--- Log opened Wed Jul 07 00:01:00 2021
02:02 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@static-198-54-132-90.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
02:05 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@static-198-54-132-170.cust.tzulo.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
03:24 -!- davterra [~davterra@178.128.106.205] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:50 -!- commmon [~common@096-033-221-075.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
05:47 -!- promag_ [~promag@188.250.84.129] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
05:47 -!- promag [~promag@188.250.84.129] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
06:17 -!- davterra [~davterra@178.128.106.205] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
06:20 -!- okkoo [~okkoo@dslb-002-203-132-071.002.203.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
06:21 -!- okkoo is now known as Calle
06:21 -!- Calle is now known as Calle_B
07:10 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@user/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net]
07:12 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@user/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
07:22 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@user/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net]
07:24 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@user/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:08 -!- tydffghfghj [~tydffghfg@p5dfc235d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:54 -!- stickies-v [~stickies-@static-84-9-45-141.vodafonexdsl.co.uk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:36 -!- b10c [uid500648@id-500648.charlton.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:37 -!- Zero-1729 [~Zero-1729@197.210.71.111] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:38 -!- n00buntu [~n00buntu@41.212.31.173] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:39 -!- Zero-1729 [~Zero-1729@197.210.71.111] has quit [Client Quit]
09:39 -!- n00buntu [~n00buntu@41.212.31.173] has quit [Client Quit]
09:39 -!- n00buntu [~n00buntu@41.212.31.173] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:48 -!- glains201 [~glains201@mobile-107-77-202-119.mobile.att.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:48 -!- glains201 [~glains201@mobile-107-77-202-119.mobile.att.net] has quit [Client Quit]
09:50 -!- observer9 [~observer@cpe-23-242-148-67.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:53 -!- erik66 [~erik@181-191-0-203.uplinkx.com.br] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:54 -!- Lololopop [~Lololopop@dynamic-046-114-034-054.46.114.pool.telefonica.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:00 < glozow> #startmeeting
10:00 < jnewbery> hi!
10:00 < glozow> Welcome to PR Review Club everyone!!! Feel free to say hi :)
10:00 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:00 < b10c> hi
10:00 < sipa> hi
10:00 < glozow> lurkers welcome too
10:00 < sipa> hi, lurking
10:01 < stickies-v> hi
10:01 -!- Lololopop [~Lololopop@dynamic-046-114-034-054.46.114.pool.telefonica.de] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
10:01 < glozow> we're looking at #22363 today: Use `script_util` helpers for creating P2{PKH,SH,WPKH,WSH} scripts
10:01 -!- ben77 [~ben@189.122.121.102] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:01 < glozow> Notes are here: https://bitcoincore.reviews/22363
10:01 -!- Azorcode [~Azorcode@201.210.188.213] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:01 -!- Zero-1729 [~Zero-1729@197.210.71.77] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:01 < glozow> Did anyone get a chance to review the PR? y/n
10:02 < glozow> And did anyone get a chance to look at the notes (or fill out the table)?
10:02 < b10c> y
10:02 < jnewbery> concept y
10:02 -!- remember [~remember@195.181.160.175.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:03 < remember> hi
10:03 < stickies-v> concept y
10:03 < glozow> First question: What do `key_to_p2pkh_script`, `script_to_p2sh_script`, `key_to_p2wpkh_script` and `script_to_p2wsh_script` in wallet\_util.py do?
10:03 -!- svav [~svav@82-69-86-143.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:04 < Azorcode> Hi everyone
10:04 < svav> Hi
10:05 < b10c> specifically in wallet_util.py?
10:05 < stickies-v> I think you mean script_util.py, right?
10:05 < glozow> oh wait sorry, they are in script_util.py
10:05 < glozow> yes
10:06 -!- LarryRuane [~LarryRuan@c-98-245-204-148.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:06 < glozow> was going off of an old version of my notes
10:06 < jnewbery> They're helper functions that take a key/script and return a CScript object
10:06 < b10c> they are used to create scripts for different types of script templates
10:06 < glozow> jnewbery: b10c: yep! 
