--- Day changed Wed Feb 05 2020 00:03 -!- molly [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 00:06 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 00:12 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Quit: jonatack] 01:04 -!- jonatack [~jon@109.232.227.138] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:38 -!- midnight [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 02:43 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:46 -!- jonatack [~jon@109.232.227.138] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 02:59 -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@unaffiliated/jonasschnelli] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:03 -!- Lucie67Jakubowsk [~Lucie67Ja@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:08 -!- Lucie67Jakubowsk [~Lucie67Ja@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:17 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer] 03:17 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:43 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:16 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:16 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:45 -!- andrewtoth [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:45 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@188.29.164.254.threembb.co.uk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:49 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@188.29.164.254.threembb.co.uk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:52 -!- molly [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 07:17 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:27 -!- davterra [~dulyNoded@209.58.134.48] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:27 -!- davterra [~dulyNoded@209.58.134.48] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:29 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 07:29 -!- ccdle12_ [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:37 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:55 -!- Jackielove4u [uid43977@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-udvuppulzvovvuye] has quit [] 07:55 -!- Jackielove4u [uid43977@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vsbabclarqwkrrxl] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:57 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:03 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 08:26 -!- ccdle12_ [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:54 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:03 < jonatack> We'll get started in an hour -- hopefully everyone isn't at Advancing Bitcoin today :) 09:03 < jonatack> Some thoughts I wanted to share before the meeting: 09:04 < jonatack> A few people have been contacting me privately with questions about the PR or how to review. 09:04 < jonatack> That's great, but please ask any review questions here on this irc channel, which allows more people to help and also to benefit from the conversation. 09:05 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:34 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:35 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:37 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300C7EF139F0061F192FFD7865CB6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:40 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 09:42 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:47 -!- scone [~scone@195.181.160.175.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:48 -!- SirRichard [~MaxSikors@cpe-98-28-69-149.columbus.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:54 -!- fodediop [~fodediop@41.82.0.89] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:00 < jonatack> startmeeting 10:00 < jonatack> #startmeeting 10:00 * scone waves 10:00 < jonatack> Hi all! Welcome to this week's episode of the Bitcoin Core PR Review club! 10:00 < jonatack> #topic This week, we are looking at PR 18044 - "Use wtxid for transaction relay"(mempool, p2p) by sdaftuar 10:00 < jonatack> We usually start Bitcoin Core IRC meetings with a 'hi' so it's clear who's at keyboard. Feel free to say hi, even if you arrive in the middle of the meeting! 10:00 < SirRichard> hi 10:00 < jonatack> If you didn't have have a chance to read the session notes, the PR description, and the BIP draft, I encourage you to do so. 10:01 < scone> hi 10:01 < amiti> hi 10:01 < lightlike> hi 10:01 < fodediop> Hello, underworld! 10:01 < jonatack> They provide a good background for this discussion and for reviewing the PR. 10:01 < emzy> hi 10:01 < raj_> hi.. 10:01 < jonatack> (It's a really interesting one.) 10:01 < jonatack> Thanks to raj_ who I believe put up a review! 10:01 < jonatack> Remember, the goal is to actually review the PR *and* publish it on GitHub, e.g. put the study work into practice and help Bitcoin Core! 10:02 < jonatack> Review is very important in Bitcoin Core. Consistent review is arguably the scarcest resource and the main bottleneck to progress. 10:02 < jonatack> There are currently 758 open issues and 341 open PRs, and the stack keeps growing. 10:02 < jonatack> Please jump in at any point with thoughts and questions. Don't be shy! This discussion is about your thoughts and input. 10:02 < kanzure> hi 10:02 < jonatack> Question 1: Did you review the PR? 10:02 < raj_> yes. 10:02 < emzy> no 10:03 < fodediop> no 10:03 < jonatack> review in progress for me 10:03 < lightlike> a bit 10:03 < jonatack> Question 2: Concept ACK, approach ACK, ACK, or NACK? 10:03 -!- hanhua [68850952@104.133.9.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:04 < jonatack> moving on... with this PR a Concept ACK atm is about the best that can be done 10:04 < raj_> Concept ACK. 10:04 < jonatack> Who read the BIP draft? It's short. 