--- Log opened Wed Feb 07 00:00:53 2024
00:20 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
00:42 -!- abubakarsadiq [uid602234@id-602234.hampstead.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
01:54 -!- ghost43_ [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:54 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
01:54 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:02 -!- lbia1 [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:03 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
02:05 -!- lbia1 [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
02:11 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:14 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
02:15 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.200] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
02:16 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:16 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:17 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:20 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:23 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
02:28 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:40 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
02:40 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:44 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.202] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
02:45 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.200] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
03:17 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
03:21 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
03:26 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
03:28 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
03:37 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
03:39 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
03:46 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
03:51 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.200] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
03:53 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.198] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
03:58 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
04:04 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.198] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
04:06 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
04:14 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
04:22 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
04:24 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
04:28 -!- kevkevin_ [~kevkevin@2601:241:8703:7b30:c17d:def7:5d46:60cf] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
04:31 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@2601:241:8703:7b30:f4db:5112:fe30:8c67] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
04:33 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
04:36 -!- jon_atack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
05:46 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
07:00 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
07:46 -!- maflcko [~none@107.172.8.183] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2+deb2build5 - https://znc.in]
07:46 -!- maflcko [~none@107.172.8.183] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
07:58 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:07 -!- GregTonoski [~GregTonos@188.146.121.103] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:11 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:15 -!- vmammal [~vmammal@107.181.222.132] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:16 -!- GregTonoski [~GregTonos@188.146.121.103] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
08:44 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.202] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:46 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.200] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:50 -!- Guest4 [~Guest4@14.52.118.46] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:51 -!- Guest4 [~Guest4@14.52.118.46] has quit [Client Quit]
08:52 -!- Guest4 [~Guest4@14.52.118.46] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:57 -!- GregTonoski [~GregTonos@188.146.121.103] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:57 -!- Ayelen [~ayelen@181.29.127.131] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:58 -!- alfonsoromanz [~alfonsoro@181.29.127.131] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:58 -!- Guest42 [~Guest42@212.129.82.195] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:59 -!- dberkelmans [~dberkelma@2001:1c03:530a:1800:287b:617f:c49e:24dc] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
08:59 -!- hernanmarino [~hernanmar@2800:2130:2800:3f::b9fe] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:00 < abubakarsadiq> #startmeeting
09:00 < vmammal> hi
09:00 < abubakarsadiq> hi
09:00 < Guest42> hi
09:00 < alfonsoromanz> hi
09:00 < Guest4> hi
09:00 < dberkelmans> hi
09:00 -!- henmeh [~henning@2a02:8070:4686:d820:2599:2c62:820a:e7a3] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:00 < hernanmarino> hi 
09:00 < cguida> hi
09:00 < GregTonoski> hi
09:01 < abubakarsadiq> Hello everyone today we are looking at PR #28950 authored by instagibbs, notes and question are available here https://bitcoincore.reviews/28950
09:01 < Ayelen> hi
09:01 -!- henmeh [~henning@2a02:8070:4686:d820:2599:2c62:820a:e7a3] has quit [Client Quit]
09:01 < instagibbs> hi
09:01 < vmammal> hey cguida!
09:01 -!- henmeh [~henning@2a02:8070:4686:d820:2599:2c62:820a:e7a3] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:01 < cguida> sup vmammal!
09:01 -!- effexzi [uid474242@id-474242.ilkley.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:01 < abubakarsadiq> Anyone joining us for the first time today? even if you're just lurking, feel free to say hi! thanks for joining @instagibbs
09:01 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:01 < henmeh> hi
09:02 < effexzi> Hi every1 
09:02 < abubakarsadiq> Have you read the notes, review or tested the PR   (y/n)? 
09:02 < abubakarsadiq> If you reviewed it  Concept ACK, approach ACK, tested ACK, or NACK? 