10:06 < stickies-v> I think they provide convenience wrappers around the CScript constructor, with default opcodes etc
10:06 < jnewbery> where the CScript object is a P2PKH/P2SH/etc
10:07 < glozow> stickies-v: yes!
10:08 < glozow> let's define some terminology with the word "script" in them: script code, witness script, redeem script, scriptPubKey,
10:08 < glozow>     scriptSig
10:08 < glozow> what do these mean?
10:08 < LarryRuane> script code = sequence of operations (some of which may be just pushing values on the stack)
10:09 < jnewbery> scriptPubKey - this is in the TxOut and encumbers the output with spending conditions
10:09 < b10c> scriptSig = script part in the transaction input
10:10 < remember> scriptSig predicate that satisfies the scriptPubKey
10:10 < remember> a predicate *
10:10 < glozow> jnewbery: b10c: remember: yep! those are our names for the scripts in inputs and outputs, which we can see in the code here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/primitives/transaction.h
10:10 < LarryRuane> scriptSig = script code that is placed before the scripPubKey when evaluating if an input unlocks the output
10:11 < sipa> not "placed before" since somewhere in 2010; it's evaluated first, and the resulting stack is fed as initial state for the scriptPubKey is evaluated
10:11 < jnewbery> LarryRuane: scriptCode actually has a specific meaning
10:11 < glozow> LarryRuane: I suppose we could use "script code" colloquially to mean the "code" evaluated in scripts, but scriptCode also has a meaning defined in BIP143
10:12 < sipa> it has a meaning since long before segwit
10:12 < glozow> oop 🤭
10:13 < jnewbery> here's that change in 2010: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6ff5f718b6a67797b2b3bab8905d607ad216ee21#diff-27496895958ca30c47bbb873299a2ad7a7ea1003a9faa96b317250e3b7aa1fefR1114-R1124
10:14 < glozow> okie so we still need definitions for witness script and redeem script, any takers?
10:15 < stickies-v> redeem script I would think is the full script that satisfies a p2sh?
10:16 < b10c> it's not the full scriptPubkey
10:16 < b10c> only the last data push
10:17 < glozow> stickies-v: ya i agree with that answer
10:17 < glozow> and witness script?
10:18 < b10c> a witness script belongs to an input spending a SegWit output
10:18 < glozow> (does anyone want to answer: what's a witness?)
10:18 < LarryRuane> Witness script is part of the tx input (but not included in the txid hash), and it's placed into the execution to-do list (probably using the wrong terms here) after the special segwit pattern is seen, 0,32-byte-hash
10:19 < remember> whatabout "A witness script is to segwit txns as scriptSig is to non-segwit txn" ?
10:19 < remember> accurate?
10:20 -!- merkle_noob [~merkle_no@129.0.212.252] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:20 < LarryRuane> remember: I think that's pretty close to my understanding
10:20 < stickies-v> I think it's the segwit equivalent of a redeem script?
10:21 < b10c> remeber: agree for native SegWit, when nesting the script in a P2SH construction you still have data in the scriptSig
10:21 < stickies-v> so in other words, witness script is P2WSH and redeem script is P2SH?
