--- Day changed Wed Sep 09 2020
00:21 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
00:26 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
00:28 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
00:30 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.171.144.181] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
00:31 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
00:34 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.171.144.181] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
00:36 -!- jonatack [~jon@109.232.227.138] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
00:38 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.153] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
00:51 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.153] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
01:28 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.153] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
02:07 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.201] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
02:10 < michaelfolkson> Listening to fjahr on TFTC and he has this idea of a "good first review" label. I think it is worth considering
02:11 < michaelfolkson> I think generally (and I know PR authors have a lot on their plate) that the guidance to reviewers on PRs is pretty non-existent if the reviewer is just starting out
02:13 < michaelfolkson> I remember Jon directing me to a couple of his PRs a while back where he laid out exactly what he'd want a reviewer to do to test, ACK the PR
02:13 < michaelfolkson> It does create work for the PR author but maybe that would be acceptable for "good first review" PRs
02:16 < michaelfolkson> If a new reviewer was to play around with debugging it could be helpful to direct them to debug a particular existing test that covers the code change
02:17 < michaelfolkson> Obviously a new test that is introduced is clearly fertile ground for debugging too
02:20 < michaelfolkson> I rarely see a ACK with a comment like "Debugged these specific test(s) and I have convinced myself that test X is testing that Y doesn't happen"
02:22 < michaelfolkson> Maybe because most reviewers are very experienced now we trust their method. But for new reviewers it is important we understand exactly what they have done and that they have understood what they are doing to get any value from it
02:24 < brikk> I think that's a great idea to try out. This is what helped me get on with #19405 where jonatack clearly wrote out how to test. If we want to onboard people and have them start with reviewing rather than writing your own code I think this is the way to go
02:29 < michaelfolkson> Yeah agreed I think jonatack is the best at doing this kind of stuff. I'm not sure anybody else does this. It is easier to do on smaller contained PRs than PRs like Signet for example
02:31 < brikk> true, but it could help if reviewers also were a bit more verbose on what they tested, then new people could repeat those steps, if such steps exist for signet
02:32 < brikk> for instance me, as it currently stands, I would not know where to begin testing that, and a few pointers in the right direction would mean a lot :)
02:33 < michaelfolkson> Yeah agreed. Just copying the steps that the experienced reviewer went through as a learning exercise. You can't do that if all the experienced reviewer writes is ACK
02:35 < michaelfolkson> I'm sure methods vary widely. And they check different things. But there is no insight into that whatsoever from just writing ACK
02:37 < michaelfolkson> Beyond the educational value I would've thought it would be informative to other experienced reviewers to understand what others have already done
02:38 < brikk> yes and it would also allow for the next reviewer to question it if it doesn't match your own review and understanding of the change, otherwise it's easy to assume that two ACKs agree on the same thing
02:41 < brikk> I think it's worth the effort to explain your ACK, for yourself and others, if you went through the trouble of reviewing a PR summarizing it shouldn't be too much extra effort, right?
02:42 < michaelfolkson> I wouldn't have thought so but I'm not an experienced reviewer so maybe one or two of them should chime in ;)
02:46 < michaelfolkson> Three significant benefits from doing so. Helping inexperienced reviewers, comparing notes on exactly what others have reviewed/tested to encourage more granular discussion and highlighting the risks (if any) of merging the PR
02:47 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.201] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
02:50 < jonatack> hey, yes, explaining what you did while reviewing a PR is probably very appreciated if it's not apparent from your review feedback and comments
02:51 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.201] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
02:52 < jonatack> thanks for the feedback. jnewbery explained in one of the very first review club meetings that it's helpful/a good idea to indicate how reviewers can test your PR and i took that to heart (but don't always remember to write it from the start, it often comes to me later, and it depends on the PR too)
02:54 -!- provoostenator [~quassel@provoostenator.sprovoost.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
02:55 < jonatack> testing the tests in important. an easy win is to just make sure the new or updated tests fail without the change they cover if it's not obvious (and even if it is) and start changing things, aka poke the box.
02:56 < michaelfolkson> It is almost reviewing the review. An experienced reviewer does a review and an inexperienced reviewer follows the same steps. Win win. Review is reviewed and the inexperienced reviewer learns
02:56 < michaelfolkson> Shadow reviewing
02:56 < jonatack> PSA: I'm tentatively planning to host a meeting in a week on a subset of net: CNetAddr: add support to (un)serialize as ADDRv2 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19845/commits
02:57 < jonatack> as part of the BIP155 addrv2 work that we need to progress on to be able to use Tor v3
02:58 < jonatack> if anyone has an opinion on which commits they'd like to cover in the meeting, let me know!
02:58 < jonatack> vasild:
02:58 < jonatack> vasild: ^
02:59 < michaelfolkson> For example, looking through this Signet PR I could try to dust down my fuzzing notes and try to get that working (I never did on MacOS so would probably try on Linux) but I have no idea who (if anyone) has run the fuzzers on the Signet PR
03:00 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: i did a coupla times (you'd see it in my review comments if GitHub in its infinite wisdom didn't choose to bury most of them)
03:00 < vasild> jonatack: #19845 will be merged by next week!
03:00 < michaelfolkson> Yeah... in load hidden items hell
03:01 < jonatack> vasild: :D which PR comes after it?
03:01 < michaelfolkson> Haha
03:02 < michaelfolkson> We've done merged PRs in the past
03:03 < vasild> jonatack: would be https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19031/commits/272a15ae65c3a28ee0cbfaf6dcbe98e633d46f16
03:03 < michaelfolkson> How will it be merged next week? Just seeing one Concept ACK and no other ACKs?
03:04 < vasild> was just kidding, likely it will not be :(
03:04 < michaelfolkson> Granted the series of PRs has Concept ACK but surely the code changes need ACKing?
03:04 < michaelfolkson> Ah ok :)
03:08 < vasild> jonatack: the first 3 commits in #19845 are equal to #19841, the next two are minor code moving. The crucial ones are the last two commits, I guess they should get most review attention.
03:08 < jonatack> vasild: agree, will likely focus on those. fwiw the middle commits you might be able to use a scripted move
03:09 < jonatack> only diff
03:09 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.201] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
03:09 < jonatack> ah, you added documentation, i like that better
03:09 < jonatack> nvm     
03:11 < jonatack> and thanks for weighing in
03:11 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.201] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
03:13 -!- petemyer_ [~petemyers@197.156.95.201] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
03:13 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.201] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
03:13 < vasild> hmm, even if we ignore the added comments, how do I move code with bash script?
03:15 -!- jonatack [~jon@109.232.227.138] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
03:20 -!- Pierce40Jakubows [~Pierce40J@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
03:25 -!- Pierce40Jakubows [~Pierce40J@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]     
03:35 < michaelfolkson> I don't understand the question vasild (and probably don't have the answer). Do you mean how to do that using bash or how to do scripted diffs in Core?
03:36 < michaelfolkson> I think it is the former right? mv moves files not code snippets
03:59 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
04:01 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
04:03 < vasild> michaelfolkson: I was just wondering how could one make a scripted-diff commit that moves 10 lines of code from file1 to file2, since it must be in some bash script that is also readable and verifyable, its not like `sed s/Foo/Bar/ src/*.cpp`
04:07 -!- petemyer_ [~petemyers@197.156.95.201] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
04:12 < michaelfolkson> Something like this? https://askubuntu.com/questions/1105376/how-to-move-n-lines-from-one-file-to-another
04:14 < michaelfolkson> You'd have to refer to the line numbers. Is this verifiable?
04:14 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.81] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
04:18 -!- worc3131 [~quassel@2a02:c7f:c026:9500:7d0b:65d0:38a4:4786] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]     
04:19 -!- worc3131 [~quassel@2a02:c7f:c026:9500:7d0b:65d0:38a4:4786] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
04:24 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
04:24 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
04:40 < vasild> michaelfolkson: no :)
04:41 < vasild> I would rather look at the diff directly than a shell script that does refer to line numbers
04:42 < vasild> I guess scripted-diff's use case is if a simple script produces huge diff, like e.g. running clang-format on entire files, or rename of symbols
04:48 < michaelfolkson> Agreed
04:51 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.81] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
04:59 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.81] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
05:04 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
05:24 < fjahr> michaelfolkson: Thanks for picking up the idea of that label. It's an idea from last year and I think I brought it up to some contributors but there was not a huge interest. But I think I didn't follow up either. Since there seems some interest here I should probably bring it up in the bitcoin-core-dev. I will try to formalize it a bit in a gist.
05:26 < michaelfolkson> Cool. I think we need more than just a 1 hour session a week to create really good reviewers (however good that 1 hour is). This could be one thing to direct new reviewers to
05:27 < michaelfolkson> And it won't matter if it is noisy either. Won't be polluting a really big PR like Signet, Taproot etc
05:47 < harding> I think using sed for moving lines is fine.  You stiff get the diff (that's what's in the git log -p), but you can also read and run the script yourself for additional assurance that the lines were moved verbatim.  (That said, I think it's plenty fine not to bother creating a script for small moves that are easy to review.)
05:55 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
05:56 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
06:04 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
06:04 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
06:25 <@jnewbery> sed can transform any text input to any text output, so every commit could be a scripted diff. I think it's only really useful for find-and-replace though.
06:25 <@jnewbery> scripted diff exists to make the reviewers life easier. For move-only commits, the reviewer can use `git log --color-moved=dimmed-zebra` to easily verify that the commit is indeed move only.
06:29 < harding> Fair point.  I always forget about --color-moved.
06:33 < jonatack> harding: classify it under "zebra"
06:33 < jonatack> a really dim one
06:34 < harding> Heh, I should indeed create a git alias so that `git zebra` calls diff with that option.
