--- Log opened Wed Apr 02 00:00:05 2025
00:07 -!- pyth [~pyth@user/pyth] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
00:17 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
00:17 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
00:22 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
00:27 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
00:56 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@187.183.60.153] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
01:01 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@187.183.60.153] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
01:09 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
01:14 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:24 -!- pablomartin [~pablomart@194.156.224.26] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
01:40 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
01:44 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
01:45 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
01:49 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
02:01 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:02 -!- OGU [~pagliacci@94.55.45.28] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:06 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
02:39 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
02:45 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
02:45 -!- pyth [~pyth@user/pyth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:14 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
03:20 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
03:41 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@187.183.60.153] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
03:49 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@187.183.60.153] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
04:18 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
04:18 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
04:23 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:42 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@2804:14d:5285:84b2::1000] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
04:55 -!- pablomartin [~pablomart@194.156.224.26] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
04:58 -!- brunoerg [~brunoerg@187.183.60.153] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
05:10 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
05:15 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
05:40 < glozow> Reminder: we have a review club meeting today at 17UTC on https://bitcoincore.reviews/31689!
05:45 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
05:58 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
06:14 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
06:15 -!- vincenzopalazzo [~vincenzop@static.14.246.108.65.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
06:19 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
06:22 -!- pyth [~pyth@user/pyth] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
06:33 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
06:35 -!- catnip [~catnip@92.19.47.86] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
06:37 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
06:42 -!- pablomartin [~pablomart@194.156.224.25] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
06:50 -!- catnip [~catnip@92.19.47.86] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
06:53 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
07:14 -!- Se7enZ [~Se7enZ@user/Se7enZ] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
07:42 -!- pablomartin [~pablomart@194.156.224.25] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
08:52 -!- OGU [~pagliacci@94.55.45.28] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
08:59 -!- enochazariah [~enochazar@105.120.9.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:00 -!- stringintech [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:03 -!- stringintech [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has quit [Client Quit]
09:03 -!- stringintech [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:13 -!- enochazariah [~enochazar@105.120.9.162] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
09:16 -!- stringintech [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:18 -!- pablomartin [~pablomart@194.156.224.25] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:23 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:26 -!- janb84 [janb84@user/janb84] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:29 -!- enochazariah [~enochazar@105.120.9.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:41 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:41 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Client Quit]
09:48 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:50 -!- dzxzg36 [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:51 -!- dzxzg36 [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Client Quit]
09:52 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:52 -!- dzxzg [~dzxzg@user/dzxzg] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:54 -!- pablomartin [~pablomart@194.156.224.25] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
09:55 -!- josie [~josibake@suhail.uberspace.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:55 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:57 -!- oxfrank [~oxfrank@41.90.172.21] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
09:59 < glozow> hi
09:59 < sliv3r__> hi
09:59 < janb84> hi
09:59 < oxfrank> hi
09:59 < dzxzg> #startmeeting
09:59 < dzxzg> hi
09:59 < glozow> hi
10:00 -!- stringintech [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:00 < sliv3r__> hi
10:00 < dzxzg> Hi everyone, thanks for coming to this benchmarking  review club :)
10:00 < monlovesmango> hey
10:00 < stringintech> Hello
10:00 < dzxzg> We're looking at #31689, and there are notes here: https://bitcoincore.reviews/31689
10:00 < dzxzg> If you have a question or something to say, please feel free to jump in at any time
10:00 < stickies-v> hi
10:01 < enochazariah> hello everyone
10:01 < dzxzg> Diid you have a chance to review the PR, and/or look at the notes?
10:01 < dzxzg> s/you/anyone
10:01 < monlovesmango> yes
10:01 < janb84> somewhat :) 
10:02 < sliv3r__> yes, tried to answer the questions in the notes
10:02 < Novo__> hi
10:02 < glozow> y
10:02 < oxfrank> y
10:02 < stringintech> y
10:03 < dzxzg> Awesome! I guess it's slightly unusual to review a PR *after* it's been merged, but I think it's still important and helpful, this code is just beginning it's life in Bitcoin Core!