10:22 < remember> "segwit txn" is probably not specific enough :]
10:22 < remember> in my analogy
10:23 < sipa> taproot doesn't have a "witness script", so the term is kind of specific to P2WSH
10:23 < sipa> (and P2SH-P2WSH)
10:23 < b10c> oh witness script != witness
10:24 < sipa> it is the script being actually executed in P2WSH
10:24 < sipa> like the redeemscript is the actually executed script in P2SH
10:24 < glozow> remember: I'd say witness: segwit txn as scriptSig: non-segwit txn
10:24 < sipa> yeah ^
10:24 < glozow> and witness script : segwit txn as redeemScript: non-segwit txn
10:25 < sipa> s/segwit txn/P2WSH input/
10:25 < glozow> in a P2WSH, witness = a stack of input data + witness script
10:25 < remember> +1
10:25 < sipa> and s/non-segwit txn/P2SH input/
10:25 < jnewbery> or maybe "witness script is to P2WSH output as redeem script is to P2SH output"
10:25 -!- effexzi [uid474242@id-474242.charlton.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:25 < jnewbery> There's a good summary here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/95236/26940
10:26 < glozow> oooh wonderful, thanks past sipa for providing the answer to Question 2!
10:26 < glozow> and jnewbery for sharing the link :D
10:27 < LarryRuane> I'm confused about this part of p2wpkh: once the stack has the special pattern 20-byte-hash,0, then magically the command set (to-do list) becomes the standard p2pkh sequence, sig, pubkey, OP_DUP, OP_HASH160, 20-byte-hash, OP_EQUALVERIFY, OP_CHECKSIG .... my question is, is THAT the witness? Or is this sequence "manufactured" on the fly, and the
10:27 < LarryRuane> witness has only the signature and pubkey?
10:28 < sipa> the witness is what is encoded in the input
10:28 < sipa> so the pubkey and signature
10:28 < LarryRuane> got it, thanks
10:28 < sipa> and it's not the stack that has a special pattern; it is the scriptPubKey or redeemScript that has to be in the form "OP_0 <20 byte push>"
10:28 -!- satoshi [~satoshi@cpe-172-114-38-221.socal.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:29 -!- honeybadger [~honeybadg@vps1648322.vs.webtropia-customer.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:29 < sipa> for P2WPKH validation rules to trigger
10:29 < LarryRuane> i see, that's very helpful thanks
10:30 < glozow> and the interpreter sees that pattern and knows to use the script code OP_DUP OP_HASH160 20Bhash OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG with the witness yeah?
10:30 < sipa> righty
10:30 < sipa> -y
10:30 < glozow> woot! next question is a light one: What does the opcode OP_HASH160 do?
10:31 < stickies-v> it first hashes with SHA-256 and then RIPEMD-160
10:31 < glozow> stickies-v: correct!
10:32 < glozow> ok now let's start going over the script output types table
10:32 < glozow> Review of P2PKH: to send coins to someone by public key hash (pre-segwit), what is included in the scriptPubKey of the output? What is included in the scriptSig?
10:33 < jnewbery> LarryRuane: here's the P2WPKH execution constructing that sequence, which later gets fed into EvalScript: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4129134e844f78a89f8515cf30dad4b6074703c7/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1906-L1911
10:34 < LarryRuane> and OP_SHA256 and OP_RIPEMD160 are also opcodes, so (IIUC) OP_HASH160 is just a convenient shortcut
10:34 < b10c> scriptPubKey: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 OP_PUSHBYTES_20 20-byte-hash OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
10:34 < b10c> scriptSig: signature and pubkey
10:34 < glozow> LarryRuane: righto
10:35 < glozow> b10c: winner!
10:35 < glozow> Same question for P2SH: to send coins to someone with spending conditions encoded in a script, what is included in the scriptPubKey of the output? What needs to be provided in the scriptSig when the coin is spent?
10:36 < b10c> scriptPubKey: OP_HASH160 OP_PUSHBYTES_20 20-byte-hash OP_EQUAL
10:37 < LarryRuane> scriptPubKey: hash160, hash, EQUAL  ....... scriptSig: pubkey, sig, redeemscript
10:37 < LarryRuane> the redeem script itself is: pubkey, OP_CHECKSIG
10:38 < b10c> scriptSig: <stuff needed for redeemscript> redeemscript
10:38 < glozow> LarryRuane: ah i suppose that's a specific script
10:38 < glozow> I like b10c's answer, which is for a generic redeemScript
10:39 < b10c> I'm not sure on my terminology though :D
10:40 < LarryRuane> yes, guess I was only giving the simplest version (single-sig), but it's much more general, as b10c said
10:40 -!- Zero-1729 [~Zero-1729@197.210.71.77] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
10:40 < glozow> both good answers :)
10:40 < glozow> And Why do we use Pay-To-Script-Hash instead of Pay-To-Script?
