--- Day changed Tue Oct 06 2020 00:50 -!- pinheadm_ [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 00:50 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:56 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:02 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:02 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: jaybny] 01:08 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 01:13 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:19 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:30 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: jaybny] 01:31 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 01:36 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:36 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:40 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 01:54 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:07 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 02:22 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:23 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:35 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:42 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.72.239] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:01 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:02 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:10 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:12 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:20 -!- Maia50Kris [~Maia50Kri@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:25 -!- Maia50Kris [~Maia50Kri@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:26 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:33 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: jamesob, moneyball__, gloriazhao, hebasto_, djinni` 03:34 -!- gloriazhao [uid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tiwtubynovndgvvr] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:34 -!- jamesob [sid180710@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qmddwxzkygwjtpel] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:34 -!- hebasto_ [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xkrsmngescjntfdi] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:34 -!- moneyball__ [sid299869@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-epbknxfxacmkodvz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:34 -!- djinni` [~djinni@static.38.6.217.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:42 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 03:59 -!- hebasto_ [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xkrsmngescjntfdi] has quit [] 03:59 -!- hebasto [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hzrmjxotcjffwsna] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:06 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:18 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:23 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:30 -!- pinheadm_ [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadm_] 04:31 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:32 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:47 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:55 < michaelfolkson> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99356/who-will-the-first-adopters-of-taproot-be-assuming-it-is-activated-at-some-stag/ 05:07 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:07 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host] 05:07 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:12 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.72.239] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 05:30 < pinheadmz> related: will sipa pay another $40 fee to send the first taproot spend? 05:36 < michaelfolkson> Is that what happened with SegWit? Haha 05:41 -!- thomasb06 [863be68d@leat141.unice.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:59 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 06:00 < pinheadmz> yeah :-) I think he actually ended up with the thrid segwit TX after all 06:07 < michaelfolkson> Because the fee wasn't high enough?! Or they were all in the same first block post activation? 06:09 < thomasb06> Hello. The transactions are verified in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/secp256k1/src/secp256k1.c only? 06:12 < michaelfolkson> Which transactions? General transactions? Signatures are verified using libsecp but everything else apart from cryptographic operations are verified by the main Core repo 06:12 < pinheadmz> michaelfolkson yeah i think a few ppl were trying to be "first" :-) 06:13 < thomasb06> General transaction, yes. 06:13 < pinheadmz> also had to create segwit output and spend form it in same block 06:13 < thomasb06> The equivalent of: 06:13 < thomasb06> "digest.verify ( pubkey, signature )" 06:13 -!- nothingmuch [~nothingmu@unaffiliated/nothingmuch] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.in] 06:13 < thomasb06> let me give a look at libsecp 06:16 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:19 < michaelfolkson> All the Taproot stuff is currently signed and verified within the test framework. That's not using libsecp 06:20 < michaelfolkson> (yet) 06:21 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:23 < michaelfolkson> You linked to the mirror of it thomasb06 06:23 < thomasb06> well, I was not thinking about Taproot but about standard transactions: I'm trying to make a bash script that verifies a random transaction on the blockchain, but starting with P2PK ones 06:23 < michaelfolkson> But all the PRs are opened to this repo https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1 06:24 < thomasb06> What do you mean by the 'mirror'? Ah, it's original version has shorter address 06:24 < thomasb06> Many thanks 06:24 < thomasb06> *its 06:25 < michaelfolkson> The code is the same but PRs are opened to the link I gave (I think) 06:26 < thomasb06> Wow, it's not to make a PR in libsepc... But thank you for the piece of information 06:27 < michaelfolkson> Yeah I'm just explaining the difference. You don't have to open a PR in libsecp :) 06:27 < thomasb06> lol... 06:28 < michaelfolkson> The mirror in bitcoin/bitcoin was updated 25 days ago 06:29 < thomasb06> Once the PRs are merged, they go to the mirror? 