 10:00 < aj> zzz 10:00 < lightlike> hi 10:00 < ajonas> hi 10:01 < b10c> hi 10:01 < jnewbery> Thanks to jonatack for suggesting this week's PRs, and for hosting the last two meetings! 10:01 < fanquake> Hi 10:01 < jonatack> hi 10:01 < fjahr> hi 10:01 < ariard_> hi 10:02 < jnewbery> If anyone else wants to host or has a suggestion for PRs to discuss, please let me know. Either message me here or leave a comment on https://github.com/bitcoin-core-review-club/bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/issues/14 10:02 < jonatack> thanks, jnewbery 10:02 < jnewbery> ok, who had a chance to build/test this week's PRs? 10:03 < zenogais> hi all 10:03 < jnewbery> The first question (as always): Did you review the PR? Concept ACK, approach ACK, tested ACK, or NACK? 10:03 < fjahr> We are talking about the open PR now? 10:03 < jnewbery> both 10:04 < zenogais> Still in the process of reviewing, but 16939 will probably be a tested ACK from me 10:04 < lightlike> built it and did some testing on testnet/mainnet. 10:04 < jnewbery> lightlike: great! What did your testing involve? 10:05 < fjahr> built and ran tests on 16939, need some more time to look at code and think about tests 10:06 < jnewbery> that question is open to anyone: how did you test/how could you test these changes? 10:06 < lightlike> jnewbery: i started a node with the PR with and without peers.dat and also added some more precise logging to see how many IPs the different DNS seeds sent us. 10:06 < zenogais> Simplest test I thought of was syncing node from scratch without peers and check the behavior. 10:06 < jnewbery> lightlike: nice. Did you find anything interesting? 10:09 < lightlike> jnewbery: in one run, it took me like 5 minutes to get 2 peers on mainnet, which I found a bit too slow considering I had ~6k entries in addrman. Might just be an outlier though. 10:09 < jnewbery> one of the challenges for this PR is that we don't have any way to do integration testing of these changes - we can't manipulate the peers.dat file or set up DNS servers in our functional test framework 10:10 < jnewbery> did anyone take a look at how we could do automated testing? Adding some functionality to the test framework or adding unit tests? 10:10 < zenogais> One other option: Step through the DNS thread in gdb 10:10 < aj> lightlike: did you see how many connections it attempted before finding two peers? 10:11 < fanquake> Now that there's been more some PR review coming from the review club, this sort of "how did you actually review PRs" discussion is definitely the most interesting to me. Especially from anyone that has been ACKing PRs. 10:11 < jnewbery> lightlike: that doesn't seem great. How long had your node been running the previous time? 10:13 < aj> lightlike: (if you had net debug enabled, "trying connection .* lastseen=" in your logs in between when you started the test and when you got two peers should tell you) 10:13 < jnewbery> I thought aj's comment here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15434#issuecomment-468166991 was interesting. "I'm getting maybe 20% of outbound attempts succeeding..." 10:14 -!- justobservin [48cd48ce@ip72-205-72-206.sb.sd.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:14 < jnewbery> For those who are interested and want to read further, aj's PR here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15502 is also interesting 10:14 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 10:16 < lightlike> aj: the 9th peer was the second one that worked. I think the issue is that the first peer I connected to sent me some new blocks (my node was still in final stages of IBD), and while they were being validates there were some ~30s breaks in which no new connections were attempted 10:17 < jnewbery> ok, let's move on to the next question. you agree with AJ’s comment (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15558#discussion_r327421987) that this is a bug? 10:18 < lightlike> jnewbery: my node was maybe one week behind, when I run for like 1-2 hours. 10:18 < fjahr> jnewbery: I did not get to think about about testing yet but why can we not manipulate peers.dat file? 10:19 < jnewbery> fjahr: it's possible, but there's nothing in the test framework that does it 10:19 < fjahr> got it 10:19 < aj> lightlike: oh, huh... that'd mean it'd be just as slow with dns peers, i think. probably worth commenting that somewhere 10:20 < jnewbery> I have a tool that parses the peers.dat file: https://github.com/jnewbery/bitcointools. That could be enhanced to edit the files for testing 10:20 < zenogais> Hmm, on testnet for me IBD seems to be stalled right now. It found 10 peers, but no blocks yet after ~15 mins or so. 10:20 < jnewbery> aj: did you look at adding unit tests? 10:21 < aj> jnewbery: nope 10:22 < zenogais> Hmm, deleting peers.dat and reseeding seemed to fix 10:22 < zenogais> I now see it syncing blockheaders 10:22 -!