06:34 < jonatack> i like that
06:35 < jonatack> just realised i already had "alias zeb='--color-moved=dimmed-zebra'" ... thanks for the reminder to go check )))
06:36 < harding> Great minds think alike, plus or minus two characters.  :-)
06:40 < jonatack> gsh zeb <commit hash>
06:42 < jonatack> git diff --color-moved=dimmed_zebra --color-moved-ws=allow-indentation-change
06:42 < jonatack> git config --global diff.colorMoved dimmed-zebra
07:02 -!- alistairmann [~am@2a00:23c7:9908:2f00:2934:83f1:95c9:f192] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
07:05 < jonatack> Some background on signet https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/signet-give-bitcoin-stable-predictable-testnet-option
07:05 < jonatack> and https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/signet/
07:14 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.81] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
07:21 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.132] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
07:24 < emzy> Here is an address from my node, if you need one to test signet: tb1qjg26stlx3e7gazu60pqw9dvyz030w0hy3qkcca
07:29 <@jnewbery> TIL --color-moved-ws. Thanks jonatack!
07:39 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
07:42 < michaelfolkson> Needed to chain reindex to run the Signet daemon. That because of breaking changes since I last run Signet daemon?
07:43 < michaelfolkson> And when did Signet addresses change to tb1 from sb1?!
07:44 < michaelfolkson> Changes too fast
07:45 < pinheadmz> hm I just built the pr branch and the GUI still returns tb1 addresses
07:47 < pinheadmz> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18267/files#diff-64cbe1ad5465e13bc59ee8bb6f3de2e7R332
07:48 < michaelfolkson> Yeah tb1 now. But it was sb1 before (2-3 weeks ago)
07:51 < jonatack> jnewbery: i learned about it from jb55!
07:53 < jb55> jonatack: i learned about it from achow101 (i think?)
07:53 < jonatack> :DD     
07:56 < emzy> We are all lerning. Perfect! ;)
07:56 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
07:57 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
08:01 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Quit: jonatack]     
08:04 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
08:17 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
08:31 < jonatack> Is anyone else seeing a lot disconnections in the signet debug log, like: "Disconnecting and discouraging peer 10!"
08:31 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.132] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
08:32 < pinheadmz> hm no but i also only have one peer
08:32 < pinheadmz> also, i almost never use the GUI - if its open you can't do bitcoin-cli from command line? (have ot use the GUI console?)
08:32 < jonatack> same, any others get kicked off
08:33 < pinheadmz> are you accepting inbound? i can try to connect to you
08:33 -!- am_ [~am@2a00:23c7:9908:2f00:2934:83f1:95c9:f192] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
08:33 -!- am_ is now known as Alistair_Mann     
08:34 < jonatack> sure, try to addnode ugv7httwbjaayfuj.onion
08:36 < pinheadmz> oh i need to configure tor
08:36 < pinheadmz> i know i have the proxy running locally
08:36 < jonatack> with the gui running you can only use the gui console afaik
08:36 < jonatack> here's a clearnet address: 2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5
08:37 < pinheadmz> hm that did nothing, not even a log message about unsupported network
08:37 < pinheadmz> oh there we go took a sec. no route to host
08:38 < pinheadmz> i dont think i have ipv6 set up either
08:38 -!- alistairmann [~am@2a00:23c7:9908:2f00:2934:83f1:95c9:f192] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
08:38 < pinheadmz> but i should have tor running - just need to configure
08:38 < jonatack> i'm still seeing fresh "Disconnecting and discouraging peer 13!" about every couple minutes
08:40 < jonatack> what's your address?
08:41 < jonatack> (getnetworkinfo)
08:41 < pinheadmz> well im not port forwarding so i cant accpt incoming
08:41 < jonatack> k     
08:41 < jonatack> i'll go back to catching up on the changes
08:43 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.132] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
08:43 < pinheadmz> does onion proxy connect by default?
08:43 < pinheadmz> -listenonion (default: 1)
08:44 < jonatack> signet block emission rate dropped off a cliff, there were 3 blocks in 5 minutes, now no new blocks since half an hour
08:44 < jonatack> see doc/tor.md, section 3
08:46 < jonatack> first off, i always have debug=tor in my conf file, helps see what's going on
08:47 < jonatack> second, just be sure -listen isn't off
08:47 < pinheadmz> having trouble connecting to the control port 9051, lemme check my actual torrc
08:49 < jonatack> if debug=tor, then in your debug log shortly after startup you should see messages like "tor: Successfully connected!"
08:49 -!- thomasb06 [~user@eth-west-pareq2-46-193-0-224.wb.wifirst.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
08:49 < pinheadmz> got the debug, its not connecting :-/
08:49 < jonatack> tor: Connected to Tor version 0.4.x .... etc
08:50 < pinheadmz> its weird cuz i know i got it to work when i was testing -netinfo
08:50 < jonatack> huh. ymmv, my torrc is 3 liens
08:50 < jonatack> lines
08:50 < jonatack> ControlPort 9051
08:50 < jonatack> CookieAuthentication 1
08:50 < jonatack> CookieAuthFileGroupReadable 1
08:50 < jonatack> on debian
08:52 < jonatack> and in torsocks.conf: TorAddress 127.0.0.1 and TorPort 9050
08:55 < pinheadmz> restarted with -proxy=127.0.0.1:9050
08:55 < pinheadmz> now im connected to you at  ugv7httwbjaayfuj.onion
08:55 < pinheadmz> and also seeing  Disconnecting and discouraging peer 2!
08:56 < pinheadmz> but i wasnt seeing those messages before using the tor proxy
08:57 < jonatack> i see u
08:57 < pinheadmz> do i have a clearnet ip or onion ?
08:57 < pinheadmz> bc my localaddresses is [ ]
08:57 < pinheadmz> and i didnt start with -listen
08:58 < jonatack> "addr": "127.0.0.1:43186", "addrlocal": "ugv7httwbjaayfuj.onion:38333", "addrbind": "127.0.0.1:38333"
08:58 < pinheadmz> heh     
08:59 < jonatack> yep i now have you and the mothership. all the other peers get kicked off
08:59 < pinheadmz> well im running a25a5e422
08:59 < pinheadmz> latest latest
08:59 < jonatack> 20 disconections since we've been chatting
08:59 < pinheadmz> are you debug=net as well?
08:59 < michaelfolkson> (Sent you some Signet emzy) https://explorer.bc-2.jp/tx/bb68558876c9ab519a5c27b88686d0295fcc8c1703a0121afc63aabb4e0be04b
09:00 < pinheadmz> cant remmebr but i think the  scheme for generating magic bytes mightve changed inthis PRs life
09:00 < jonatack> no debug=net is too much info, we really need to separate NET logging into high level and low level messages
09:01 < jonatack> pinheadmz: i had to erase my signet dir, the POW changed lately i think?
09:01 < jonatack> lost 20 sBTC
09:01 < pinheadmz> yeah i had a weird message when i pulled latest and tried the GUI
09:01 < pinheadmz> me too! :-(
09:01 < pinheadmz> 50 sBTC
09:01 < pinheadmz> had to -reinde
09:01 < pinheadmz> *reindex
09:02 < jonatack> rigght
09:02 < pinheadmz> something about genesis block chainwork
09:02 < jonatack> yes     
09:02 < pinheadmz> now the faucet only serves 10sBTC
09:02 < jonatack> and only once? or timed interval
09:02 < pinheadmz> idk, it def has a rate limit
09:03 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: what's your signet node address
09:04 -!- Dylan [5dd9a5c6@p5dd9a5c6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
09:04 -!- Dylan is now known as Guest71365     
09:05 < michaelfolkson> jonatack: getnetworkinfo isn't giving it to me
09:07 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: no local addresses?
09:07 < jonatack> at the bottom
09:08 < Alistair_Mann> Faucet at https://signet.bc-2.jp/ to sb1qed8w8t72jzhvz302s04k4wtu045edajvy5yddm first time round gives me "Internal error", second & third time around gives me "Nuh-uh"
09:08 < pinheadmz> jonatack i dont have one either, maybe because listen is false due to proxy?
09:08 < pinheadmz> Alistair_Mann Ive had that issue before as well, debugged it with kallewoof but i think i just had to wait for a reset
09:08 < emzy> michaelfolkson: 0.1 received.
09:09 < pinheadmz> Alistair_Mann wanna drop an address? Im rich dude
09:09 < Alistair_Mann> tx     
09:09 < michaelfolkson> jonatack: No. No local addresses
09:09 < jonatack> pinheadmz: tb1qn39dkrx3xw7fk07a33u4n2uez9azkynxu4eaec #grifter-mode-on
09:10 < pinheadmz> jonatack u broke too bud?
09:10 < pinheadmz> oh snap
09:10 < pinheadmz> lots of folks gonna need to ask good questions today!
09:10 < jonatack> nah i got 10 sBTC
09:10 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.132] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
09:10 < pinheadmz> ok ill send you some sats for fun then
09:10 < jonatack> yay!
09:11 < pinheadmz> using custom fee 1000 sats / kB
09:11 < pinheadmz> get it
09:11 < pinheadmz> ?     
09:11 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: what are your signet/onion conf file settings?
09:12 < jonatack> pinheadmz: sendtoaddress using explicit feerate? i use that all. the. time.