09:02 < monlovesmango> hey
09:03 < vmammal> ACK
09:03 < monlovesmango> y, no opinion on ACK/NACK
09:03 < larryruane_> hi
09:03 < hernanmarino> not me , just lurking today 
09:04 < abubakarsadiq> Okay lets jump right in
09:04 < abubakarsadiq> 1. Why is it important to perform these checks on submitted packages?
09:04 < monlovesmango> to prevent users from unintentionally losing funds?
09:04 < larryruane_> is it just that if there's a reason to have a check on a single tx submission, then that check would also make sense for the txes within a package?
09:05 < larryruane_> (i know that's kind of obvious, i may be missing something!)
09:05 < abubakarsadiq> yes @monlovesmango @larryruane it will be helpful to users in ensuring the transactions in packages they are adding to their mempool and broadcasting to peers does not pay unreasonable fee rate
09:06 < abubakarsadiq> Also ensuring they dont burn money above some threshold.
09:06 < abubakarsadiq> 2.Are there other important checks apart from maxburnamount and maxfeerate that should be performed on packages before they are accepted to the mempool?
09:07 < larryruane_> you mean checks that already exist?
09:08 < vmammal> 2. yes, various policy rules, descendant limits, etc
09:08 < monlovesmango> can only really think of consensus and policy rules
09:08 < abubakarsadiq> yes like base fee check can also be helpful I think
09:08 < cguida> rbf rules
09:09 -!- efrageek [~efrageek@186.233.184.47] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:09 < abubakarsadiq> rbf rules, policy and consensus check are done during package processing
09:10 < monlovesmango> is package processing done prior to acceptance into mempool then?
09:10 < abubakarsadiq> maybe we can also  can also check package transactions does not exceed the maximum standard transaction size and fail early. However I don't think users should configure this?
09:10 < larryruane_> validation.cpp: PreChecks() has a bunch of checks
09:11 < abubakarsadiq> Yes @larryruane
09:12 < larryruane_> you mean users should not configure the max standard transaction size?
09:13 < GregTonoski> Do I understand correctly that the RPC sendrawtransaction will not be unsuccessful ("rejected") by default if there is OP_RETURN?
09:13 < abubakarsadiq> No we could just check max standard transaction size early and avoid the work
09:14 < abubakarsadiq> 3. The options `maxburnamount` and `maxfeerate` can prevent a transaction from entering the mempool and being relayed. Can we consider these options as policy rules? Why or why not?
09:15 < cguida> GregTonoski: just submitpackage, not submitrawtransaction i think
09:15 < abubakarsadiq> @GregTonoski if the value in the `OP_RETURN` exceeds `maxburnamount` set by user, if not set default value of 0.
09:16 < larryruane_> I guess they are policy, but only local for this node. Definitely not consensus!
09:16 < monlovesmango> I think no, bc this only affects the tx that you are broadcasting and not transactions you are relaying..?
09:16 < larryruane_> monlovesmango: that's a good point!
09:16 < monlovesmango> but do agree that these are personal policy rules
09:16 < abubakarsadiq> @cguida do we have `submitrawtransaction` I think he is right it's `sendrawtransaction`
09:17 < abubakarsadiq> Thats what I think also, its policy 
09:17 < cguida> oh snap, you are correct GregTonoski, my bad
09:18 < monlovesmango> but just to confirm, this doesn't change the policy for relaying tx right?
09:19 < abubakarsadiq> No it does not, it only affect broadcasted transactions from the RPC's.
09:19 < monlovesmango> cool thank you!
09:19 < abubakarsadiq> 4. The commit message states: “This allows subpackage processing and is compatible with future package RBF work.” What makes this compatible with future RBF work?
09:21 < monlovesmango> it enables checks on package transactions? (just guessing heeh)
09:21 < abubakarsadiq> My guess is its compatible with package RBF, maybe @instagibbs can chip in here :)
09:22 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.200] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:22 < instagibbs> right, basically moving forward we'll probably process packages in "chunks", but maybe post cluster mempool we cna abort even earlier?