10:04 < monlovesmango> I learned a lot about benchmarking :)
10:04 < dzxzg> Did you run the benchmarks? What did you observe?
10:04 < janb84> Yes, and my results are lot less verbose than the results shown in the comments 
10:04 -!- josie [~josibake@suhail.uberspace.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:05 < glozow> Nothing wrong with reviewing a PR after merge! Presumably if you take a look at the batch validation PRs and use the benches to measure the performance changes, you should also know what the benches are doing :)
10:05 < monlovesmango> yes... I have a few comments but dont want to get ahead of the questions...
10:05 < sliv3r__> yes, mixed blocks a bit slower
10:05 < stringintech> mixed block the slowest and all schnorr fastest for me
10:05 < glozow> For me, in order from fastest to slowest: `ConnectBlockAllSchnorr`, `*AllEcdsa`, `*MixedEcdsaSchnorr`.
10:06 < dzxzg> janb84: what do you mean your results are less verbose?
10:06 < monlovesmango> yeah I did observe mixed was slowest consistently
10:06 < stickies-v> Same for me! But I got an instability warning for ConnectBlockMixedEcdsaSchnorr
10:06 < stickies-v> (I'm getting them for a fair amount of other benches too so it might be me)
10:06 < janb84> @dzxzg i'm missing the column cyc/block, IPC / , BRA/block 
10:07 < sliv3r__> I have same results as glozow
10:07 < sliv3r__> I'm also missing thosecolumns @janb84
10:07 < oxfrank> MixedEcdsaSchnorr slower than all
10:07 < dzxzg> What is TestChain100Setup? What does 100 mean? Why 100?
10:08 < monlovesmango> sets up new chain and mines 100 blocks
10:08 < janb84> pre-creates a 100-block REGTEST-mode block chain
10:08 < monlovesmango> 100 bc thats how long it take coinbase to mature before you can spend it
10:08 < oxfrank> 100 mean no of blocks in test environment
10:09 < sliv3r__> as per a code comment: texting fixture that pre-creates 100 blocks in regtest mode to get the coinbase mature
10:09 < dzxzg> Yeah, all answers that make sense to me! Super useful, and appears all over the place in benchmarking and test code
10:10 < dzxzg> I'm going to quote something from the review notes in case anyone didn't have a chance to read them.
10:10 < dzxzg> "One of the most “expensive” checks performed by ConnectBlock() is CheckInputScripts: which ensures that every input script of every transaction succeeds."
10:10 < sipa> hi
10:10 < dzxzg> So, the author of the notes suggested that CheckInputScripts() is “expensive”. Is it? Why?
10:11 -!- catnip [~catnip@92.19.47.86] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:11 < sliv3r__> they normally contain signatures to verify and that's an expensive task
10:11 < monlovesmango> bc input scripts generally need signarture verification
10:12 < oxfrank> CheckInputScripts() most computationally intensive part of validation because of cryptographic signatures
10:13 < stickies-v> The CheckInputScripts docstring mentions "This involves ECDSA signature checks so can be computationally intensive." does it not do Schnorr signature checks or did the docstring just not get updated?
10:13 < sipa> That sounds outdated.
10:14 < dzxzg> +1
10:14 < sipa> All signature checks are done through the script interpreter, which is invoked from CheckInputScripts.
10:14 -!- OGU [~pagliacci@94.55.45.28] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:15 < dzxzg> Some reviewers (and a code comment) observed that in their testing ConnectBlockMixed was the slowest of the three benchmarks. Is that possible?
10:16 < dzxzg> I also noticed that there was a recent comment from someone present here on the PR
10:16 < janb84> I made the same observation in my test runs. 
10:16 < dzxzg> That shed some new light
10:16 < sliv3r__> Yes! Because the two different types are used in the same transaction so they have to be hashed multiple times due to differences in the signature digest algorithm
10:17 < monlovesmango> I ahve a question about this one. when I run benchmarks as is I do see that mixed is slowest, but it also has 5 keys/outputs rather than 4 like the other 2. could that be why?
10:17 < monlovesmango> when I test all 3 with 5 keys/outputs they are all fairly similar
10:18 < janb84> @monlovesmango interesting ! 