06:29 < michaelfolkson> Latest merge in the other repo is 9 days ago 06:29 < michaelfolkson> I think Pieter pulls changes in every so often 06:31 < michaelfolkson> Every few months it seems https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/src/secp256k1 06:31 < thomasb06> thank you for the explanation 06:32 < michaelfolkson> I didn't even realize it was in bitcoin/bitcoin. I thought it was always calling to the external repo 06:33 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:33 < thomasb06> the merges are solstices and equinoxes, hehe 06:35 < thomasb06> what is tomorrow review about, I didn't read John's page yet? 06:36 < pinheadmz> thomasb06 another way to put that is "release schedule" :-) 06:36 < thomasb06> pinheadmz your version sounds far more professional, I must admit 06:37 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:42 < michaelfolkson> John doesn't write the notes these days unless he's hosting. Amiti hosting tomorrow 06:47 < thomasb06> just read, P2P messages 06:50 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:52 < michaelfolkson> " All the Taproot stuff is currently signed and verified within the test framework" This is wrong I think. The test framework can sign and verify signatures but the Taproot PR also allows for verification of signatures (but not signing) using libsecp 06:52 < michaelfolkson> Don't listen to me :) 06:53 < pinheadmz> yeah i think thats right, the current taproot PR is just verification and consensus rules. I dont think it will allow bitcoind to sign with schnorr, etc. although that functionality is written in python in the test framework in order to generate TXs for bitcoind to verify 07:00 * thomasb06 has to go. See you tomorrow 07:00 < michaelfolkson> See ya 07:00 < thomasb06> ;p 07:01 -!- thomasb06 [863be68d@leat141.unice.fr] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:03 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:17 -!- nothingmuch [~nothingmu@unaffiliated/nothingmuch] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:28 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:32 -!- troygiorshev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:34 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:34 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:48 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:51 -!- tralfaz is now known as davterra 07:52 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:00 < Murch> pinheadmz, michaelfolkson: Seconded, from what I understand the PR is only consensus changes, no activation or actual usage of the new rules. 08:01 < sipa> correct 08:01 < sipa> bip340 signing is imlemented in libsecp, though 08:37 < Murch> Just reread the draft for Optech Newsletter #118. With the signet approach of using virtual transactions, how would that interact when the paid address requires a lock? I.e. an output only becomes valid at 680,000, but I'll be able to sign for it at that point? :musing: 08:38 < pinheadmz> the virtual tx that validates the signet block? 08:43 < sipa> Murch: some scripts probably just don't make sense as signet locking script 08:46 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 08:48 < pinheadmz> sipa the locktime and sequence of the virtual txs are hard coded arent they? or what ever the CTransaction default values are 08:48 < pinheadmz> https://github.com/bitcoin-core-review-club/bitcoin/blob/pr18267/src/signet.cpp#L68-L80 08:56 -!- dhruvm [~noreply@249.115.24.136.in-addr.arpa] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:58 < sipa> pinheadmz: yeah 09:01 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:04 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 09:13 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 09:22 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:29 < pinheadmz> sipa thinking about it though - is there a way to use sequence or locktime in the virtual tx to enforce that block timestamps always increase? 09:36 < sipa> pinheadmz: no 09:37 < sipa> as the virtual tx only depends on height, not on previous blocks 09:38 < harding> sipa, pinheadmz: although Murch mentioned signet, I think he was talking about kallewoof's proposal to update BIP322 generic signmessage, https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-October/018218.html . In that case, there could be quite a few cases where people would want to use scripts with OP_CLTV/OP_CSV. 09:38 < harding> Murch: you should probably reply on-list that perhaps the to_sign transaction should have flexible nLockTime and nSequence. 11:19 -!- tryphe_ [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:21 -!- tryphe [~tryphe@unaffiliated/tryphe] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 11:46 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:48 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:51 < Murch> ugh, I was confused, I meant the message singing proposal. 11:51 < Murch> Yeah! 11:53 < sipa> hmm, that's a good question 11:53 < pinheadmz> How would that work? In arbitrary message sign/verify you can't assume either party has a synced bitcoin node to query MTP for example 11:53 < sipa> what would the validation criteria be? 11:53 < sipa> the signature contains its own timestamp/locktime, and the verifier is supposed to show "this signature is only valid after time/block X" ? 11:53 < pinheadmz> could be like how x509 certs "expire" at a timestamp 11:54 < sipa> relative locktimes can't work at all, as you'd need to know when the address was created 11:56 < Murch> Did not mean to suggest that I had an answer, just that I was wondering how it would interact with timelocks :p 11:56 < Murch> kallewoof: ^ 12:01 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 12:02 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:02 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:05 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:06 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:15 -!- norisg [~nobody123@dslb-094-216-002-184.094.216.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:19 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 12:30 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:37 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:42 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 14:45 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:04 -!- worc3131 [~quassel@2a02:c7f:c026:9500:7d0b:65d0:38a4:4786] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:10 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:12 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:37 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadmz] 15:38 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:48 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:29 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:44 -!