09:23 < instagibbs> I dont remember the exactm eaning behind the commit message, I should probably update it :) 
09:23 < abubakarsadiq> Is it because subpackage processing is where package RBF rules will be checked, and we check the individual modified fee rate against `maxfeerate` during subpackage evaluation/
09:24 <@glozow> instagibbs: maybe you were distinguishing between sub(ancestor)packages and chunks
09:24 -!- puchka [~puchka@185.203.122.200] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:25 < monlovesmango> so is "This allows subpackage processing WHICH is compatible with future package RBF work." more apt for the description of the commit?
09:26 < abubakarsadiq> We can continue discussing on that.
09:26 < abubakarsadiq> 5. Why do we validate maxfeerate against the modified feerate instead of the base fee rate?
09:27 < vmammal> if present, modified feerate will always override the base feerate ?
09:27 < monlovesmango> bc modified feerate is higher than base feerate:
09:27 < monlovesmango> ?
09:27 <@glozow> I don't see a good reason why tbh
09:27 <@glozow> modified isn't necessarily higher than base, no. you can prioritise with a negative value
09:27 < abubakarsadiq> I not sure why also It's a bit unclear to me that `sendrawtransaction` and `testmempoolaccept` `maxfeerate` checks are validated against base fee while `submitpackage` is using a modified fee rate.
09:28 < abubakarsadiq> I mean base fee rate
09:28 < vmammal> glozow ah, true
09:29 < monlovesmango> where can I read about the difference between base fee rate and modified fee rate?
09:29 < larryruane_> glozow: I think I see what you mean; the maxfeerate is a local parameter so the user can adjust that param directly (user would know the modified feerate)
09:29 <@glozow> presumably we want to check that the actual, real fees paid by the user are not too high
09:30 < instagibbs> I don't know, with non-trivial structures I think that will be difficult. modified feerate is what drives subpackage eval, and would drive linearization post-cluster mempool?
09:31 <@glozow> yeah, but this is only checking individual right now anyway
09:32 < abubakarsadiq> Talking about individual 
09:32 < abubakarsadiq> We validate maxfeerate against the modified feerate of individual package transactions, not package feerate.
09:32 < abubakarsadiq> When can this be inaccurate?
09:32 <@glozow> I guess you're worried about a prioritisation that would change the linearization/chunking?
09:33 < vmammal> monlovesmango I think `getrawmempool` and `prioritisetransaction` rpcs have some info on base vs modified
09:33 < instagibbs> glozow it definitely will change it, but if you think modified is the wrong thing, then maybe the future approach would ahve been wrong too
09:34 <@glozow> maybe we should omit the check if there’s prioritisation 🤷🏻‍♀️
09:34 < monlovesmango> thank you vmammal!
09:34 < instagibbs> messing with priority is kind of asking for pain if you aren't careful
09:35 < monlovesmango> abubakarsadiq: would it be inaccurate if we bump the fee to be higher than 'maxfeerate' and then subsequently bump the package fee to be lower than 'maxfeerate'?
09:35 <@glozow> instagibbs: yeah. maybe add a bool arg to the RPC for checking even if prioritised?
09:35 < abubakarsadiq> even if prioritization affect linearization, I think the aim is to check the actual fee rate, should do just because thats what other nodes will see when its broadcasted?
09:36 <@glozow> Yeah. But I don't think we'll have logic to have an alternate linearization for non-modified, which is why I'm suggesting to just skip it
09:36 < instagibbs> abubakarsadiq I don't know if that's practical. The mempool will be totally ordered via modified fee(like today)
09:36 -!- efrageek [~efrageek@186.233.184.47] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:37 -!- dberkelmans [~dberkelma@2001:1c03:530a:1800:287b:617f:c49e:24dc] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:37 < instagibbs> well, it's not totally ordered now
09:37 < abubakarsadiq> In advance :P
09:37 <@glozow> could have a RPC param to "force check chunk feerate even though it's based on modified fees"
09:37 -!- dberkelmans [~dberkelma@2001:1c03:530a:1800:287b:617f:c49e:24dc] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:39 < abubakarsadiq> @monlovesmango: I think its when the package child transaction is rejected because its modified fee rate exceeds `maxfeerate` individually, but does not if it's checked as a package.