10:18 < monlovesmango> but I was not able to run the 'pyperf system tune' bc it errored on my machine
10:18 < monlovesmango> so i was using the min-time arg to get consistent results
10:19 < sliv3r__> May I ask how did you realize that?
10:19 < monlovesmango> not sure if that is sufficient
10:20 < oxfrank> but why did they go with 5 keys/outputs in mixed?
10:20 < monlovesmango> bc in the code ConnectBlockAllSchnorr creates 4 schnorr keys/outputs, ConnectBlockAllEcdsa creats 4 ecdsa keys/outputs, and ConnectBlockMixedEcdsaSchnorr creates 1 schnorr and 4 ecdsa
10:20 < dzxzg> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/639279e86a6edd6cb68e8cf077d14337bcd13959/src/bench/connectblock.cpp#L110-L132)
10:20 < monlovesmango> oxfrank: bc they wanted 80/20 ratio
10:20 < monlovesmango> i'm assuming
10:21 < dzxzg> Yeah, but I think not bumping the others up to 5 was a mistake!
10:21 < sliv3r__> oh right is hardcoded
10:21 < dzxzg> I was able to reproduce the result monlovesmango had
10:21 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:21 < dzxzg> when I changed the number of inputs in all of the tests so that they all had 5 inputs, the mixed block didn't stand out any more as the slowest!
10:22 < sliv3r__> so the assumtiom that some users had about having to hash multiple times bc of the signature digest algorithm is wrong?
10:22 < monlovesmango> dzxzg: nice!
10:23 < oxfrank> monlovesmango I think so too
10:24 < dzxzg> sliv3r__: I'm not sure, I thought that explanation made sense when I wrote the notes, but it seems that at the very least even if it wasn't wrong about extra work needed for validating transactions with mixed inputs, but it seems to have been wrong about how significant that would be!
10:26 < dzxzg> Nice find monlovesmango, I think a PR to address this would be nice! Another feather in the cap of never trusting explanations for poor performance until you've measured them :)
10:26 < sipa> i haven't run the numbers, but i'm curious how the block verification times compare with the raw pubkey decompression + signature checking numbers
10:27 < monlovesmango> dzxzg: do you think it would be alright if I opened a pr for this?
10:27 -!- stringintech24 [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:27 -!- stringintech24 [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has quit [Client Quit]
10:28 < sliv3r__> manlovesmango: it make sense to fix
10:28 -!- enochazariah [~enochazar@105.120.9.162] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:28 -!- stringintech91 [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:28 -!- OGU [~pagliacci@user/OGU] has changed host
10:29 < dzxzg> monlovesmango: I don't know how other reviewers would feel, but it's probably a Concept ACK for me
10:29 < dzxzg> In the same vein as sipa's remark above: ConnectBlock does a lot more than just checking input scripts. Is this PR introducing a ConnectBlock() benchmark or a signature validation benchmark? Why use ConnectBlock() instead of benchmarking CheckECDSASignature() and CheckSchnorrSignature() directly?
10:30 -!- stringintech [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:31 < sipa> FWIW, the numbers i have on my system are 31.0 us/sig for ecdsa, 31.8 us/sig for schnorr, and ~3.1 us/key for pubkey decompression
10:31 < monlovesmango> it seemed like one goal was to assess performance with a mixed back of sig types, which can't be done with CheckECDSASignature() or CheckSchnorrSignature() alone
10:31 < monlovesmango> that was the best reason I could think of
10:32 -!- catnip [~catnip@92.19.47.86] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:32 < sliv3r__> also this will allow us to benchmark batch verification when it's implemented
10:32 < sliv3r__> so I guess we should see an improvement on schnorr
10:33 < sipa> yeah, the PR is a preparation for batch validation, which is applicable to schnorr signatures, but not ECDSA, so to get a realistic benchmark, it may make sense to see how it impacts a block with a mix of both (which, for the time being, is likely what we'll need to expect)
10:33 < sipa> i assume
10:35 < Novo__> batch verification implementation will modify connectblock a lot, so we also want to see if that our changes don't negatively impact overall conectblock performance even if it speeds up CheckSchnorrSignature
10:35 < sipa> Novo__: good point
10:36 < dzxzg> Some reviewers disagreed about whether or not the ‘mixed’ case should be 50/50 schnorr/ecdsa, or if it should be some mixture of Schnorr and ECDSA that would be likely to appear in a block, what are the tradeoffs of each approach?