- justobservin [48cd48ce@ip72-205-72-206.sb.sd.cox.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:23 < jnewbery> Does anyone want to try answering q4: Do you agree with AJ’s comment that this is a bug? 10:25 < zenogais> It sounds like it might have been intended behavior, but wasn't documented. So unclear whether it was a bug. 10:25 -!- hanhua [68850952@104.133.9.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:25 < lightlike> re q4: hard to say if bug or intentional, but I'm not sure if it is important if a peer with an empty addrman asks all DNS seeds or just 3 of them. 10:26 < jnewbery> zenogais: lightlike: yeah, at the very least the code isn't as clear as it could be 10:26 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@85.255.236.128] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:27 < aj> if we had lots of DNS seeds (or lots of full nodes coming online) it would seem a bit spammy to always query all of them to me. but we don't have either of those things... 10:27 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:28 < jnewbery> Were there any other questions on the PRs? It seems like this week's PRs were perhaps difficult for people to review/test? 10:29 < zenogais> I wasn't able to review these as much as I would have liked. Seems like they need deeper review / testing since they're in a part of the codebase that isn't easily testable atm. 10:29 < aj> any good ideas on ways to make them easier to test? 10:29 < zenogais> I think jnewbery's peers.py is a good base for automating some testing around this. 10:30 < zenogais> At least getting the ability to manipulate peers.py so you can test present/missing behavior here. 10:30 < zenogais> I also still want to step through this in a debugger just to ensure the intended behaviors are really triggered and work as expected. 10:31 < jnewbery> I know that carldong was hoping that better separation of the net layer would make focused testing easier. I'm not sure how far he's got with that 10:31 < zenogais> ^ This would be a big help too 10:32 < jnewbery> zenogais: one potential difficulty with using a debugger with this functionality is that there are a bunch of threads with timers interacting with each other. Stepping through one thread doesn't capture all the behaviour 10:33 < lightlike> One thought I had is that that while querying the DNS seeds in almost every startup is obviously bad for decentralisation, it is also a defense against eclipse attacks. 10:34 < lightlike> So if someone manages to manipulate our addrman (like in the Erebus or Heilman paper), the DNS seeds won't counteract that after this PR is merged. 10:34 < fjahr> concerning peers.dat: we could make it easier to manipulate files in the node's datadir with some helper methods, i think this could be helpful for other tests 10:36 < jnewbery> lightlike: I think that's a good point. If an adversary can take over your addrman, then I think the only way out of that is to query the DNS seeds or the hard-coded seed nodes. 10:36 < jnewbery> fjahr: I agree. It shouldn't be too difficult to add those methods to TestNode 10:38 < jnewbery> next question: What implications do these PRs have for privacy? Robustness/redundancy? Usability? 10:38 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@85.255.236.128] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 10:39 < jnewbery> lightlike has already mentioned that not querying DNS seeds could potentially be bad for robustness/redundancy (because reducing the use of DNS seeds could *potentially* make us more vulnerable to having our addrman taken over) 10:39 -!- Name [63959f01@99.149.159.1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:40 < fjahr> what i took away from the discussion: higher privacy because less other nodes are pinged at startup but potentially lower usability because startup might take longer 10:40 < zenogais> It sounds like the originally motivator was to avoid leaking information to DNS seeds. 10:40 < zenogais> *original 10:41 < jnewbery> zenogais: yes, I think that's the motivation for both 15558 and 16939 10:41 < zenogais> It sounds like one other alternative here would be to query all DNS seeds in random order? 10:42 < jnewbery> zenogais: how does that help? 10:42 < zenogais> Not sure if it does. But it sounds like the order was originally fixed, and 15558 switched to it to random order in addition to reducing the number of seeds queried. 10:44 < jnewbery> the problem that they're trying to solve is not leaking information to _all_ of the DNS seeds about when you're staring a node. Changing the ordering doesn't improve that 10:44 < jnewbery> Final question: Why was three DNS seeds chosen in PR 15558? 