10:04 < emzy> yes 10:05 < amiti> yes 10:05 < fodediop> no 10:05 < raj_> read it. Its just on the communication protocol to activate wtxid based transaction exchange. 10:05 -!- hardforkthis7 is now known as tylerlevine 10:05 < tylerlevine> hi 10:05 < jonatack> Note that there was a discussion in the last hour on #bitcoin-core-dev that concerns part of the draft 10:05 < scone> BIP https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/2020-02-wtxid-relay/bip-wtxid-relay.mediawiki 10:06 < jonatack> "2. The wtxidrelay message must be sent in response to a VERSION message from a peer whose protocol version is >= 70016, and prior to sending a VERACK." 10:07 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:07 < jonatack> which is contradicted by parts of the current codebase 10:07 < raj_> i am a little dizzy on the rationale behind this. Can you elaborate the issue a little? 10:07 < jonatack> Question: Describe `recentRejects`: what type of data structure is it, what data does it contain, and what is it used for? (Hint: `git grep -ni rejects`). 10:08 < jonatack> raj_: I think the PR, the BIP draft, and the notes provide the background? 10:09 < raj_> regarding this, there is only Suhas' comment i found in the PR saying this might create a race condition. 10:10 < scone> I'll take my chance at summarizing (warning may be inaccurate): In order to improve p2p transaction relay overhead, let's develop a more efficient way of keeping track of transactions. But because of some issues with how tx's are kept track of right now, if we switched to tracking with the Witness txid - better methods would be enabled 10:10 < jonatack> raj_: are you talking about the pre/post VERACK question? 10:10 < raj_> yes 10:11 < jonatack> raj_: I'd suggest git grepping VERACK 10:11 < raj_> noted. 10:11 < lightlike> recentRecjects: a bloom filter for hashes of txes that we have rejected (and won't send GETDATA for if other peers INV them to us) 10:11 < jonatack> scone: good start! of course, the devil is in the details 10:12 < scone> yep everything is simple at the 1000 m view :] 10:13 < scone> ok so what are we currently focused on in group discussion? ( i got lost) 10:14 < ajonas> So to build a little on what scone said - an attacker can send malleated witness data to the mempool which then corrupts AcceptedtoMempool() 10:14 < raj_> recentRejects is a bloom filter structure that keep tracks of rejected txs. Previously it only added non segwit txs which are not maleated. Now it adds either invalid segwit txs, or non segwit non maliated txs. 10:14 < jonatack> lightlike: yes, but careful -- there is bloomfilter and rollingbloomfilter 10:15 < ajonas> JamesOB left a great comment about recentrejects -> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b191c7dfb7ede3f74edb3a32b8ac6fa2f4d6b78a 10:15 < jonatack> some people who reviewed the previous PR about AlreadyHave() mixed the two 10:15 < jonatack> ajonas: agreed! 10:16 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:17 < jonatack> Also see net_processing.cpp:L2601-2612 10:17 < ajonas> The problem as it currently stands is that we don't punish peers who relay us invalid or DoSy transactions because we don't know for certain whether it's a misbehaving peer or a false positive on the bloom filter 10:18 < jonatack> ajonas: right! if the witness is malleated, the txid remains the same 10:19 < jonatack> (responding to your prev comment -- i'm slow!) 10:19 < jonatack> This PR covers a lot of domain areas in the codebase, which makes it compelling to study 10:20 < raj_> ajonas: This problem still stands even with wtxids right? 10:20 < jonatack> mempool, txn relay, recent rejects, the orphan map, the relay map, confirmed txns, network protocol 10:21 < ajonas> raj_: not for nodes passing wxtids between them. For the older nodes yes, 10:22 < ajonas> (meant . not ,) 10:23 < jonatack> Recent rejects are defined in the codebase in net_processing.cpp:L148. Let's move forward. 10:23 < jonatack> Question: In your opinion, does this PR save bandwidth for older nodes talking to newer nodes? What about downloading from old and new peers alike? 10:26 < ajonas> So Suhas mentions this is a concern of his which is why he is experimenting with the delaying download by 2 seconds of txs by txid if we have a wtxid peer 10:26 < raj_> It seems to me that old nodes will waste some bandwidth by asking the same tx both by txid and wtxid. New nodes will also face the same issue if they have any old nodes connected. This might be incomplete understanding. 10:26 < jonatack> hint: see the PR description 10:27 < jonatack> ajonas: yes. interestingly, this isn't the only 2-second delay used to favor actions 10:27 < jonatack> e.g. git grep std::chrono::seconds{2} 10:27 < lightlike> if one of the two nodes is old, nothing should change wrt status quo. 10:27 < raj_> sorry, i will go with no bandwidth waste for old nodes. Old nodes cant see wtxids. Only new nodes are in trouble in the transition period. 10:28 < jonatack> lightlike: right! more an issue WRT to future policy, IIUC 10:29 < jonatack> raj_: i think so, the intent is to remain backward compatible while adding support for newer peers 10:29 < jonatack> Question: Is it important that feature negotiation of wtxidrelay happen between VERSION and VERACK, to avoid relay problems from switching after a connection is up? 10:29 < jonatack> (see latest commit https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18044/commits/c4a23a1ffc588064f2fbffa9259335322a296a1b) 10:30 < jonatack> or would it be better to do it post-VERACK? 