09:12 < pinheadmz> well no feeestimator bc theres no mempool aciton
09:12 < pinheadmz> so in the gui i set manually
09:12 < pinheadmz> in cli i use fallback fee
09:12 < pinheadmz> going to try and rock gui all day today for a change
09:13 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.132] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
09:13 < jonatack> right, try sendtoaddress with conf_target=feerate and estimate_mode=sat/B
09:14 < jonatack> e.g. conf_target=1000 estimate_mode=sat/B
09:15 -!- Guest71365 is now known as Dylan21m     
09:15 < pinheadmz> Fee estimation failed. Fallbackfee is disabled. Wait a few blocks or enable -fallbackfee. (code -6)
09:15 < jonatack> pinheadmz: "untrusted_pending": 0.00100000 thanks!
09:15 < pinheadmz> cant estimate fee without any action in the mempool i guess
09:16 < emzy> michaelfolkson: also in qt: https://imgur.com/a/knqHZ5i
09:16 < jonatack> i'll try sending you back, gimme address
09:16 < pinheadmz> tb1q5tngrzvarzsdh5dp73yuqy24ja2rrpfuj0g7zd
09:18 < jonatack> worked for me
09:18 < jonatack> tx 4639ddfd6e343625543313d83023ecba7a1830c61a8a5d95068b8e1fbc336ef8
09:18 -!- wumpus [~ircclient@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
09:18 < pinheadmz> received!
09:18 < jonatack> command: bitcoin-cli -signet -datadir=signet sendtoaddress tb1q5tngrzvarzsdh5dp73yuqy24ja2rrpfuj0g7zd 0.1 "matthew" "yeah" false true 1000 "sat/B"
09:19 < pinheadmz> oh maybe i missed the dummy label param
09:19 < pinheadmz> ok sent you ee720275703646deedcad59caae16e1e0d1be1fa07dd7c4e3b137085532a2c96
09:19 < pinheadmz> that did work
09:19 < jonatack> nice
09:19 < jonatack> received
09:19 < pinheadmz> dang now we got an economy
09:19 < jonatack>  "untrusted_pending": 0.10100000
09:22 < pinheadmz> signet alpaca socks are noe en route
09:24 < jonatack> "Minimum POW difficulty was too low, resulting in overflow at first retargeting; to avoid undefined/unexpected stuff, a decision was made to address this, even though it results in yet another reset (hopefully the last one!)"
09:26 < pinheadmz> when was that
09:27 < jonatack> last couple of comments
09:28 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: quite right: bech32_hrp = "sb"; -> bech32_hrp = "tb";
09:29 < pinheadmz> how long ago was that change? mustve been squashed
09:30 < jonatack> pinheadmz: i'm going through git range-diff since my last re-ACK
09:30 < jonatack> new logging was added for the network magic change: "Signet derived magic (message start): 0a03cf40"
09:31 < Alistair_Mann> pinheadmz yes please rich dude! sb1qed8w8t72jzhvz302s04k4wtu045edajvy5yddm
09:31 < pinheadmz> Alistair_Mann yeah, you're right on time with that sb1 address (see these comments ^)
09:31 < pinheadmz> new signet address type looks like testnet
09:32 < pinheadmz> so youll need to git fetch and reset --hard to get back in sync with the PR branch
09:33 < pinheadmz> not sure why they did that actually, regtest has a different prefix as well
09:33 < pinheadmz> jonatack was there a comment about that?
09:33 < Alistair_Mann> swings and roundabouts. Swing: completely uptodate clone. Roundabout: because machine new nothing else works
09:34 < michaelfolkson> I would've thought sb made more sense. Any comments on why it was changed?
09:34 -!- gzhao408 [uid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kfbemauuxpkroatd] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
09:35 < jonatack> there is also the OP_TRUE challenge change https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/983
09:35 < pinheadmz> yeah thats in the functional test as well, kinda interesting
09:35 < pinheadmz> so you can generatetoaddress
09:37 < jonatack> the changes since last re-ACK per git range-diff 564e1ab 2e539c8 a25a5e4 look fine so far
09:39 < emzy> finaly I have X11 on my macos :)
09:41 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: seen in the diff. haven't seen a comment about it yet.
09:43 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: maybe related to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12314 ... not sure yet
09:44 < jonatack> ah, here it is: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18267#discussion_r478862811
09:45 < jonatack> and here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18267#discussion_r469713812
09:46 < pinheadmz> im still not really clear, everyone seems to agree having diff addr types for regtest/testnet is a good idea
09:51 < pinheadmz> ## Review club in ten minutes! ##
09:52 < michaelfolkson> It is a good idea. But if you go to the first of the links jonatack shared there seem to be problems
09:52 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
09:52 < michaelfolkson> e.g. "privkeys cannot be imported due to signet having a different prefix"
09:53 < pinheadmz> right but i think thats a feature, but i dunno
09:56 -!- LarryRuane [62f5cc94@c-98-245-204-148.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
09:59 < jonatack> pinheadmz: "so youll need to git fetch and reset --hard to get back in sync with the PR branch" -> don't see why that's needed
09:59 < pinheadmz> if remote has been force pushed?
09:59 < pinheadmz> git pull will yell at you
10:00 < jonatack> i just git checkout the origin/pr
10:00 < pinheadmz> #startmeeting
10:00 < michaelfolkson> Can continue after. Meeting starting in seconds
10:00 < pinheadmz> Welcome to Bitcoin Core PR Review Club! Today's PR is #18267 implementation of BIP-325
10:00 < pinheadmz> also known as...
10:00 < felixweis> hi     
10:00 < pinheadmz> 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋
10:00 < pinheadmz>   /$$$$$$  /$$$$$$  /$$$$$$  /$$   /$$ /$$$$$$$$ /$$$$$$$$
10:00 < pinheadmz>  /$$__  $$|_  $$_/ /$$__  $$| $$$ | $$| $$_____/|__  $$__/
10:00 < pinheadmz> | $$  \__/  | $$  | $$  \__/| $$$$| $$| $$         | $$
10:00 < pinheadmz> |  $$$$$$   | $$  | $$ /$$$$| $$ $$ $$| $$$$$      | $$
10:00 < pinheadmz>  \____  $$  | $$  | $$|_  $$| $$  $$$$| $$__/      | $$
10:00 < pinheadmz>  /$$  \ $$  | $$  | $$  \ $$| $$\  $$$| $$         | $$
10:00 < pinheadmz> |  $$$$$$/ /$$$$$$|  $$$$$$/| $$ \  $$| $$$$$$$$   | $$
10:00 < pinheadmz>  \______/ |______/ \______/ |__/  \__/|________/   |__/
10:00 < pinheadmz> 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋 🌋
10:00 < Alistair_Mann> a25     
10:00 < jonatack> ohai
10:00 -!- b10c [~b10c@fttx-pool-217.61.146.236.bambit.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:00 < nehan> hi     
10:00 -!- theStack [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:00 < emzy> hi     
10:00 < fjahr> hi     
10:00 < theStack> hi     
10:00 <@jnewbery> 🤯
10:00 < michaelfolkson> Ok.... that is cool
10:00 < amiti> hi     
10:00 < Dylan21m> hi     
10:00 < michaelfolkson> hi     
10:01 < sunon> Hey everyone
10:01 < robot-dreams> hi     
10:01 <@jnewbery> steady on pinheadmz. People will expect fireworks every time now
10:01 < b10c> hi     
10:01 < nehan> my expectations for future pr review clubs have gone up
10:01 < sipa> ¡ʇǝuƃıs
10:01 < willcl_ark> hi     
10:01 < jkczyz> hi     
10:01 < pinheadmz> jnewbery raising the bar :-) party time!
10:01 < pinheadmz> welcome everyone! Please be polite and respectful to each other. Everyone is here to learn and express curiosity.
10:01 < jonatack> that literally leaps out of the screen... congrats pinheadmz
10:01 < gzhao408> hi!     
10:01 < pinheadmz> Most of the questions have multiple answers and some of them have kinda tricky answers -- so don't be afraid to take guesses or use your imagination!
10:02 < LarryRuane> hello everyone
10:02 < pinheadmz> Let's start with a quick sign-in: Two y/n questions:
10:02 < pinheadmz> Did you review the PR?  /  Did you build the branch and connect to signet?
10:02 < pinheadmz> y /y
10:02 < nehan> y / y
10:02 < jkczyz> n / n
10:02 < jonatack> y / y
10:02 < theStack> n / n
10:02 < sunon> n / n
10:02 < b10c> n / y
10:02 < amiti> y / y
10:02 < michaelfolkson> y/y     
10:02 < Alistair_Mann> y/ny
10:02 < robot-dreams> y/y     
10:02 < LarryRuane> y (sort of) / y
10:02 < Dylan21m> y/n     
10:03 < sipa> ±/n
10:03 < fjahr> y/y but only older version
10:03 -!- subzero [~subzero@195.181.160.175.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:03 <@jnewbery> 0.1y/n
10:03 -!- mango [~mango@c-73-71-224-94.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:03 < pinheadmz> Those of you that were able to connect and generate a receive address, feel free to drop it here - you might win some worthless signet coins by participating!
10:03 < emzy> y     
10:04 < emzy> y/y     
10:04 < LarryRuane> tb1qtjtf4hcjq3c9dnx0gy57lpd43427ttq5a8jfzu
10:04 < jonatack> tb1qzdu76vyh6cpz9ehdz27u4sf8erzgz76m2kg2rw
10:04 < robot-dreams> tb1qgcq63q0qrwe2x2arpdds7rr5ek4qasu9vm80at
10:04 < emzy> tb1qplt4vxhanqtepew5te605t2f9k9kkdpvysa89z
10:04 < jonatack> send me 1 get 2 back
10:05 < pinheadmz> OK let's dig in: Can anyone start us off with a quick definition of signet?