- troygiorshev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 17:36 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 17:50 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:58 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: jaybny] 18:31 -!- troygiorshev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:51 -!- tralfaz [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:54 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 18:56 -!- tralfaz is now known as davterra 19:45 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:55 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: jaybny] 19:58 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:58 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit] 20:39 < kallewoof> Murch sipa: what's the problem with assuming prover and verifier are in a synced up state and OP_CLTV/CSV being relative to the current state? 20:39 < kallewoof> For signmessage, I assumed that the code would do that for CLTV/CSV, but I haven't written it yet so there may be some problem with that approach 20:40 < sipa> kallewoof: what is the height at which the virtual transaction "output" was created? 20:40 < sipa> if a script says "this can be spent 10 blocks after creation", when is that? 20:42 < kallewoof> sipa: ahh, good point. i guess (1) if there's an actual UTXO that you are proving for, you can proof-of-fund that (i.e. add it as an actual input along with the proof). (2) if there isn't, then CLTV/CSV ... don't actually matter, do they? 20:43 < kallewoof> what is a case where you'd care about locktime for something that does't even exist yet? 20:44 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:46 < sipa> if what you're proving is "those who are able to spend funds sent to address X, agree with message M", i'd expect that such an address would in general permit spending without obeying the time/height lock too 20:48 < sipa> so i'd expect you to sign using an execution branch that doesn't involve timelocks, in that case 20:48 < sipa> as those tend to be for dealing with emergency situations 20:49 < kallewoof> Are you saying CLTV/CSV should be rejected in the to_spend tx? 20:50 < kallewoof> With the current set up, that might work, but it would be a pity if it unnecessarily broke some use case. 20:51 < sipa> for CSV maybe they can be treated as unconditionally valid, but trigger a "WRning: only valid after X blocks/seconds" or so 20:51 < sipa> kind of ugly still 20:52 < kallewoof> could add a "valid_in_future" result, too. 20:52 < kallewoof> so we have valid, valid_in_future, inconclusive, invalid 20:53 < sipa> yeah... kind of complex 20:53 < sipa> you can have combinations too... inconclusive_in_future :) 20:54 < kallewoof> oh, yeah 20:57 -!- tralfaz [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 20:59 < kallewoof> sipa: another idea is that the proof contains conditions, like "after X blocks" or "after timestamp Y"... then the verifier will see "this proof has conditions: [...]". not sure if that would make for good UI though 20:59 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 21:01 < sipa> kallewoof: yeah, those context modifiers could be part of the signature... with a marker explicitly setting timestamp, height, or relative time/block count 21:02 < sipa> but it would mean reporting them at verification time 21:02 < kallewoof> right. if i had a better idea what the actual attack scenario was, this might be a bit easier to reason about. 1. force myself to wait X blocks while lying that i don't have to. 2. ???? 3. profit. what is 2? 21:05 < kallewoof> the scenario is that this ISN'T an utxo, or they would include it as a proof of funds instead, and they don't have as you mentioned a way to coop-sign it despite not funding it yet. a... unilateral lightning channel close? i show state when i had all the funds to victim and "prove" that i can spend it. 21:07 < sipa> another option is that there is a single boolean in the proof, which sets all timestamps/height/ages infinitely far in the futurr 21:08 < sipa> and the verifier is supposed to show a "this is only proof of spendability at some unspecified time in the future" 21:08 -!- tralfaz is now known as davterra 21:09 < sipa> a smarter verifier could actually report the exact conditions; they don't strictly need to be known up front 21:27 < kallewoof> sipa: that would address the case of actual UTXO:s with CSV/CLTV encumbrances that are in the future. It seems kinda confusing though. Simply adding {valid|inconclusive}_in_future to deal with (1) CLTV/CSV inside the to_spend transaction and (2) CLTV/CSV that are not yet expired in UTXO:s in inputs. Question is if (1) and (2) *should* be handled the same though. 21:28 < kallewoof> (Simply adding [...] sounds more straightforward. Question is [...]) 21:57 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 21:59 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:13 < kallewoof> I updated https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1003 with a suggestion on doing this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1003/commits/d0c5bdb450876fc6e1e047f7be26363b5c355968 (second commit atm) 22:36 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:10 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:14 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:14 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer] 23:14 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:14 -!- ares_ [~ares@gateway/tor-sasl/virtu] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:14 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has quit [Write error: Connection reset by peer] 23:14 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:15 -!- jb55 [~jb55@gateway/tor-sasl/jb55] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:18 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:19 -!- sipa [~pw@gateway/tor-sasl/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:19 -!- ares_ [~ares@gateway/tor-sasl/virtu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:24 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 23:33 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:41 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]