10:41 < b10c> privacy
10:41 < LarryRuane> I think the TXO is smaller (and when it's still a UTXO, that's very helpful for resource use), and also it's more secure (in some future where ECDSA is broken)
10:42 -!- Zero-1729 [~Zero-1729@197.210.76.94] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:42 < stickies-v> it pushes the cost burden of having complex scripts to the receiver, who designed the script in the first place
10:42 < remember> some reduction to chain bloat, some privacy, some marginal QC benefits
10:42 < b10c> privacy (until we spend it)*
10:42 < remember> stickies-v good point about block-space cost alignment
10:42 < glozow> b10c: LarryRuane: stickies-v: remember: great answers!
10:42 < jnewbery> b10c: ha! was about to say "until it gets spent". I don't think privacy is the reason here
10:42 < LarryRuane> Oh, and especially it's good with multisig, because the address that you have to give to the payer is much smaller (right?)
10:43 < b10c> spender pays for it's own large script, not the one who pays him
10:43 < glozow> I hadn't thought about the small scriptPubKey part before
10:43 < LarryRuane> (i mean, smaller than multisig without P2SH)
10:43 < glozow> I imagine P2SH predates ultra prune but idk
10:43 < jnewbery> The "motivation" section for BIP16 is very short, but it contains the key point: "The purpose of pay-to-script-hash is to move the responsibility for supplying the conditions to redeem a transaction from the sender of the funds to the redeemer."
10:43 -!- merkle_noob is now known as Glen
10:43 < LarryRuane> probably but the UTXO set has to be maintained by all full nodes
10:44 < remember> I think we would design P2SH differently today given what we know
10:44 < b10c> jnewbery: yeah, agree after thinking about it :)
10:44 < jnewbery> And the second point: "The benefit is allowing a sender to fund any arbitrary transaction, no matter how complicated, using a fixed-length 20-byte hash that is short enough to scan from a QR code or easily copied and pasted."
10:44 < jnewbery> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki#motivation
10:44 < stickies-v> jnewbery: arguably it's still good for privacy though? e.g. not exposing that you have timelocks in your script until after the outputs are spent is a privacy benefit, no?
10:45 < stickies-v> although maybe that's more security than privacy
10:45 < remember> stickies-v I'd say it's both (though the privacy benefit expires at spending)
10:46 < stickies-v> agreed!
10:47 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@user/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
10:47 < glozow> Okie dokie let's continue with the questions.
10:47 < glozow> Review of P2SH-P2WSH: What is the purpose of “P2SH wrapped segwit” outputs? When a non-segwit node validates a P2SH-P2WSH input, what does it do?
10:48 < glozow> And the other part of the question is: When a node with segwit enabled validates a P2SH-P2WSH input, what does it do in addition to the procedure performed by a non-segwit node?
10:48 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@user/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:48 < LarryRuane> purpose is, in case you are asking for a payment from someone with an old wallet, so the segwit address you'd like to give the person won't work ... so you can give the payer what looks exactly like a P2SH address
10:49 < b10c> P2WH wrapped segwit in general: the sender doesn't need to add segwit-sending support on his side if the recipient wants to use segwit
10:49 < LarryRuane> so the TXO is *not* segwit, but the corresponding (later) input *is*
10:49 < jnewbery> stickies-v: I'm not sure that's how we usually think about privacy. If it needs to be revealed in future, then you could argue that it's not really private.
10:50 < stickies-v> thanks for clearing that up, jnewbery, makes sense!