09:39 -!- Guest4 [~Guest4@14.52.118.46] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:39 <@glozow> monlovesmango: we've discussed modified fees in https://bitcoincore.reviews/24152, https://bitcoincore.reviews/24538, and https://bitcoincore.reviews/27501
09:40 < monlovesmango> thanks abubakarsadiq and glozow!
09:41 <@glozow> basically imagine CPFPing something very large with a small transaction. child might be super high feerate, but the package feerate is not.
09:42 < abubakarsadiq> exactly @glozow we might accept the child ancestors at a lower mining score.
09:42 < monlovesmango> interesting
09:42 < instagibbs> hmm, when the parent is in the mempool, this check will likely trip as it doesnt take the low fee parent into account
09:42 < instagibbs> (with a high fee child)
09:43 < abubakarsadiq> A follow-up question is why check `maxfeerate` against package feerate instead then?
09:44 < abubakarsadiq> why not*
09:45 -!- Guest4 [~Guest4@14.32.96.217] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:45 -!- dberkelmans [~dberkelma@2001:1c03:530a:1800:287b:617f:c49e:24dc] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:47 -!- dberkelmans [~dberkelma@2001:1c03:530a:1800:287b:617f:c49e:24dc] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:47 < vmammal> i feel like maxfeerate check should occur on a package, if possible. it seems the answer given on the PR is that this check occurs "prior to any relay"
09:47 <@glozow> vmammal: is it possible?
09:47 < vmammal> oh wait
09:48 < vmammal> scoring a package relies on chainstate context ?
09:48 <@glozow> well, all of this needs chainstate
09:48 < abubakarsadiq> I dont think it would be possible with the current approach  because the transaction fee and size are determined during subpackage processing, we have to just check at that time, the subpackage will be added to the mempool (if it passed the check) before the next subpackage is going to be evaluated.
09:48 -!- alfonsoromanz [~alfonsoro@181.29.127.131] has quit []
09:50 < abubakarsadiq> By the time we know the modified fee and size of all the package transactions some might have been added to the mempool already
09:51 <@glozow> no, it's because subpackages aren't chunks, they aren't necessarily grouped as CPFPs
09:51 -!- Ayelen [~ayelen@181.29.127.131] has quit []
09:52 <@glozow> we know the aggregate package feerate, but it's not an accurate assessment. Let's say you have parents A and B, and child C. parent B spends parent A.
09:52 <@glozow> Let's say A pays 0 fees
09:52 <@glozow> and B bumps it
09:53 <@glozow> A+B is a CPFP, and C can be on its own
09:54 <@glozow> Ah, is this still a concern if it's a tree?
09:55 < monlovesmango> would C still be considered part of the aggregate package in this scenario?
09:55 < abubakarsadiq> A+B+C will be evaluated as a subpackage, because A will fail individually, B and C due to missing inputs
09:56 <@glozow> abubakarsadiq: correct
09:56 < abubakarsadiq> So if we evaluate the `maxfeerate` against  A+B+C package its incorrect, ah I see
09:56 <@glozow> However it just occurred to me that this topology isn't allowed through the RPC
09:57 < monlovesmango> abubakarsadiq: can you expand on why it would be incorrect?
09:58 < abubakarsadiq> because we dont accept 0 fee txs yet?
10:00 <@glozow> No - so imagine that A+B are large and together not above the maxfeerate, but C is. C should fail the maxfeerate check, but wouldn't because its fees are absorbed by A+B in the aggregation
10:00 < abubakarsadiq> @monlovesmango because B CPFP A,  and C is an individual txs. so should instead check against (A,B) and then check against (C) seperately.