10:05 < michaelfolkson> tb1qcdntxa942mg620gnlh6kqs8th3yayqgr7xnmgt
10:05 < nehan> tb1qhx8vzcl0hv6mjas06z28t5xt2834h38lz2jj4z
10:05 < sipa> building
10:05 < amiti> tb1qwhxgd9l9znletzjrd500s8jjgqzuy2mxaevhru
10:05 < michaelfolkson> Anyone new here?
10:06 < sunon> I’m new
10:06 < emzy> jonatack: I'm waiting ;)
10:06 < nehan> sunon: welcome!
10:06 < Dylan21m> i'm new too.
10:06 < subzero> sunon welcome to PR review club
10:06 < sunon> Thank you!
10:06 < Dylan21m> just watching this time :)
10:06 < subzero> welcome Dylan21m !
10:06 < pinheadmz> welcome new folks!
10:06 < Dylan21m> thank you
10:06 < emzy> Welcome!
10:07 < pinheadmz> ok Im upping the bounty: 0.1 sBTC for a definition of signet ?!
10:07 < jonatack> a stable, centralized testnet
10:07 < robot-dreams> signet is a new test network that lets you specify custom block validation requirements; basically a way to have a realistic but sandbox'd test network
10:07 < theStack> i'd say signet is a new type of test network, one with an additional requirement for blocks to be accepted (a signature), which allows more control
10:07 < jonatack> from optech: Signet is both a tool that allows developers to create networks for testing interactions between different Bitcoin software and the name of the most popular of these testing networks.
10:07 < nehan> jonatack: we could have held out for more
10:07 < felixweis> n4FggkKF1c7mEbKqqHU6vz6C4gRFSHb51p
10:07 < jonatack> nehan: hehe
10:07 < pinheadmz> robot-dreams wins a coin!
10:08 < pinheadmz> felixweis is that a signet address? perhaps its non-witness? kinda interesting
10:08 < sipa> important to stress that signet is both a mechanism to build custom networks with a centralized component, and the name of a specific global testnet
10:08 < subzero> pinheadmz signet is construction of the bitcoin network with signatories signing blocks instead of mining which allows rapid testing for network generation for evaluating network performance
10:08 < pinheadmz> subzero good answer but also mining still happens - proof of work is still required, but ALSO the sig- rules
10:08 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:08 <@jnewbery> subzero: not instead of!
10:08 <@jnewbery> as well as
10:09 < felixweis> pinheadmz: correct, a legacy address on signet
10:09 < subzero> pinheadmz jnewbery PoW for anti DoS or other reasons?
10:09 < pinheadmz> felixweis sending you 0.001 just bc ur unique :-)
10:09 < theStack> alternative definition: "permissioned blockchain" :p
10:09 < felixweis> <3     
10:09 < nehan> i don't recall seeing anything about "custom block validation requirements" in the first 4 commits -- is that later?
10:09 < notmandatory> is it possible or anticipated that there will be project specific signet instances? or the a shared signet , like testnet the idea?
10:09 <@jnewbery> subzero: that's a good question. Maybe pinheadmz will put up a bounty to answer it
10:09 < michaelfolkson> It is down to the signers. If they don't want anyone else to mine they can stop other people mining
10:10 < michaelfolkson> But on the default Signet the plan is to let other people mine
10:10 < pinheadmz> michaelfolkson is that right?
10:11 < jonatack> emzy: done; bitcoin-cli -signet -datadir=signet sendtoaddress tb1qplt4vxhanqtepew5te605t2f9k9kkdpvysa89z 2 "emzy" "2-for-1" false true 1000 sat/B
10:11 < pinheadmz> i think in the curent state of the PR only a selected set of users can mine
10:11 < robot-dreams> nehan: great point, I'm using terminology loosely but basically referring to `CheckSignetBlockSolution`
10:11 < nehan> robot-dream: ah ok i thought i missed some sort of plug-and-play validation config :)
10:11 < sipa> what is the current signet height?
10:12 < michaelfolkson> pinheadmz: Current state maybe... But there really is no point to having proof of work if only the signers are mining
10:12 < robot-dreams> sipa: I got 2511
10:12 < pinheadmz> sipa 2511
10:12 < sipa> me too!
10:12 < b10c> https://explorer.bc-2.jp/ too
10:12 < pinheadmz> ok lets get into the questions: Why do we need test networks and what problems (if any) do we have with the current testnet?
10:12 < sipa> tb1qq5rjrnvp2j0p7m327yrp7ny7dt26qt6y88ed2e
10:13 < emzy> jonatack: It realy worked!  "txid": "deff5000b95dfb22e07e3dde631dabf831f53e0d25e186476625bdc7fe791dfb"
10:13 < nehan> uh am i on a different signet? I'm at 4015
10:13 < jonatack> emzy: while stocks last, offer limited to one per person
10:13 < theStack> pinheadmz: it's permissionless, which is may not always optimal for testing scenarios
10:13 < pinheadmz> michaelfolkson i think youre question is kinda tied into question 1 here -- what are some of the issues with testnet3? (our current testnet)
10:14 <@jnewbery> subzero: I believe it's so that any client that works on mainnet can switch to working with signet with minimal changes
10:14 < emzy> jonatack: I should have send 5 sBTC... ;)
10:14 < felixweis> takes forever to sync, get started. diff=1 after 20 min is making it a pain to work with
10:14 < pinheadmz> theStack correct! what kinds of things happen on testnet if "we just let anybody mine" ?
10:14 < LarryRuane> test networks let us do things that would risk losing real value on mainnet (and we might not have value on mainnet)
10:14 < robot-dreams> pinheadmz: if "we just let anybody mine", could a troll with lots of mining hardware get the difficult really high and then leave?
10:14 < nehan> hmm. did signet get restarted in the last few days?
10:14 < pinheadmz> LarryRuane correct! like lightning network #reckless
10:14 < sipa> nehan: i believe so
10:14 < pinheadmz> robot-dreams correct!
10:15 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef17420094c0841c19b70bd0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:15 < theStack> robot-dreams: +1
10:15 < felixweis> random many 100s of blocks reorgs happen on a regular basis, making every assumptions lightnig e.g. takes for 6 confs = open channel.
10:15 < jonatack> nehan: yes, reset, new POW
10:15 < sipa> jnewbery: also DoS protection; PoW correctness is checked before downloading headers; signet signature only when downloading the full block
10:15 < jonatack> have to reindex or rm -rf
10:15 < pinheadmz> ill add an answer as well: i was debugging SPV mode on testnet and got stuck on a fork of nodes that are stuck on inflation blocks from last year. theyre still out there. and spv wallets cant tell theyre broken
10:15 < subzero> isn't another downside to testnet is there a bug in testnet difficulty that roasbeef talked about?
10:15 < sipa> eh, before downloading *blocks*
10:15 < nehan> sipa: jonatack: ok!
10:15 <@jnewbery> nehan: yes, there was an underflow bug with the minimum difficulty so they had to reset
10:16 < nehan> out-of-band communication necessary to agree on best blockchain
10:16 < pinheadmz> sipa robot-dreams and jonatack getting coins from a sendmany!
10:16 < jonatack> istm testnet suffers from large variance in block emission
10:16 < theStack> considering that mentioned drawback of testnet, it's kind of surprising to me that there have only been three generations of testnet yet (and not more)
10:16 < sipa> received 88f4ee78856ee88d6eeef3514821ddc6bfa89ca0b6c6146b6b21c8827eb83dd3 !
10:17 < notmandatory> pinheadmz: is another prob with testnet is since it's random miners it's harder to coordinate reproducing specific mining scenarios to test against?
10:17 < fjahr> re: PoW I assumed it would have been more code changes and more difficult to review the code if PoW was completely removed
10:17 < pinheadmz> notmandatory thats interesting and a good point
10:17 < sipa> fjahr: not to mention it being less representative of the real network
10:17 < b10c> will testnet3 be deprecated once signet is adopted?
10:17 < petemyers> Hi I'm new, I'm sorry I didn't say earlier.
10:17 < pinheadmz> if you WANT to test reorgs, its hard to coordinate one on a public network
10:17 < pinheadmz> hi petemyers !
10:17 < jonatack> welcome petemyers
10:18 < subzero> welcome petemyers
10:18 < petemyers> Thanks. Just lurking this time.
10:18 < michaelfolkson> No b10c, it will continue. No way to stop it even if we wanted to
10:18 < pinheadmz> Ok I'm going to push forward so we can get to more good stuff
10:18 < pinheadmz> What are some of the parameters that distinguish mainnet, testnet and signet? Which of these do the different networks have in common? What makes signet special?
10:18 < pinheadmz> lots of answers to this question
10:18 < michaelfolkson> But it could possibly get reset
10:18 < b10c> michaelfolkson: thanks
10:19 < emzy> I'm waiting for a block. Can someone please sign a new one? ;)
10:19 < robot-dreams> pinheadmz: one small difference is default ports are different: 8333 (mainnet), 18333 (testnet), 38333 (signet)
10:19 < pinheadmz> robot-dreams yes!!
10:20 < pinheadmz> robot-dreams is getting sig-rich over here!
10:20 < pinheadmz> anyone else?
10:20 < notmandatory> pinheadmz also of course different genesis blocks
10:20 < michaelfolkson> Only Kalle and AJ are block signers currently emzy
10:20 < pinheadmz> notmandatory yes!
10:20 < theStack> pinheadmz: unlike mainnet and testnet, on signet even the most powerful miner could never submit a block if he can't provide the right signature
10:20 < Alistair_Mann> bitcoin.conf contains signet=1 / or -signet on cli
10:20 < pinheadmz> theStack great point!!