10:31 < jonatack> (this is being discussed RN on bitcoin-core-dev) 10:31 < ajonas> yeah, this is the discussion happening in real time in #bitcoin-core-dev 10:31 < scone> Time Notice: half way through meeting :] 10:32 < jonatack> Question: According to commit 61e2e97 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18044/commits/61e2e97), using both txid and wtxid-based relay with peers means that we could sometimes 10:32 < jonatack> download the same transaction twice, if announced via 2 different hashes from different peers. 10:32 < jonatack> What do you think of the heuristic of delaying txid-peer-GETDATA requests by 2 seconds, if we have at least one wtxid-based peer? 10:33 < jonatack> How would you test this? 10:33 < raj_> I would like to see some result and also variation of perfomance with variation of huristic parameters. 10:33 < jonatack> One of the issues with p2p changes is that things can be broken without unit or functional tests necessarily failing. 10:33 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:33 < jonatack> This requires spending time thinking hard about the changes. Or setting up new testing or logging. 10:33 < jonatack> Or benchmarking. 10:34 < raj_> we can create a test network of nodes in regtest. Program them to send around some predefined transactions. and see the heuristic at play. 10:35 -!- fodediop [~fodediop@41.82.0.89] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 10:35 < lightlike> could the delay slow down the effectiveness of message propagation in the initial phase where just a low percentage of nodes are new? 10:35 < jonatack> We can also try debug logging. See: bitcoin-cli help logging 10:35 < ajonas> jonatack: Ah yes -- issue #14210 would be great for someone to make progress on 10:35 < jonatack> e.g. bitcoin-cli logging '["net"]' 10:36 < jonatack> ajonas: agree! that's a compelling issue 10:37 -!- fodediop [~fodediop@41.82.0.33] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 10:37 < jonatack> ajonas: i didn't realise you were working on it :+1: 10:37 < ajonas> I am? 10:38 < jonatack> lightlike: you worked on that as well? 10:38 < jonatack> ajonas: oops. misread the last comment. 10:39 < jonatack> Question: In https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18044#discussion_r373775416 sdaftuar mentions a possible race condition where a peer could send a txid-based INV to us before it gets this message, which would cause relay of that transaction to fail. Do you agree? 10:39 < ajonas> I've got to bow out for the rest of the session. Thanks jonatack. 10:40 < jonatack> cheers ajonas 10:40 < lightlike> jonatack: a little, but not recently 10:40 < raj_> jonatack: i am not seeing how this would fail relay of those txs. 10:42 < jonatack> lightlike: at any rate it seems like a potentially valuable contribution to make 10:43 < jonatack> raj_: I would need to dive into the code more on this 10:44 < jonatack> Question: Does anyone see any other potential race conditions (or DoS vectors)? 10:45 < jonatack> These are the kind of questions that the complex state of the p2p network require thinking about. 10:45 < jonatack> Don't be shy :) 10:45 < raj_> Not that any i can see. Need to dive deeper. 10:45 < jonatack> Right. 10:46 < jonatack> Question: Overall, do you think the potential benefits of these changes merit the additional complexity and data storage (if any)? 10:46 < lightlike> i'd guess it is important to check that the behavior is correct if peers break protocol and send us old txids when we agreed on new mode, and vice versa 10:47 < jonatack> lightlike: yes. My initial impression is that tests like p2p_leak and others go in the right direction but can be more exhaustive... I would need to try adding tests to confirm that. 10:47 < jonatack> The p2p_* suite in general. 10:47 < raj_> yes aggreed with the concept overall. It really doesnt make sense to only see txids while a major chunk of the txs remains un commited to. Changing to wtxids makes a lot of sense. The only issue is correct transition between two phases. 10:48 < jonatack> Overall, I'm a concept ack but the details need thinking, verifying, and testing 10:48 < jonatack> Does anyone have any comments? Questions? 10:49 < jonatack> Last ten minutes. 10:49 < fodediop> Thank you jonatack. It's my first time here, so I'm just soaking in the process. 10:50 < jonatack> fodediop: Good to see you here! This PR was a wide one. 10:50 < fodediop> Thank you! 10:51 < jonatack> One thing that makes me hesitate here is the larger data storage and increase in code complexity. 10:51 < lightlike> why is there a larger data storage? 10:51 < scone> any simulations of the p2p communication overhead reductions? could one argue that the domains of efficiency are critical for nodes? 10:52 < raj_> I would like to ask the same question here as i asked you personally jonatack. Its obvious that to make better contribution towards code review its essential to develop complete understanding of the different interactions between different structures that are happening, even sometimes asynchrobnnously. Which seems like a daunting hill to climb. So i would like to know how everyone else is going about it? Do 10:52 < raj_> you practise any methodical path to gain better understanding of the codebase? 10:52 < jonatack> lightlike: the map relay index iiuc 10:54 < jonatack> lightlike: WDYT? 10:54 < jonatack> scone: yes! better simulations of the p2p network gets back to the issue ajonas linked to above. 10:54 < lightlike> jonatack: oh, ok. I think you are right. 10:55 < jonatack> raj_: it's just time, really, and poking around 10:56 < jonatack> basically as described here: https://jonatack.github.io/articles/how-to-review-pull-requests-in-bitcoin-core#if-youre-not-sure-where-to-start 10:56 < jonatack> that's my understanding of it, at least 10:57 < jonatack> 3 minutes! any last remarks? 