10:01 < abubakarsadiq> #endmeeting
10:02 -!- Guest42 [~Guest42@212.129.82.195] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:02 <@glozow> yeah so if we had linearization+chunking, we'd be able to group CPFPs together without including other stuff
10:03 <@glozow> I suppose a better example is actually A+B being above maxfeerate, and then a low-feerate C bringing the aggregate feerate down
10:03 <@glozow> thanks abubakarsadiq!
10:03 < abubakarsadiq> We have 3  more questions left, lets meet together same time tomorrow to discuss them.
10:03 < instagibbs> thanks abubakarsadiq
10:03 < monlovesmango> thank you abubakarsadiq!!
10:04 < dberkelmans> thanks
10:04 < cguida> thanks abubakarsadiq!
10:04 -!- dberkelmans [~dberkelma@2001:1c03:530a:1800:287b:617f:c49e:24dc] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:04 -!- henmeh [~henning@2a02:8070:4686:d820:2599:2c62:820a:e7a3] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
10:04 < cguida> and instagibbs and glozow :)
10:04 < monlovesmango> yes and instagibbs and glozow!!
10:14 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:14 -!- Guest4 [~Guest4@14.32.96.217] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:17 -!- GregTonoski [~GregTonos@188.146.121.103] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:22 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14c:3bfb:11d:a00e:f127:c653:dd56] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:22 -!- vmammal [~vmammal@107.181.222.132] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:30 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:39 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14c:3bfb:11d:cda:d992:a8f5:4088] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:46 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:46 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14c:3bfb:11d:cda:d992:a8f5:4088] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:46 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14c:3bfb:11d:cda:d992:a8f5:4088] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:48 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
10:49 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:50 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
11:35 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
11:40 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
11:43 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
12:10 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
12:15 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
12:28 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
12:30 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
12:37 -!- abubakarsadiq [uid602234@id-602234.hampstead.irccloud.com] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
12:41 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
12:47 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:16 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
13:29 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
14:02 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
14:07 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:24 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
14:29 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
14:43 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
14:46 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
14:49 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
14:51 -!- effexzi [uid474242@id-474242.ilkley.irccloud.com] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
15:00 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
15:05 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:19 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
15:19 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
15:28 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
15:58 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
16:07 -!- hernanmarino [~hernanmar@2800:2130:2800:3f::b9fe] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:16 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:18 -!- hernanmarino [~hernanmar@181.98.56.2] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
16:20 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:34 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
16:36 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
16:38 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
16:52 -!- josie [~josibake@suhail.uberspace.de] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in]
16:52 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:54 -!- josie [~josibake@suhail.uberspace.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
17:02 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
17:06 -!- the_mariner [~Thunderbi@2804:7f7:e18e:3341:d5e8:4f29:c08e:8b56] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
17:16 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
18:09 -!- orville [~orville@c-98-37-65-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
18:13 -!- orville [~orville@c-98-37-65-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit]
18:55 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
18:57 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
20:04 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:13 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:01 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit []
21:03 -!- BUSY [~BUSY@user/busy] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:20 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: ghost43
21:20 -!- Netsplit over, joins: ghost43