10:21 < LarryRuane> if a group of people want to set up their own "private" signet, they'd have to choose different port numbers?
10:21 < michaelfolkson> Network magic too
10:21 < pinheadmz> LarryRuane good question, 0.001 sBTC for you -- does any one know?
10:21 < emzy> michaelfolkson: so who I call first?
10:21 < pinheadmz> michaelfolkson  yes!
10:21 < michaelfolkson> Whoever you want to wake up emzy ;)
10:21 -!- epson121 [d5953370@213.149.51.112] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:21 < robot-dreams> 🤯 I am at 0.1111 (if I'm lucky maybe I'll get to 0.11111111 by the end of this session)
10:21 < robot-dreams> 0.111*
10:22 < LarryRuane> changing port numbers and network magic is a source code change, or can be specified on the command line?
10:22 < pinheadmz> LarryRuane so i think you are right the ports defined in chainparams but that can be customized
10:22 < michaelfolkson> I think it is Kalle's script currently mining. So it would be him rather than AJ
10:22 < pinheadmz> LarryRuane however, the magic bytes would prevent yu from actually connecting to the wrong signet
10:23 <@jnewbery> powLimit is different between mainnet, regtest and signet
10:23 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:23 < emzy> Could be interesting to have another network magic on the same port...
10:23 < pinheadmz> jnewbery nice answer, a deep cut
10:23 < pinheadmz> i will donate your signet btc to charity
10:24 < jonatack> signet is the only chain where consensus.signet_blocks = true
10:24 < sipa> changing ports isn't strictly necessary, but it helps if people want to run both networks on one IP
10:24 <@jnewbery> thank you. benevolent bitcoiners fund please
10:24 < pinheadmz> jonatack great answer! yes i was about to go there
10:24 < pinheadmz> so signet is special, not just because it has different magic bytes or p2p ports but it is the only network where checking signet blocks is a thing!
10:25 -!- mango [~mango@c-73-71-224-94.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]     
10:25 < robot-dreams> LarryRuane: yeah, good question: you can specify the port as a command line argument `-port=<port>`, or in the config file; however, I don't think you set network magic this way
10:25 < pinheadmz> and we kinda touched on this next question already: How many signets are there? Could we start our own just for review club, and if so, how?
10:26 < theStack> pinheadmz: the sky is the limit :)
10:26 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:26 < pinheadmz> theStack correct! and if we wanted to create a unique signet right now, which `conesensus.______` property would we set ?
10:27 < michaelfolkson> robot-dreams LarryRuane: The network magic is set for the default Signet in the source code. If you set up a new Signet you would adjust it
10:27 < robot-dreams> pinheadmz: `signet_challenge`?
10:27 < jonatack> also the address format: the bech32 human readable parts vary between the chains: bc, tb, bcrt
10:27 < pinheadmz> michaelfolkson ooooh not just that.... but perhaps the magic bytes get set automatically soemhow ??!?!?!?!??!?!?!
10:27 < pinheadmz> robot-dreams correct!
10:27 < theStack> though i guess the practical limit would probably be the possible number of network magic combinations, i.e. ~2^32?
10:27 < pinheadmz> jonatack correct although we realized signet has the same human-readbale-part as testnet
10:28 < pinheadmz> theStack thats an interesting point
10:28 < pinheadmz> but even if we overflow the magic bytes, you can still have unlimited signet_challenge 's
10:28 < emzy> I think the max signets are 2^256
10:28 < emzy> * number of
10:29 < pinheadmz> emzy can you explain how you came up with that ?
10:29 < jonatack> note that -signet_challenge was just renamed from -signet_blockscript
10:29 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:30 < sipa> i'd say there is an infinity of possible signets... but once you get close to 2^128you run into problems with potential collisions across block hashes (if you care about those)
10:30 < emzy> pinheadmz: I just tought the magic has someting with the genisis hash in common. But not sure.
10:30 < pinheadmz> i jsut sent a sBTC sendmany to everyone!!! such great asnwers
10:30 < sunon> Less than infinity
10:31 < pinheadmz> emzy well this an interesting point. the magic bytes sort of help us identify peers on the correct network, but the actual "consensus rules" for block validation are set by signet_challenge
10:31 < pinheadmz> which, as sipa points out, could literally be anything
10:31 < LarryRuane> the help for -signet_challenge says "Blocks must satisfy the given script to be considered valid" ... what does satisfy mean in this case?
10:31 < emzy> pinheadmz: right
10:31 < pinheadmz> and while we're on that note - does anyone know what exactly signet_challenge is? what type of data that is?
10:31 < notmandatory> pinheadmz does the magic also prevent you from discovering and connecting to the wrong network peer nodes?
10:31 < pinheadmz> LarryRuane is on the right track
10:32 < robot-dreams> pinheadmz: not confident, but is it an arbitrary scriptPubKey?
10:32 < pinheadmz> notmandatory if you recieve a p2p message with the wrong magic bytes ,you just disconnect
10:32 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:32 < pinheadmz> robot-dreams correct! it is an output script
10:32 < pinheadmz> its sort of arbitrary, but it is the one thing that defines a signet network
10:32 < michaelfolkson> Any problems with setting up a Signet using the same network magic as an existing Signet network? I'm guessing you'll just get transactions and blocks sent to you you are not interested in?
10:32 < jonatack> yes...ParseHex(signet_challenge[0]), must be a single value
10:32 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:33 < pinheadmz> michaelfolkson correct it would be like connecting BTC nodes to BCH nodes :-/ (which IIRC have the same port and magic bytes? still? idk)
10:33 < sipa> michaelfolkson: it just means you won't immediately detect you're connected to the wrong network
10:33 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:33 < pinheadmz> right, you dont disconnect right away but youll figure it out soon enough when all the incoming blocks and txs are invalid
10:33 < sipa> right, exactly
10:33 < pinheadmz> so heres a quick bonus Q. the (default) signet_challenege in the PR is:
10:33 < pinheadmz> 512103ad5e0edad18cb1f0fc0d28a3d4f1f3e445640337489abb10404f2d1e086be430210359ef5021964fe22d6f8e05b2463c9540ce96883fe3b278760f048f5189f2e6c452ae
10:33 < pinheadmz> does anyone know what this means?
10:34 < pinheadmz> can transalte into english or at least bitcoin-speak?
10:34 < sipa> 51 is OP_1
10:34 < pinheadmz> hint: there is a single rpc command that can *ahem* DECODE this RAW SCRIPT
10:34 < sipa> 21 means push the next 33 bytes
10:34 < sipa> what follows looks like a pubkey
10:35 < pinheadmz> sipa is doing it in his head, of course
10:35 < jonatack>  bitcoin-cli -signet -datadir=signet decodescript
10:35 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:35 < pinheadmz> jonatack yes! so what is this default signet challenge all about ?
10:36 < emzy> decodescript works
10:36 < LarryRuane> pinheadmz "but youll figure it out soon enough" ... then what, ban those peers?
10:36 < jonatack> multisig 2 addresses
10:36 < pinheadmz> jonatack yep! 0.2 for you
10:36 < b10c> ae at the end is OP_CHECKMULTISIG
10:36 < pinheadmz> and what are the m of n values ?
10:36 < pinheadmz> b10c correct!
10:36 < sipa> LarryRuane: it's complicated
10:36 < jrawsthorne> Very late. This is my first time. Anyone want to be generous and send some coins tb1qsk6mtay6kzm9t0gx8lvu07g89d0ty6w4v4qzxm
10:36 < jrawsthorne> 1 of 2
10:37 < pinheadmz> jrawsthorne correct!
10:37 < pinheadmz> sending you worthless coins !
10:37 < pinheadmz> its a 1 of 2 multisig
10:37 < pinheadmz> that means there are two private keys that can mine blocks
10:37 < sipa> LarryRuane: we no longer ban misbehaving peers since recently; they just get discouraged (which means temporarily avoided for new connections, and prioritized for disconnection if we reach our connection limit)
10:37 < pinheadmz> probably that means two people
10:38 < pinheadmz> only one of those keys needs to sign for a signet block to be valid
10:38 < sunon> Two for that specific network?
10:38 < jonatack> sipa: fwiw signet is "Disconnecting and discouraging peer 49!" ~ every couple minutes
10:38 < b10c> one key belongs to kalle and one to AJ?
10:38 < michaelfolkson> For the default Signet
10:38 < sunon> Ah     
10:38 < michaelfolkson> Yes b10c
10:39 < pinheadmz> ok we are about to level up everyone -- any lingering questions before we move on to implementation details?
10:39 < sipa> jonatack: what is the reason? old signet nodes?
10:39 < pinheadmz> (man we really need a new block, im almost at my unconfrimed limit!)
10:39 < pinheadmz> ok here we go:
10:39 < jonatack> afaict it's only people running tor?
10:39 < pinheadmz> What are CMutableTransaction tx_to_spend and CMutableTransaction tx_spending? (Defined in src/signet.cpp) Who broadcasts these transactions?
10:39 < emzy> pinheadmz: you know who to call. ;)
10:40 < jonatack> curious if anyone else is seeing it
10:40 < pinheadmz> these structures are kinda new in this PR's life and actually BIP-325 was recently updated to include them
10:40 < jonatack> afaict usually signet by default connects only to one peer, unless you -addnode
10:40 < robot-dreams> pinheadmz: I think they are generated from a block, as a convenient way to reuse signature validation to check if the _block_ is valid for that signet
10:41 < sipa> robot-dreams: not just the verification, but signing also
10:41 < nehan> trick question: no one broadcasts them
10:41 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:41 < pinheadmz> nehan WINNER YES YE SY ES EY SYEYS EY
10:41 < pinheadmz> im so excited i cant type
10:41 < pinheadmz> isnt that just so interesting?