10:37 < dzxzg> And to add to that question, or maybe this would be part of the tradeoffs, how would we decide what a "representative" mixture would be?
10:37 < sliv3r__> I don't have a strong opinion on that tbh but some argue that 80/20 is the actual ratio now while 50/50 is probably what we will have in a future
10:38 < monlovesmango> yeah what sliv3r said :)
10:38 < janb84> sliv3r__: agree
10:39 -!- oxfrank [~oxfrank@41.90.172.21] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:39 < dzxzg> What is the purpose of the first transaction that gets created in CreateTestBlock()? Why couldn’t this transaction be created in the for loop like all the other transactions?
10:40 < monlovesmango> honestly might be good to have a few tiers, 80/20, 50/50, 20/80, just so we have a variety of benchmarks to compare changes against? or would this be redundant
10:40 -!- oxfrank [~oxfrank@41.90.172.21] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:41 < monlovesmango> the first transaction is spending the coinbase and setting up the outputs that will used for the bench mark. so this tx is different than the others, and this way the benchmark is only measuring the specific sig checks we are interested in (bc first tx is excluded from bench)
10:42 < sliv3r__> I guess if it was redundant there would not be discussion about the ratio so I guess it makes sense
10:42 < dzxzg> monlovesmango: re: coinbase transaction, yep!
10:43 < sliv3r__> agree with @monlovesmango also because testchain100setup is the one who decides the conditions on that tx
10:43 < sliv3r__> so we don't have control on it
10:43 < monlovesmango> yep that too
10:46 < dzxzg> The "What ratio should we use question?" makes me think of a bigger question, when should your measurement try to as closely as possible approximate the real situation of interest, like in this case maybe, real nodes connecting blocks to their tips, and when should you try to create idealized conditions that might exaggerate, or be focused on some tiny element which rarely constitutes much of the real task 
10:47 < dzxzg> but you get the advantage of interpretability, when you exaggerate one element, it's really easy to interpret the outcome of a benchmark, if it's faster it's probably that thing, if it's slower it's probably that thing
10:47 < monlovesmango> as far as benchmarking goes, I feel like that question should come after all the data is in
10:48 < dzxzg> Okay, final question: Do you think the tests added here are sufficient in scope or are there other cases that should have been added in this PR? What additional benchmarks of ConnectBlock() would be good to have in a follow-up PR?
10:49 < monlovesmango> like we should want to know each scenario performs, and then make decisions about whether real use or idealized use should be given more significance
10:50 < monlovesmango> I think in the pr josie had mentioned testing mixed block composition (so instead of mixed transactions, each transaction would only have one type of signature but the block would have mixed bag of transactions)
10:51 < monlovesmango> which might make sense depending on how batch verification is implemented
10:51 < janb84> the mixed ratio seems arbitrary, would love to see if other ratios would change the outcome much
10:51 < oxfrank> I think Possible follow-up benchmarks are still necessary i.e different script types (P2PKH, P2SH-wrapped SegWit), different block sizes, ..
10:51 < sliv3r__> re: addition bencharmks - As this wants to benchmark batch validations I'm not sure how other parts of connectblock gets affected by that so...
10:54 < sliv3r__> if we want to benchmark unrelated to batch validation we could get some numbers on how fast we update the utxo set or even how some of the changes from CC like nLockTime validation for coinbase tx affects here (that's not implemented yet)
10:56 < dzxzg> Is there anything else that anyone wanted to say or ask that didn't fit into the topics we've talked about so far?
10:56 < dzxzg> Or to add to any of the topics we have discussed?
10:57 < Novo__> possible follow-up could also include TR script-path spend since batch verification should ultimately affect this too
10:57 -!- stringintech91 [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
10:58 < monlovesmango> oh i did have one question actually, on line 55 the variable name is taproot_tx but it really is taproot or edcsa right?