10:51 < glozow> LarryRuane: b10c: right!
10:51 -!- hex17or [~hex17or@gateway/tor-sasl/hex17or] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:52 -!- hex17or [~hex17or@gateway/tor-sasl/hex17or] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:52 < glozow> So we have a scriptPubKey that looks like a P2SH, and both a scriptSig and a witness. What does a nonsegwit node do to validate it? And what does a segwit node do?
10:52 -!- glainsok291 [~glainsok2@mobile-107-77-202-119.mobile.att.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:53 -!- glainsok291 [~glainsok2@mobile-107-77-202-119.mobile.att.net] has quit [Client Quit]
10:54 < b10c> a non-segwit node just hashes the 22 bytes and compares them (OP_EQUAL) to the hash in the scriptPubKey 
10:55 < glozow> b10c: yep! they don't know how to deal with the witness stuff, but they'll verify the hash matches
10:55 < LarryRuane> the nonsegwit node verifies that the redeem script hash is correct, then runs the redeem script, however, it's just OP_0 and a 20-byte-hash, so push those on the stack, and since top element is nonzero, done, success
10:55 < glozow> LarryRuane: *chefs kiss 😗 👌
10:56 < b10c> a segwit node verifies the signature+pubkey (for Nested P2WPKH) or the witness script (for Nested P2WSH) 
10:56 < glozow> b10c: yep!
10:56 < LarryRuane> of course the segwit node then goes on to notice this special pattern, and then it does the usual segwit verification
10:56 < glozow> Ok so #22363 fixes a bug in here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/091d35c70e88a89959cb2872a81dfad23126eec4/test/functional/test_framework/wallet_util.py#L109
10:56 -!- chat43 [~chat43@ip5f5bd6eb.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:56 < LarryRuane> mind-bending but brilliant
10:56 < glozow> what's the bug? :)
10:57 -!- Azorcode [~Azorcode@201.210.188.213] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
10:57 -!- Zero-1729 [~Zero-1729@197.210.76.94] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
10:58 < LarryRuane> forgot to hash the witness_script, so the OP_EQUAL will never return 1 (true)
10:58 < b10c> should be `hash160(witness_script)` and not `witness_script`
10:58 < glozow> LarryRuane: b10c: bingo!
10:58 < jnewbery> who would do something like that?!
10:59 < glozow> gotta pull out the `git blame`
10:59 < LarryRuane> JOHHHHHHNNNN! but i guess this bug wasn't operative, because this part of the test wasn't used (?)
10:59 < jnewbery> 😳
10:59 -!- Zero-1729 [~Zero-1729@197.210.76.94] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
11:00 < glozow> yep! we've run out of time for the last 2 questions, but they'd be good to include in your review (hopefully everyone will be posting a review after this!)
11:00 < jnewbery> peep peep peeeeeep. That's full time. Let's not go to penalties.
11:01 < glozow> yep! we've run out of time for the last 2 questions, but they'd be good to include in your review (hopefully everyone will be posting a review after this!)
11:01 < glozow> #10: Can you think of test vectors for `get_multisig`?
11:01 < glozow> #11: Can you find any other places in functional tests that could use the script_util.py helper functions instead of manually creating scripts?
11:01 < glozow> #endmeeting
11:01 -!- erik66 [~erik@181-191-0-203.uplinkx.com.br] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
11:01 < jnewbery> Thanks for hosting glozow!
11:01 < glozow> Thanks everyone for coming :D 
11:01 < jnewbery> Next week, LarryRuane is going to do a special session on using GDB. You won't want to miss it!
11:01 < LarryRuane> yes thanks glozow, and everyone else, this was great!