10:41 < sipa> it means all infrastructure that exista for agreeing on and signing transactions can be reused for signet signing
10:41 < nehan> yeah it's cute to leverage transaction verification for signet verification
10:41 < pinheadmz> we have these transactions that dont get broadcast at all
10:42 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:42 < pinheadmz> nehan getting 0.1 sBTC for answering my fav question in the meeting today
10:42 < sipa> they're imaginary transactions :)
10:42 < robot-dreams> sipa: is this signing done once per block?
10:42 < sipa> yes     
10:42 -!- lurker [49fce2af@c-73-252-226-175.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:42 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:43 < pinheadmz> so why are there two?
10:43 < pinheadmz> can anyone explain what is happening under the hood here?
10:43 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
10:43 < pinheadmz> we have these two hard-coded tx templates
10:43 < emzy> nice usage of transaction verification.
10:43 < nehan> one to specify the scriptPubKey and another to provide the scriptSig
10:43 < pinheadmz> and this signet_challenge
10:43 < felixweis> how do i get a taproot send/spend in a block, isn't it still non-standard so it won't be forwarded by nodes?
10:43 < pinheadmz> nehan correct!
10:43 < sipa> has signet forked in taproot already?
10:44 < pinheadmz> sipa  no
10:44 < michaelfolkson> You can only get a Taproot output in a block felixweis, not spend it
10:44 < pinheadmz> felixweis you can actually send coins to a witness V1 program right now
10:44 < pinheadmz> and that output is anyone can spend
10:44 < sipa> spending would be nonstandard
10:44 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:44 < pinheadmz> yeah and we talked a bit about this last week i think in a taproot review club meeting
10:45 < felixweis> is there a pushtx php script or so to get it to a miner?
10:45 < nehan> pinheadmz: i had to blow away my previous signet installation and i deleted my previous wallet :(
10:45 < pinheadmz> nehan me too :-( good thing coins are free
10:45 < jonatack> nehan: yup same
10:45 < pinheadmz> OK so we got these 2 Txs, and we know that the scriptPubKey in the output of the first tx is set by whoever launches the signet or sets it with command line argument
10:45 < nehan> was curious if there was some smart way to do this without deleting the wallet?
10:45 < pinheadmz> so the scriptSig and witness though...
10:46 < jonatack> nehan: reindex i thinx
10:46 < nehan> jonatack: did not work
10:46 < pinheadmz> nehan i found all my previous txs were actually abandoned. i think bc the chain reset. no reindex can save you in that state
10:46 < michaelfolkson> Yup same
10:46 < jonatack> nehan: oh :(
10:46 < nehan> pinheadmz: ah yeah the coinbases are new, ok
10:46 < jonatack> i didn't try, went straight for the rm -rf
10:47 < petemyers> I gotta go, thanks for letting me watch your discourse about sBTC txs! Toe in the water. A helpful prompt for what I need to read next. See you all next week.
10:47  * michaelfolkson waves
10:47 < pinheadmz> Ok 0.1 sBTC for the first answer: The tx_spending scriptSig and witness
10:47 < pinheadmz> where does it come from?
10:47 -!- petemyers [~petemyers@197.156.95.132] has quit []     
10:47 < robot-dreams> pinheadmz: from BIP325, "A block is considered fully validated only if the to_sign transaction is a valid spend of the to_spend transaction"
10:48 < pinheadmz> robot-dreams yes! so if I am a miner, how do I do that?
10:48 < pinheadmz> or, more in the scope of this PR - if I am A *validator* where do i look for that data ?
10:48 < nehan> it's somewehre in the coinbase
10:48 < robot-dreams> the witness commitment
10:48 < pinheadmz> coins for robot-dreams and nehan !
10:49 < pinheadmz> yeah its not really "in" the witness commitment right?
10:49 < pinheadmz> but, concatenated to it
10:49 < robot-dreams> right
10:49 < jonatack> CheckSignetBlockSolution()
10:49 < pinheadmz> and if kallewoof or aj were here maybe id get an answer to the double-bonus question
10:49 < sipa> isn't it a separate commitment?
10:49 < pinheadmz> maybe sipa has insight
10:49 < nehan> i was confused by the bip spec. why is bytes 1-5?
10:49 < pinheadmz> ha!     
10:49 < pinheadmz> sipa https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/947/files#r463053062
10:49 < nehan> Does that mean the first 5 bytes, or a variable length thing?
10:50 < robot-dreams> pinheadmz: follow-up question for double bonus, would it be harder to find the correct index (instead of just calling the existing `GetWitnessCommitmentIndex`) if we had a separate `OP_RETURN`?
10:50 < sipa> pinheadmz: ah indeed
10:50 < pinheadmz> robot-dreams thats a good insight
10:50 < sipa> not sure that's a good idea
10:50 < pinheadmz> it could just be to reduce that complexity
10:51 < pinheadmz> thered have to be a new function `getSignetCommitmentIndex` i suppose
10:51 < pinheadmz> and also another goal of signet we didnt mention yet is that we want it to otherwise be as close to mainnet as possible
10:51 < pinheadmz> so idk, miners add extra opreturns for different reasons all the time
10:51 < pinheadmz> but maybe the design motivation here is just change as little as possible
10:51 < sipa> perhaps
10:52 < sipa> it means that "real" consensus extensions (like a second witness...) can'
10:52 < sipa> use that same position
10:52 < pinheadmz> oh interesting
10:52 < pinheadmz> second witness ?
10:52 < pinheadmz> like an extension block comitment or something?
10:52 < sipa> for example
10:52 < sipa> highly hypothetical of course
10:53 < pinheadmz> good point, this signet spec limits other uses for that one opreturn
10:53 < pinheadmz> or compact filter comitment
10:53 < pinheadmz> but i think these could just as easily end up in theri own output anyway right?
10:53 < robot-dreams> sipa: is it more likely that other consensus extensions would use a new OP_RETURN or use bytes 39 onwards of the witness commitment?
10:53 < sipa> well signet in such a hypothetical scenario could adapt to either say "the second witness commitment goes after the signet one", or could move itself to the end
10:53 < jonatack> Kalle, 3 days ago: "I would like to avoid deviating from mainnet parameters as much as possible, permanently." https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18267#discussion_r484069009
10:53 < sipa> robot-dreams: who knows
10:53 < robot-dreams> fair enough :)
10:53 < sipa> not a big deal
10:54 < pinheadmz> Ok last 5 minutes!
10:54 < pinheadmz> Why was GetWitnessCommitmentIndex() moved? Was anything altered?
10:54 < subzero> is everyone else's signet chain tip: best=000000dcb98799f73c53bc720520064656e40af9e92611cc7e4af6b273eaa2f0 height=2514 ?
10:54 < pinheadmz> subzero yeah me too
10:54 < robot-dreams> subzero: yes
10:55 < nehan> subzero: yes
10:55 < sipa> 000000dcb98799f73c53bc720520064656e40af9e92611cc7e4af6b273eaa2f0
10:55 < sipa> (use getchaintips)
10:55 < pinheadmz> last question is more about the code than the concept
10:55 < pinheadmz> https://github.com/bitcoin-core-review-club/bitcoin/commit/9620f95e
10:55 < pinheadmz> why did the author do this?
10:55 < Alistair_Mann> subzero: yes
10:55 < emzy> new best=000000dcb98799f73c53bc720520064656e40af9e92611cc7e4af6b273eaa2f0
10:56 < jonatack> pinheadmz: i recall MarcoFalke asking for it to be moved a few months ago, ~June, but I'd have to look in the GH comments for why
10:56 < jonatack> subzero: same here
10:57  * subzero hmm if only there was a digital-only market for establishing chaintip :P
10:57 < pinheadmz> jonatack interesting yeah i think its a subtlty
10:57 < pinheadmz> i think it may be so signet.cpp doesnt have to refernece all of validation.cpp?
10:57 <@jnewbery> I assume so it can be used by other translation units that don't #include validation.h
10:57 < pinheadmz> yeah
10:58 < jonatack> something along the lines of don't mix your chocolate with my peanut butter
10:58 < pinheadmz> and one day maybe we can discuss why we have two vlaidation.cpp 's
10:58 < pinheadmz> ok last two minutes!
10:58 < pinheadmz> im going to make it rain on signet right now - coins for all!
10:58 -!- theStack [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]     
10:58 < pinheadmz> did we miss anyhting?
10:58 < pinheadmz> any last minute head-scratchers ?
10:58 < emzy> Free Coinz ;)
10:58 < notmandatory> will there be signet faucets?
10:58 < michaelfolkson> How close is this to being merged?
10:58 <@jnewbery> I have a question? Is the difficulty for the signet genesis block lower than the difficulty for the mainnet genesis block?
10:58 < pinheadmz> notmandatory yes there is one!
10:59 < pinheadmz> notmandatory https://signet.bc-2.jp/
10:59 < nehan> new address: tb1qq5946cjl9zyx93xdcjd6qqgt5zeu5wzxp2xnfp
10:59 < jonatack> pinheadmz: here it is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18267#discussion_r418574248
10:59 < pinheadmz> haha nehan is avoiding  address reuse, good practice
10:59 < notmandatory> pinheadmz, woo hoo free signet coins ;-)
10:59 < pinheadmz> jonatack nice find! thank you
10:59 < sipa> nehan: fwiw, you didn't need to delete your wallet
10:59 < emzy> I don't care. Is there a mixer for sBTC already?