10:58 -!- stringintech [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
10:59 < monlovesmango> in connectblock.cpp
10:59 < dzxzg> monlovesmango: I think you're right
11:00 < dzxzg> That was awesome! Thank y'all for coming to this review club, have a peek at #29491 if this interested you!
11:00 < janb84> dzxzg: thanks for hosting !
11:00 < dzxzg> #endmeeting
11:00 < monlovesmango> thank you for hosting dzxzg!
11:00 < sliv3r__> Thanks for hosting!
11:00 < glozow> thank you dzxzg!
11:01 < oxfrank> thanks dzxzg
11:01 < Novo__> Thanks for hosting @dzxzg
11:01 < janb84> monlovesmango: hope to see your PR soon ;)
11:02 -!- oxfrank [~oxfrank@41.90.172.21] has quit [Quit: Client closed]
11:02 < monlovesmango> janb84: thanks i'm actually super excited! :)
11:03 < janb84> nice :) 
11:04 -!- stringintech [~stringint@2602:fa59:3:774::1] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:05 -!- pyth [~pyth@user/pyth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:12 < monlovesmango> exit
11:14 -!- monlovesmango [monlovesma@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/monlovesmango] has quit [Quit: leaving]
11:14 -!- janb84 [janb84@user/janb84] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 4.4.3]
11:20 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
11:22 -!- sliv3r__ [~sliv3r__@user/sliv3r-:76883] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2+deb3.1+deb12u1 - https://znc.in]
11:23 -!- sliv3r__ [~sliv3r__@user/sliv3r-:76883] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
11:29 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:29 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
11:39 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
11:53 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@82-132-215-25.dab.02.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
11:53 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@82-132-215-25.dab.02.net] has quit [Client Quit]
11:56 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@82.132.215.25] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
12:03 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Quit: grettke]
12:14 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
12:15 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
12:34 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:34 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
12:45 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
13:04 -!- ___nick___ [~quassel@82.132.215.25] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
13:12 -!- pablomartin [~pablomart@194.156.224.26] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
13:23 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:23 -!- ghost43 [~ghost43@gateway/tor-sasl/ghost43] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
13:30 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
13:31 -!- pablomartin [~pablomart@194.156.224.26] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:04 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:05 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
14:09 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
14:13 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Quit: grettke]
14:49 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
14:49 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
15:04 -!- greypw1495085720 [~greypw@user/greypw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:04 -!- greypw1495085720 [~greypw@user/greypw] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
15:25 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
15:27 -!- andreadcorreia67 [~andreadco@host182.190-30-101.telecom.net.ar] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
15:31 -!- andreadcorreia67 [~andreadco@host182.190-30-101.telecom.net.ar] has left #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews []
15:32 -!- andreadcorreia67 [~andreadco@host182.190-30-101.telecom.net.ar] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
15:56 -!- OGU [~pagliacci@user/OGU] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
16:01 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Quit: grettke]
16:21 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
16:26 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
16:27 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
16:42 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Quit: grettke]
17:00 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
17:50 -!- dzxzg [~qualify@user/dzxzg] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
18:02 -!- andreadcorreia67 [~andreadco@host182.190-30-101.telecom.net.ar] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:06 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
19:11 -!- hernanmarino [~hernanmar@181.85.42.119] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
19:13 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Quit: grettke]
19:30 -!- hernanmarino [~hernanmar@2800:2330:2800:142:d46a:bea6:9fc7:d0] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
20:00 -!- pyth [~pyth@user/pyth] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
20:10 -!- hernanmarino [~hernanmar@2800:2330:2800:142:d46a:bea6:9fc7:d0] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.2+deb2+deb11u1 - https://znc.in]
20:11 -!- hernanmarino [~hernanmar@2800:2330:2800:142:d46a:bea6:9fc7:d0] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
20:17 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
20:18 -!- grettke [~grettke@syn-184-055-133-000.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Client Quit]
21:22 -!- pyth [~pyth@user/pyth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:10 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:10 -!- jonatack [~jonatack@user/jonatack] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews
23:39 -!- kevkevin [~kevkevin@209.242.39.30] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
--- Log closed Thu Apr 03 00:00:07 2025