10:44 < zenogais> +1 10:44 < sprawl-unsolved> re: Robustness I agree with BlueMatt's concern about a nodes isolation if homogenous DNS sources are queried (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15558#issuecomment-529128985) 10:45 < zenogais> It sounded like 1 seed makes eclipse attacks fairly easy, so 3 was selected somewhat arbitrarily to mitigate that. 10:45 < sprawl-unsolved> ... which is being discussed / mitigated here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16938 10:46 < sprawl-unsolved> What's not clear to me is if PR 15558 was modified to attempt to get a non homogenous set of DNS seeds to attempt to prevent eclipse attacks 10:46 < lightlike> there are only 8 DNS seeds currently, and choosing only 1 would again be bad for eclipse attacks, so 3 seems like a reasonable compromise. 10:47 < zenogais> sprawl-unsolved: This is interesting discussion, thanks for sharing 10:48 < jnewbery> sprawl-unsolved: I think 3 was simply chosen to mitigate against a single rogue DNS seed being able to eclipse new nodes. Issue 16938 is a very interesting discussion, but it's not the only reason you'd want redundancy in the DNS seeds you query 10:50 < jnewbery> The bitcoin-seeder repo is here: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder for those interested 10:50 < jnewbery> ok, any other questions in the last 10 minutes? 10:51 < zenogais> Are there folks actively working on improving testing around multi-threaded code like this? 10:52 < jnewbery> zenogais: not that I'm aware of. What specifically do you mean when you say 'testing around multi-threaded code'? Do you have something specific in mind? 10:52 < zenogais> Seems difficult to integration test, but could perhaps benefit from plucking the logic out into isolated testable objects/methods. 10:53 < zenogais> jnewbery: The question is mostly motivated since you spoke about the difficult of testing/observing these threads in isolation because of their interactions 10:53 < zenogais> *difficulty 10:54 < zenogais> I'd need to dig more into the code for specific questions here, but was just an initial thought. 10:54 < jnewbery> I don't think it's that difficult to write integration tests, or at least it's probably easier than writing integration tests for some of the other p2p behaviour 10:54 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 10:55 < sprawl-unsolved> I think I misunderstood an attack vulnerability, I thought there were mutliple DNS seeds operated by the same entities but if https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4b51ed89cfce9870a20d75001fae3b68ac1dfd86/src/chainparams.cpp#L116 is where all the DNS seeds are listed then it appears it wouldn't be possible for to query 3 DNS seeds and get a response from < 3 entities 10:55 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:55 < jnewbery> there would be a bit of framework code to write (mocking DNS server responses, manipulating .dat files) 10:56 < jnewbery> sprawl-unsolved: you're assuming that sipa, bluematt, luke, christian, ... are all different people :) 10:57 < fanquake> I don't think I've ever seen them all in the same room 10:57 < jonatack> zenogais: re folks working on this, I proposed these PRs out of personal interest and am beginning to look for funding to work on these areas. 10:57 < sprawl-unsolved> jnewbery lol I had written "apparently" in that line but maybe thought it was a bit too pedantic :{ 10:58 < jnewbery> ok, let's wrap it up there. I'll try to get next week's notes and questions up sooner than last time so you all have a bit more time to review and test 10:58 < zenogais> Thanks for hosting jnewbery 10:58 * sprawl-unsolved claps 10:58 < lightlike> thanks! 10:59 < jnewbery> thanks all! 10:59 < jonatack> thanks! 10:59 < zenogais> jonatack: That's great! Seems like a very interesting area for further exploration. 10:59 < jonatack> zenogais: Agreed :) 11:00 < sebastianvstaa> thanks 11:02 -!- sprawl-unsolved [~sprawl-un@195.181.160.175.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has quit [Quit: sprawl-unsolved] 11:08 < jnewbery> hey folks. As a meta-question about the review club, I'd be interested in hearing any suggestions for how to make these meetings useful for you and improve the quality of the discussion. Feel free to message me directly if you don't want to discuss here. 11:11 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 11:12 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:15 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 11:15 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 11:58 -!