11:02 < stickies-v> super interesting, thanks for hosting my first PR review meeting glozow, will definitely be back for more! and thanks everyone for the great discussion
11:02 < b10c> thanks glozow! nice refresher and I found the terminology review (question 3) super helpful 😬 😬 😬
11:02 < svav> Thanks glozow and everyone
11:02 < remember> ty glozow, great answers everyone
11:02 < glozow> here's my answers to the worksheet in the notes: https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/Jv45YVOf/image.png
11:02 < stickies-v> yeah +1 b10c, that was a very nice extra
11:03 < glozow> really glad to hear that this was helpful :)
11:03 -!- chat43 [~chat43@ip5f5bd6eb.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
11:04 < Zero-1729> thanks glozow and everyone! Really insightful session 👍🏽
11:04 < b10c> glozow please add the full worksheet on the notes page too (maybe with a SPOILER tag)
11:04 < remember> +1 b10c 
11:05 < glozow> b10c: yepyep, doing it asap
11:05 -!- stickies-v [~stickies-@static-84-9-45-141.vodafonexdsl.co.uk] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:08 -!- ben77 [~ben@189.122.121.102] has quit [Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)]
11:12 -!- satoshi [~satoshi@cpe-172-114-38-221.socal.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)]
11:14 -!- Zero-1729 [~Zero-1729@197.210.76.94] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
11:18 -!- observer9 [~observer@cpe-23-242-148-67.socal.res.rr.com] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews []
11:19 -!- svav [~svav@82-69-86-143.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
11:38 -!- Glen is now known as merkle_noob
11:38 -!- merkle_noob [~merkle_no@129.0.212.252] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews []
12:16 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
13:04 -!- Lololopop [~Lololopop@dynamic-046-114-034-054.46.114.pool.telefonica.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
13:04 -!- Lololopop [~Lololopop@dynamic-046-114-034-054.46.114.pool.telefonica.de] has quit [Client Quit]
13:17 -!- merkle_noob [~merkle_no@129.0.212.252] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
13:25 -!- effexzi [uid474242@id-474242.charlton.irccloud.com] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
13:36 -!- b10c [uid500648@id-500648.charlton.irccloud.com] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
14:12 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher
14:15 -!- remember [~remember@195.181.160.175.adsl.inet-telecom.org] has quit [Quit: remember]
16:11 -!- thebatzuk [~thebatzuk@189.154.160.27] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
16:12 -!- thebatzuk [~thebatzuk@189.154.160.27] has quit [Client Quit]
16:15 -!- merkle_noob [~merkle_no@129.0.212.252] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews []
16:47 -!- tydffghfghj [~tydffghfg@p5dfc235d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
17:02 -!- n00buntu [~n00buntu@41.212.31.173] has quit [Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)]
17:22 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@user/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
17:24 -!- belcher [~belcher@user/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:56 -!- promag_ [~promag@188.250.84.129] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:57 -!- promag [~promag@188.250.84.129] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
18:15 -!- willcl_ark [~quassel@user/willcl-ark/x-8282106] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:25 -!- sdfsdf [~sdfsdf@pool-71-112-217-72.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
18:26 -!- willcl_ark [~quassel@user/willcl-ark/x-8282106] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
18:31 -!- sdfsdf [~sdfsdf@pool-71-112-217-72.pitbpa.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
19:05 -!- hex17or [~hex17or@gateway/tor-sasl/hex17or] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
19:08 -!- hex17or [~hex17or@gateway/tor-sasl/hex17or] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
20:36 -!- hex17or [~hex17or@gateway/tor-sasl/hex17or] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
20:38 -!- hex17or [~hex17or@gateway/tor-sasl/hex17or] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
22:40 -!- commmon [~common@096-033-221-075.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:43 -!- Calle_B [~okkoo@dslb-002-203-132-071.002.203.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
22:48 -!- Pasha [~Cory@user/pasha] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
23:31 -!- hex17or [~hex17or@gateway/tor-sasl/hex17or] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
23:31 -!- hex17or [~hex17or@gateway/tor-sasl/hex17or] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
--- Log closed Thu Jul 08 00:00:00 2021