21:20 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: angusp, meshcollider
21:21 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: yakshaver[m], kouloumos__, dongcarl, dlb76, josie, LarryRuane, ajonas, willcl-ark, TheRec_, stickies-v,  (+2 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
21:22 -!- Netsplit over, joins: josie, harding, kouloumos__, LarryRuane, stickies-v, ajonas, willcl-ark, dongcarl, dlb76, fanquake (+2 more)
21:22 -!- dongcarl [~dongcarl@066-065-169-019.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
21:22 -!- Netsplit over, joins: meshcollider, angusp
21:23 -!- dongcarl [~dongcarl@066-065-169-019.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:23 -!- angusp [9e8eed9774@2a03:6000:1812:100::1048] has quit [Ping timeout: 262 seconds]
21:24 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: TheCharlatan, uasf_, FelixWeis__, jesseposner, brunoerg, cguida, katsu, jamesob, jkczyz, w0xlt
21:24 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: yonson, b10c, johnzweng, achow101, neha, amiti_, siv2r
21:24 -!- Netsplit over, joins: jesseposner, w0xlt, katsu, uasf_, brunoerg, FelixWeis__, jkczyz, jamesob, TheCharlatan, cguida
21:24 -!- Netsplit over, joins: achow101, b10c, johnzweng, amiti_, neha, yonson, siv2r
21:24 -!- angusp [9e8eed9774@2a03:6000:1812:100::1048] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:27 -!- uasf_ [~uasf@2604:a880:2:d0::1bda:1001] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:28 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: stratospher, schmidty, kanzure, hugohn____, jonasschnelli, RubenSomsen, MatrixBot123, michaelfolkson, jarolrod___, elichai2,  (+4 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
21:28 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: djinni`, lightlike
21:28 -!- uasf [~uasf@2604:a880:2:d0::1bda:1001] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:28 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: jnewbery_, koolazer, lbia
21:28 -!- Netsplit over, joins: djinni`, lightlike
21:29 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: maflcko, vincenzopalazzo, hernanmarino, greypw2546002161
21:31 -!- hernanmarino [~hernanmar@181.98.56.2] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- maflcko [~none@107.172.8.183] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- greypw2546002161 [~greypw254@grey.pw] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincenzop@static.14.246.108.65.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@id-212594.hampstead.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- RubenSomsen [sid301948@user/rubensomsen] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- stratospher [sid514069@id-514069.ilkley.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- jarolrod___ [sid475272@id-475272.uxbridge.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- hugohn____ [sid304114@id-304114.lymington.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- fjahr [sid374480@id-374480.uxbridge.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- schmidty [sid297174@id-297174.lymington.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- kanzure [~kanzure@user/kanzure] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@2a01:4f9:3081:504d::2] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- MatrixBot123 [~matrixbot@2001:bc8:1820:284::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- michaelfolkson [~michaelfo@138.68.143.20] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- ariard [~ariard@167.99.46.220] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- ryanofsky [russ@jumpy.yanofsky.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:31 -!- hebasto [sid449604@id-449604.uxbridge.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:33 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:33 -!- koolazer [~koo@user/koolazer] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:33 -!- jnewbery_ [~john@user/jnewbery] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:33 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
21:34 -!- lbia [~lbia@user/lbia] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
21:34 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: jonatack, maxedw, harding, jesseposner, uasf, greypw2546002161, @glozow, hebasto, pinheadmz, hernanmarino,  (+71 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
21:36 -!- Netsplit over, joins: fjahr, RubenSomsen, b10c, achow101, w0xlt, jesseposner, stickies-v, LarryRuane, kouloumos__, harding (+71 more)
21:42 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: jonatack, harding, uasf, jesseposner, greypw2546002161, @glozow, hebasto, hernanmarino, grettke, jonasschnelli,  (+60 more, use /NETSPLIT to show all of them)
21:44 -!- Netsplit over, joins: fjahr, RubenSomsen, b10c, achow101, w0xlt, jesseposner, stickies-v, LarryRuane, kouloumos__, harding (+60 more)
21:56 -!- Netsplit over, joins: BlueMatt[m]
21:56 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: kevkevin_, jess, furszy, emzy
22:01 -!- kevkevin_ [~kevkevin@2601:241:8703:7b30:c17d:def7:5d46:60cf] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
22:01 -!- furszy [~furszy@user/furszy] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
22:01 -!- jess [meow@libera/staff/cat/jess] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
22:01 -!- emzy [~quassel@user/emzy] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
22:39 -!- abubakarsadiq [uid602234@id-602234.hampstead.irccloud.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
--- Log closed Thu Feb 08 00:00:55 2024