- Name [63959f01@99.149.159.1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:02 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:05 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:17 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has quit [Quit: jonatack] 12:43 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:45 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e35:8aba:8220:6627:dad:d967:649d] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:14 < MarcoFalke> If someone is looking for typo fixes or code-style cleanups, there are some leftovers in the review comments: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16727#pullrequestreview-296235772 13:15 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:20 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 13:31 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:37 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 14:42 -!- masterdonx2 [~masterdon@23.105.163.103] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:43 -!- MasterdonX [~masterdon@titan.pathogen.is] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:25 -!- b10c [~b10c@2001:16b8:2e85:fe00:e531:68bf:d055:a6f4] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 15:25 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@2001:16b8:5715:1c00:fd1a:8a7a:3407:bf9f] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 15:28 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@185.69.145.127] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:44 -!- sebastianvstaa [~sebastian@HSI-KBW-091-089-090-188.hsi2.kabelbw.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:45 -!- sebastianvstaa [~sebastian@HSI-KBW-091-089-090-188.hsi2.kabelbw.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:56 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:18 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@185.69.145.127] has quit [Quit: Sleep mode] 16:49 -!- shesek [~shesek@5.22.135.66] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:49 -!- shesek [~shesek@5.22.135.66] has quit [Changing host] 16:49 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:53 -!- hanhua [68850952@104.133.9.82] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:13 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:22 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 17:37 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 18:05 -!- sebastianvstaa [~sebastian@HSI-KBW-091-089-090-188.hsi2.kabelbw.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 18:09 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:20 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:5c6:1014:136f:e113] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:20 -!- sebastianvstaa [~sebastian@HSI-KBW-091-089-090-188.hsi2.kabelbw.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:23 -!- sebastianvstaa [~sebastian@HSI-KBW-091-089-090-188.hsi2.kabelbw.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:23 -!- sebastianvstaa [~sebastian@HSI-KBW-091-089-090-188.hsi2.kabelbw.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:24 -!- michaelfolkson [~textual@2a00:23c5:be04:e501:5c6:1014:136f:e113] has quit [Client Quit] 18:46 -!- jkczyz [~jkczyz@69.9.24.249] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 19:08 -!- emilengler_ [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:09 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 19:16 -!- felixfoertsch23 [~felixfoer@2001:16b8:5034:200:cc5f:5d3a:1709:a282] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:17 -!- felixfoertsch [~felixfoer@2001:16b8:50da:d800:cc5f:5d3a:1709:a282] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 19:50 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@94.101.135.250] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:26 -!- behradkhodayar [~behrad@94.101.135.250] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 20:39 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@185.183.104.83] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:40 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@31.7.59.226] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 21:26 -!- felixfoertsch23 [~felixfoer@2001:16b8:5034:200:cc5f:5d3a:1709:a282] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 21:26 -!- felixfoertsch [~felixfoer@2001:16b8:5034:200:3589:d3c7:2500:b8b2] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:08 -!- zenogais [~user@cpe-76-175-74-114.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 22:35 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:36 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:45 -!- fox2p_ [~fox2p@82.102.24.131] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:46 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@31.7.59.226] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:56 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:04 -!- sebastianvstaa [~sebastian@HSI-KBW-091-089-090-188.hsi2.kabelbw.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 23:18 -!- ajonas [uid385278@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-alzebldvxfmzxvck] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 23:50 -!- infognom [~infognom@2a02:810d:d00:708:3d5d:e0c6:2e4:603b] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]