10:59 < jonatack> ...or maybe GetWitnessCommitmentIndex was moved again after that
11:00 < pinheadmz> jnewbery good Q... i know they had to change something about just recently
11:00 < jonatack> new address: tb1qdef8vxrznlzr0yz6d56gsjldthc6tx5vzvypk5
11:01 <@jnewbery> maybe leave it as an exercise for the reader?
11:01 < nehan> sipa: it was an accident :)
11:01 < pinheadmz> OK thats our time friends !
11:01 < jonatack> jnewbery: iirc the difficulty was just readjusted
11:01 < pinheadmz> #endmeeting
11:01 < pinheadmz> thanks everyone for playing!
11:01 <@jnewbery> thanks pinheadmz. Great meeting!
11:01 < pinheadmz> super fun!
11:01 < robot-dreams> thanks!
11:01 <@jnewbery> I'm really going to have to raise my game
11:01 < Alistair_Mann> tyvm pinheadmz!
11:01 < jonatack> jnewbery: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18267#discussion_r483460766
11:01 < nehan> thanks pinheadmz!
11:01 < pinheadmz> i spent like 3 BTC
11:02 < emzy> Thanks pinheadmz!
11:02 < jonatack> pinheadmz: that was amazing
11:02 < b10c> Thanks!
11:02 < pinheadmz> 🌋 🌋 🌋
11:02 < jrawsthorne> Thanks for the free coins I can play around with
11:02 < subzero> "you get a sig-btc and you get a sig-btc and you get a sig-btc and ..."
11:02 < emzy> hehe
11:02 < pinheadmz> jrawsthorne sending more! why not.
11:03 < michaelfolkson> Thanks pinheadmz!
11:03 < Alistair_Mann> pacey, upbeat, pinheadmz = willy wonka, this PR his chocolate factory tour. very much enjoyed!
11:04 < pinheadmz> Alistair_Mann 🙏 Willy is one of my heros means a lot
11:04 < Alistair_Mann> :-D     
11:04 < pinheadmz> oh post-credits scene: did anyone build the GUI?
11:04 < pinheadmz> hows it look? anything unusual about it?
11:04 < subzero> please sur, may I have some tb1qyjsj4w9kpr88m7d8x9k3wtpfq3638e5kg4jk8w
11:05 < jrawsthorne> Thanks pinheadmz
11:05 < subzero> ty pinheadmz !
11:05 < subzero> fun meeting
11:05 < LarryRuane> sorry if I missed this, but what's the block explorer URL?
11:05 < pinheadmz> subzero sent!
11:05 < emzy> pinheadmz: yes I have the gui running
11:05 < subzero> pinheadmz  ty, got eefab9cba6bed2e3ff5daf1d42ec3d76214e0c58f13e6e8a7681c9736618f3c2
11:05 < pinheadmz> https://explorer.bc-2.jp/
11:05 < pinheadmz> LarryRuane ^^
11:06 < pinheadmz> emzy whaddaya think of the colors ?
11:06 < emzy> pinheadmz: no, nothing I saw.
11:06 < pinheadmz> emzy really? no bright yellow BTC logo? :-)
11:07 -!- Dylan21m [5dd9a5c6@p5dd9a5c6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:08 < emzy> pinheadmz: the splash screen is empty. But I'm using X11 on macos over ssh X-forward.. So hm.
11:08 < pinheadmz> oh interesting
11:08 < jonatack> Question: in CreateGenesisBlock(), is the difficulty determined by the bits parameter?
11:08 < subzero> I can see the explorer
11:08 < subzero> just loaded it
11:09 < LarryRuane> I'm also running the gui, it looks very nice (but I'm not familiar with the mainnet or testnet guis)
11:09 < emzy> pinheadmz: I can see it for 1sec at the start.
11:10 < emzy> my test pc is a old pc without monitor... :)
11:10 < pinheadmz> yeah for me on OSX the dock icon is also bright yellow
11:10 < pinheadmz> and the splash screen
11:10 < subzero> dock = tab?
11:10 < pinheadmz> yeah
11:10 < pinheadmz> o rlike app switcher command-tab
11:11 < jonatack> answering my own question: nBits does seem to set the difficulty
11:11 < pinheadmz> jonatack how do you find the genesis diff though? its not hard coded in chainparams
11:11 < pinheadmz> do you have to inspect the actual header?
11:11 < subzero> the dock/tab icon is the same I see on blockstream's esplora webserver next to the "bitcoin explorer" title
11:12 < jonatack> pinheadmz: in the calls from each chain to CreateGenesisBlock()?
11:12 < pinheadmz> subzero hm. whats your OS ?
11:12 < sipa> nBits is a (custom) compressed representation of the target (whose human-readable representation is difficulty)
11:12 < subzero> pinheadmz that's what I see through Tails
11:12 < pinheadmz> jonatack ooh gotcha
11:13 < jonatack> sipa: thank you
11:13 -!- epson121 [d5953370@213.149.51.112] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:13 < pinheadmz> main: 0x1d00ffff  signet: 0x1e0377ae
11:13 < jonatack> so to answer jnewbery's exercise, mainnet and testnet genesis blocks have the same difficulty, signet and regtest no
11:13 < pinheadmz> jonatack wait did i just read that wrong?
11:14 < pinheadmz> signet has a higher nbits / easier difficulty target
11:15 < jonatack> pinheadmz: a little higher; less than regtest
11:15 < jonatack> which makes sense?
11:16 < sipa> regtest has constant difficulty though
11:16 < sipa> while signet difficulty can fluctuate to whatever the signer like
11:16 < sipa> it's just a minimum
11:16 < jonatack> good point
11:20 -!- b10c [~b10c@fttx-pool-217.61.146.236.bambit.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
11:20 -!- b10c [~b10c@fttx-pool-217.61.146.236.bambit.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
11:23 < LarryRuane> How important is it that signet be DDOS-resistant? Is it important and that's why the signing is required?
11:24 < sipa> i think it is, to some extent
11:25 < LarryRuane> just curious, have people attacked testnet? (I know there have been accidental "attacks")
11:25 < jonatack> is anyone else seeing these every couple of minutes on signet? "Disconnecting and discouraging peer 62!"
11:26 < jonatack> e.g. "Disconnecting and discouraging peer n!"
11:26 < subzero> jonatack I am not and I'm on clearnet
11:27 < jonatack> subzero: thanks. in my previous testing i was on clearnet and did not see them either.
11:27 < sipa> LarryRuane: bitcoin's normal threat model doesn't consider the cost of block validation to be an issue, as blocks are extremely expensive to create
11:27 < Alistair_Mann> Only once, approx two hours ago here
11:28 < jonatack> Alistair_Mann: thanks. clearnet or onion?
11:28 < subzero> LarryRuane testnet often has highly chaotic behavior, one dev's attack is another dev's test case, there's often times when people need or want certain performance from testnet and there are characteristics of what's going on that are ill suited to that end
11:29 < LarryRuane> jonatack I'm not seeing those
11:29 < Alistair_Mann> clearnet only here
11:29 < jonatack> pinheadmz: after you launched your onion service an hour before the meeting, did you see those on signet?
11:30 < jonatack> LarryRuane: thanks
11:30 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
11:30 < jonatack> everyone only had one peer?
11:30 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:30 < jonatack> 178.128.221.177:38333
11:32 < Alistair_Mann> Implicit is four peers here:
11:32 < Alistair_Mann> 2020-09-09T17:31:49Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70016, blocks=2512, peer=0 (full-relay)
11:32 < Alistair_Mann> 2020-09-09T17:31:50Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70016, blocks=4015, peer=2 (full-relay)
11:32 < subzero> jonatack getpeerinfo shows only your called out peer, for me
11:32 < Alistair_Mann> 2020-09-09T17:31:50Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70016, blocks=2512, peer=1 (full-relay)
11:33 < Alistair_Mann> 2020-09-09T17:31:50Z New outbound peer connected: version: 70016, blocks=4015, peer=3 (full-relay)
11:33 < Alistair_Mann> 2020-09-09T17:31:51Z Disconnecting and discouraging peer 3!
11:34 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:35 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
11:35 < subzero> jonatack my debug.log shows I connected to two peers but getpeerinfo shows only one
11:36 < subzero> also new signet block released :]
11:37 -!- lurker [49fce2af@c-73-252-226-175.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:39 < jonatack> Alistair_Mann: rpc getpeerinfo indicates how many peers for you?
11:39 < jonatack> subzero: thanks
11:39 < subzero> jonatack do you want me to switch to toronly and test?
11:39 < Alistair_Mann> Just 178.128.221.177:38333 right now
11:40 < jonatack> subzero: sure. i've been testing listening both or clearnet and onion.