10:57 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 10:57 < jonatack> #action - Finish reviewing 18044 and put your review on GitHub! 10:58 < lightlike> thanks for hosting! will follow the pr (it will probably take some months until merged) 10:59 < fodediop> Thank you for hosting jonatack! 10:59 < jonatack> If anyone would like to host a review club session, or propose a PR, don't hesitate! 10:59 < emzy> thanks jonatack 10:59 < raj_> thanks, this was a nice pr to discuss. willing to work on it next to provide any further review if i can. I am also willing to work on simulating p2p testing for these type of changes. If someone is already working on such please let me know, would love to extend some helping hand. 10:59 < raj_> thanks jonatack 10:59 < jonatack> lightlike: agree, for now the PR and BIP need concept acks and critical thinking 10:59 < scone> ty jonatack 10:59 < jonatack> Thanks everyone! 10:59 < jonatack> #endmeeting 11:00 -!- fodediop [~fodediop@41.82.0.33] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews ["WeeChat 2.7"] 11:00 < jonatack> Will post the meeting log shortly. Don't forget to volunteer to host or to propose PRs you'd like to see. 11:02 < jonatack> raj_: that's great if you can work on/make progress on simulating p2p testing. 11:03 < scone> +1 11:13 -!- scone [~scone@195.181.160.175.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews [] 11:14 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300C7EF139F0061F192FFD7865CB6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 11:24 -!- brave_guest [04355c72@4.53.92.114] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:27 -!- brave_guest [04355c72@4.53.92.114] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:39 -!- Jackielove4u [uid43977@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vsbabclarqwkrrxl] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 11:43 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:58 < jonatack> Meeting log from today's session now posted: https://bitcoincore.reviews/18044#meeting-log 12:05 -!- emilengler [~emilengle@unaffiliated/emilengler] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 12:09 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 12:10 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:13 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:45 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:55 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:00 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@cpe-66-108-32-173.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 13:03 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@cpe-66-108-32-173.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:23 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:13 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:18 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:32 -!- SirRichard [~MaxSikors@cpe-98-28-69-149.columbus.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: SirRichard] 14:56 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:00 -!- hanhua [68850952@104.133.9.82] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:01 -!- Jackielove4u [uid43977@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cocuqmirzetlyrrs] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:12 -!- seven_ [~seven@2a00:ee2:410c:1300:61a0:fa52:2231:266b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:14 -!- ccdle12_ [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:15 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:16 -!- schmidty_ [sid297174@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-frphjgyxoixiqfhi] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:19 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 16:21 -!- ccdle12_ [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:21 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:21 -!- schmidty [sid297174@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-leoutwfanhfvmiqd] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:21 -!- seven__ [~seven@2a00:ee2:410c:1300:50f3:b44a:b2e1:9f77] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 16:21 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 16:21 -!- schmidty_ is now known as schmidty 16:22 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:23 -!- seven__ [~seven@2a00:ee2:410c:1300:61a0:fa52:2231:266b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:24 -!- fanquake [sid369002@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zwtgccesrfcajxon] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:25 -!- pkr [~pkr@158.140.254.215] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:25 -!- wallet42 [sid154231@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zazecsxbjhjdwgpy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:25 -!- petezz4 [sid2429@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bykpvndhzmlbhiml] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:25 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-efkrfktxtctjelbc] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:25 -!- amiti [sid373138@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rhwhvafgwhlsadoc] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer] 16:25 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jultoaphqsxqsecj] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:25 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zxgqlsemucmslilt] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:25 -!- petezz4 [sid2429@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nctsxpdbegykknls] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:25 -!- amiti [sid373138@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gyaktgoytveykhne] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:25 -!- wallet42 [sid154231@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tllizksysaqzfojk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:25 -!- emzy [~quassel@unaffiliated/emzy] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.] 16:26 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cbgzncrypihcnuzr] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:26 -!- fanquake [sid369002@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kjjicniivqzkqzxu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:26 -!- seven_ [~seven@2a00:ee2:410c:1300:61a0:fa52:2231:266b] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 16:27 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:27 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:28 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:28 -!- emzy [~quassel@raspberry.emzy.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:29 -!- pkr [~pkr@158.140.254.215] has quit [] 17:02 -!- ccdle12 [~ccdle12@79.173.134.210] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:49 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:56 -!- charlesz [2d298627@45.41.134.39] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:08 -!- charlesz [2d298627@45.41.134.39] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:47 -!- felixfoertsch [~felixfoer@2001:16b8:50ae:8700:61af:81c4:9c0f:7c8b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:48 -!- felixfoertsch23 [~felixfoer@2001:16b8:5056:200:28ab:78e:413c:2866] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 19:57 -!- pkr [~pkr@158.140.254.215] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:16 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:21 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 20:32 -!- pkr [~pkr@158.140.254.215] has quit [] 21:29 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@cpe-66-108-32-173.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 21:34 -!- fox2p [~fox2p@cpe-66-108-32-173.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 21:57 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:45a2:bb3b:ee5:fde1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:06 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:45a2:bb3b:ee5:fde1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 22:09 -!- r8921039_ [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:c087:8ce5:f187:b63b] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:13 -!- r8921039_ [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:c087:8ce5:f187:b63b] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:15 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:440c:d3e2:761f:8e54] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:17 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:20 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:440c:d3e2:761f:8e54] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:21 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:2dbd:ed95:c61e:90fd] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:22 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:23 -!- brikk [~ernylund@tuxedo.abo.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:23 -!- brikk [~ernylund@tuxedo.abo.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:26 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:2dbd:ed95:c61e:90fd] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:29 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:402e:32df:bede:3aa7] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:34 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:402e:32df:bede:3aa7] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:39 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:f5f8:fd75:2ac1:be63] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:42 -!- r8921039_ [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:2df3:5f00:d340:c30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:44 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:f5f8:fd75:2ac1:be63] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 22:47 -!- r8921039_ [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:2df3:5f00:d340:c30] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 23:19 -!- r8921039_ [~r8921039@204.11.107.220] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:24 -!- r8921039_ [~r8921039@204.11.107.220] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 23:28 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:c50c:530b:a846:5fab] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:29 -!- r8921039_ [~r8921039@204.11.107.220] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:32 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:c50c:530b:a846:5fab] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 23:33 -!- r8921039_ [~r8921039@204.11.107.220] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 23:42 -!- PaulTroon [~paultroon@h-5-150-248-150.NA.cust.bahnhof.se] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:44 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@204.11.107.220] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:49 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@204.11.107.220] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 23:54 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:4833:bf11:9ad9:86ee] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:58 -!- r8921039 [~r8921039@2601:644:303:18c0:4833:bf11:9ad9:86ee] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]