11:40 < subzero> jonatack k I will restart with onlynet=onion
11:40 < jonatack> nice
11:40 < jonatack> Alistair_Mann: makes sense
11:48 -!- tacticalminivan [4052f98a@64.82.249.138] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
11:49 -!- tacticalminivan [4052f98a@64.82.249.138] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews []     
11:50 -!- b10c [~b10c@fttx-pool-217.61.146.236.bambit.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
11:54 < subzero> jonatack hmm when I launch onlynet=onion i get "2020-09-09T18:51:45Z Cannot create socket for ntv3mtqw5wt63red.onion:38333: unsupported network"
11:55 < Alistair_Mann> I have that - and assumed it's because I'm not running a tor proxy
11:58 < jonatack> subzero: how about if you have tor running and just set listen=1 in your bitcoin.conf
11:58 < jonatack> and debug=tor if you like
11:59 < jonatack> (listen is on by default, unless -connect is used)
11:59 < jonatack> so just launch with tor running
12:00 -!- tryphe [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
12:01 -!- tryphe [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
12:03 -!- worc3131 [~quassel@2a02:c7f:c026:9500:7d0b:65d0:38a4:4786] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
12:03 < jonatack> subzero: onlynet=onion works for me on signet
12:04 -!- Alistair_Mann is now known as Alistair_Mann_AF     
12:04 -!- Alistair_Mann_AF is now known as AlistairMann_AFK     
12:04 -!- worc3131 [~quassel@2a02:c7f:c026:9500:7d0b:65d0:38a4:4786] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
12:05 < subzero> jonatack hmm maybe something's wrong with my tor setup, I show it running `brew services list` but when I start signnet daemon it cannot connect to tor "tor: Not connected to Tor control port 127.0.0.1:9051"
12:05 < subzero>  running curl https://check.torproject.org returns a successful tor connection though
12:06 < sipa> subzero: that's bitcoind trying to automatically create a hidden service for you
12:07 < sipa> the warning has no effect on the ability to make outgoing connections through tor
12:07 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@hst-227-49.splius.lt] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]     
12:08 < subzero> sipa ah ty, unfortunately debug still shows "Cannot create socket for ntv3mtqw5wt63red.onion:38333" which I interpret as it's not connecting to the peer's onion address, CMIIW
12:09 < sipa> yeah, indeed
12:09 < sipa> how are you configuring it?
12:10 < subzero> launching daemon with:      src/bitcoind -signet -datadir=$HOME/Library/Application\ Support/Bitcoin-signet -onlynet=onion -debug=tor
12:10 < sipa> ah you need to specify the tor proxy
12:10 < sipa> otherwise bitcoind can't know how to make such connections
12:11 < sipa> use -onion=localhost:9050 or so
12:11 < jonatack> maybe something like proxy=127.0.0.1:9050 or 9051
12:11 < sipa> or -proxy instead of -onion if you also want to use tor for non-hidden-service connections
12:15 < subzero> ok bingo! adding -proxy=127.0.0.1:9050 no longer prints debut connection errors.  Maybe because I don't understand the communication flow of the sockets but I assumed bitcoin would just try to talk to tor automatically on 127.0.0.1:9050
12:16 < sipa> good
12:18 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
12:18 < subzero> getpeerinfo showing empty though, debug shows two outbound connections, one with blocks=4015 (maybe that is nehan?)
12:19 -!- b10c [~b10c@fttx-pool-217.61.146.236.bambit.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
12:24 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
12:25 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
12:33 < jonatack> i've tried a few combinations of only onion and onion+clearnet and keep seeing the discouragement messages
12:35 < subzero> hmm, I seem to never show any getpeerinfo while onlynet=onion
12:35 < jonatack> i have the impression signet might not yet be on speaking terms with everything in the codebase, there may be some rough edges to smooth out
12:35 < subzero> maybe this is the reason why: "0 addresses found from DNS seeds"
12:35 -!- AlistairMann_AFK is now known as Alistair_Mann     
12:35 < subzero> reason I'm not having any getpeerinfo
12:36 < jonatack> oh wait... it's not finding my conf file in the signet folder... d'oh
12:38 < jonatack> subzero: "0 addresses found from DNS seeds" here too, but that's normal, right?
12:38 < subzero> as in, "normal for onlynet=onion"?
12:38 < jonatack> normal for signet
12:42 < subzero> jonatack I'm not sure of what typical behavior is, but, my debug files never show a non 0 value for that line
12:44 < sipa> is there a dns seed for signet at all?
12:44 < sipa> seems yes
12:45 < subzero> sipa I think there are: "Loading addresses from DNS seed 178.128.221.177" "Loading addresses from DNS seed 2a01:7c8:d005:390::5" "Loading addresses from DNS seed ntv3mtqw5wt63red.onion:38333"
12:45 < jonatack> you're right
12:45 < jonatack> i see those as well
12:46 < subzero> +1     
12:48 < aj> sipa: the signet commitment is identified within the witness commitment by 4-byte prefix, not position, so should be compatible with any other usage as long as the prefix doesn't clash
12:48 < jonatack> ok i made a new conf file in the right place, and no peers with onlynet=onion
12:48 < sipa> aj: ah!
12:54 < aj> sipa: (and if there is a prefix conflict, signet will pick the last push, so if the other thing(s) pick earlier ones, it's maybe okay-ish
12:55 < aj> )     
12:55 < pinheadmz> aj that answers my Q as well but design-wise, why not just add a coinbase output thats all your own?
12:56 < aj> pinheadmz: no idea!
12:56 < pinheadmz> lol ok
12:56 < aj> pinheadmz: is tb1q0mpex426da5y2f2q3s5us2469yr7k2hcd0xr07 you?
12:56 < jonatack> correction, with onlynet=onion, i still see peers connecting and then being disconnected and discouraged, and one onion peer: vpytsykcl4w4dr2x.onion:38333
12:57 < pinheadmz> hm maybe, who wants to know?
12:57 < pinheadmz> yes it is
12:57 < pinheadmz> aac71ed737fe861f6252b1ec99268d60bddaef0887f61329c4b7fad844c45e91 from faucet
12:58 < pinheadmz> oh shit you just made me hella rich
12:58 < pinheadmz> just seeing "1,000 BTC" is giving me a stomach ache
12:58 < aj> makin' it rain
12:58 < pinheadmz> gonna need a few more review clubs lol
12:59 < aj> well, there'll be a PR at some point with utils for mining custom signets
13:00 < pinheadmz> haha ok
13:01 < pinheadmz> oh i misread the blame, the commitment lcoaiton was orignially written by kallewoof
13:07 < aj> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-March/016754.html is the only related discussion i see; looks to me like the first signet bip draft had it as an extra push in the witness commitment
13:09 < pinheadmz> welp. I gotta ask more questions on the ML then from now on :-)
13:09 < aj> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-August/016348.html
13:18 < aj> felixweis: master+signet considers taproot spends non-standard, so they won't be relayed or mined. you could get a taproot tx in your own mempool by either setting -acceptnonstd or applying the taproot patches on top and setting activation flags, but your tx won't go anywhere or get mined in that case
13:19 < aj> felixweis: i have a patch series that isn't yet updated for the chain restart that does master+signet+taproot, and also uses a service-flag to allow people running that patchset to connect to each other so that the tx would get relayed amongst peers running those patches; and if a peer running one of those patches was also mining, then (in theory) things would work
13:19 < aj> felixweis: once things are nailed down a bunch more, maybe it'll be another review club for pinheadmz to run!
13:20 < pinheadmz> sure I see. pay me 1000 BTC then reset the chain. nice gag :-P
13:20 < aj> no, no chain resetting involved
13:22 < aj> (i mean i haven't updated the patch set for the chain restart that just happened the other day)
13:22 < pinheadmz> 🌋
13:23 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:30 -!- LarryRuane [62f5cc94@c-98-245-204-148.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
14:10 < felixweis>  aj: thanks, very insightful
14:31 -!- b10c [~b10c@fttx-pool-217.61.146.236.bambit.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
14:41 -!- Alistair_Mann [~am@2a00:23c7:9908:2f00:2934:83f1:95c9:f192] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]     
14:50 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
15:02 -!- lightlike [~lightlike@p200300c7ef17420094c0841c19b70bd0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:03 -!- thomasb06 [~user@eth-west-pareq2-46-193-0-224.wb.wifirst.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:15 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
15:17 -!- tryphe_ [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
15:19 -!- tryphe [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
15:34 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:34 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
15:49 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:50 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:51 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
15:52 -!- wullon587 [~wullon@241.243.86.88.rdns.comcable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:55 -!- gzhao408 [uid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kfbemauuxpkroatd] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
16:03 < subzero> jonatack I have yet to encounter a debug message of "Disconnecting and discouraging peer 62!" while running onlynet=onion
16:09 < aj> (the disconnecting and discouraging is just peers running signet code from a couple of days ago before the genesis block update, presumably)
16:13 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has quit [Quit: leaving]     
16:17 < subzero> aj ah, jonatack and I were poking around thinking maybe it was an issue with onlynet=onion
16:18 < subzero> that explanation makes sense because only when I ran on onlynet=onion did a see a peer with much higher chain tip hight ( assume that was before the genesis block update
16:22 < aj> subzero: 4015 was the height of the old chain, i think
16:22 < subzero> aj yep that was it
16:22 < aj> the new chain has more work though, despite the lower height (log2_work=32.804431 vs log2_work=33.995256)
17:07 -!- subzero [~subzero@195.181.160.175.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has quit [Quit: subzero]     
17:45 -!- seven_ [~seven@2a00:ee2:410c:1300:3c97:3a53:1ca2:c899] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
18:05 -!- troygiorshev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
18:25 -!- troygiorshev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
18:40 < kallewoof> once signet is merged into core, and has been rebased in the taproot pull request, it shouldn't be very hard to get taproot enabled on signet
20:06 -!- tralfaz [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
20:07 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
20:23 -!- wullon587 [~wullon@241.243.86.88.rdns.comcable.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
20:32 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
20:34 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
22:13 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
23:29 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
23:30 -!- sunon [~sunon@105-213-21-27.access.mtnbusiness.co.za] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
23:43 -!- tralfaz [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
23:43 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
23:51 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
23:53 -!- seven_ [~seven@2a00:ee2:410c:1300:8802:b46b:3786:7e5a] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews     
23:54 -!- seven_ [~seven@2a00:ee2:410c:1300:8802:b46b:3786:7e5a] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
23:55 -!- seven_ [~seven@2a00:ee2:410c:1300:8802:b46b:3786:7e5a] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews