--- Log opened Thu Oct 08 00:00:15 2020
--- Day changed Thu Oct 08 2020
00:00 -!- icota[m] [icotamatri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-ihqyrxcofnkxpzjr] has quit [Quit: Idle for 30+ days]
00:32 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:32 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #rust-bitcoin
00:33 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: kallewoof, jonatack
00:38 -!- kallewoof [~quassel@240d:1a:759:6000:a7b1:451a:8874:e1ac] has joined #rust-bitcoin
01:08 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.239] has joined #rust-bitcoin
01:46 -!- ulrichard [~richi@pub082136099022.dh-hfc.datazug.ch] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:15 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
02:24 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:27 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #rust-bitcoin
02:28 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Client Quit]
02:55 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.239] has quit [Quit: jonatack]
03:06 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:09 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
03:18 -!- Hallie63Glover [~Hallie63G@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:35 -!- kallewoof [~quassel@240d:1a:759:6000:a7b1:451a:8874:e1ac] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:35 -!- kallewoof [~quassel@240d:1a:759:6000:a7b1:451a:8874:e1ac] has joined #rust-bitcoin
03:36 -!- kallewoof [~quassel@240d:1a:759:6000:a7b1:451a:8874:e1ac] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:36 -!- kallewoof_ [~quassel@240d:1a:759:6000:a7b1:451a:8874:e1ac] has joined #rust-bitcoin
04:35 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
05:21 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.19] has joined #rust-bitcoin
05:55 -!- tibo_ [~tibo@2400:4050:2a83:7000:8112:882c:f66a:d4f1] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:00 -!- kallewoof_ is now known as kallewoof
06:09 < andytoshi> elichai2: i think https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/356 could get into a minor rev if you rearranged the commits so they compiled
06:10 < andytoshi> as i mentioned yesterday, i don't mind if you do something ugly like commenting out code in one commit then uncommenting it in the next one, i just need stuff to compile so that `git bisect` can work mechanically
06:12 < andytoshi> regardless i'd like to do a major rev in the next few days. going through pr list and marking everything that's an API break
06:12 < andytoshi> there's a lot of good stuff
06:17 < elichai2> andytoshi: I just squashed them together, it's a small enough change and they are doing the same thing essentially
06:18 < andytoshi> could also use another ack on https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/414 ... elichai2 do you still dislike this PR?
06:18 < andytoshi> thanks, revisiting 356
06:21 < elichai2> I don't like complex logic in Debug impls, and `fmt_satoshi_in` is not that simple IMHO, but if I'm in the minority then it's fine
06:22 < andytoshi> i'm not sure if you are in the minority
06:22 < andytoshi> ok i'll leave the PR open for further comment
06:24 < andytoshi> ok ack #356. need a second ack. stevenroose  ?
06:25 < andytoshi> elichai2: https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/418 i think we could get into a minor rev, tho it needs rebase
06:27 < andytoshi> ditto https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/482
06:31 < stevenroose> ack
06:31 < stevenroose> 356
06:32 < andytoshi> dope. just waiting on CI
06:32 < andytoshi> this one i think doesn'tneed a changelog entry because it's not externally visible
06:34 < stevenroose> reviewed 284 as well
06:34 < andytoshi> 284?
06:35 < ulrichard> ariard:  do you know the reson why bdk was yanked from crates.io ?
06:35 < elichai2> andytoshi: done and done
06:36 < andytoshi> thanks, reviewing
06:36 < stevenroose> ack 418 as well
06:36 < andytoshi> 418 and 482
06:38 < andytoshi> ok 418 just waiting on CI
06:39 < andytoshi> also won't need a changelog entry
07:05 < andytoshi> lol sorry elichai2 482 needs another rebase after 356 and 418
07:11 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.19] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:12 -!- dr-orlovsky [~dr-orlovs@31.14.40.19] has joined #rust-bitcoin
08:41 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@c-73-15-215-148.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #rust-bitcoin
08:50 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:50 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #rust-bitcoin
08:52 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #rust-bitcoin
09:19 < ariard> ulrichard: I don't know
09:19 < ariard> notmandatory: ^
09:24 -!- Hallie63Glover [~Hallie63G@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:37 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@2601:646:100:3410:b455:70bf:aea4:e2b0] has joined #rust-bitcoin
09:55 < dr-orlovsky> Regarding PSBT support in rust-bitcoin
09:55 < dr-orlovsky> Right now it lacks (1) proprietary types (I already did them in my branch), (2) some global keys (like xpub, version), (3) serde derialization/deserialization (for inspection for instance), (4)
09:55 < dr-orlovsky> I laready started work on these parts and made a tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/issues/473
09:56 < dr-orlovsky> Will much appreciate reviews, PRs are linked
09:56 < dr-orlovsky> * (4) it will be nice to implement key types not as a constants, but as an enum, so we always sure that we parse all known types from the spec
10:17 < andytoshi> dr-orlovsky: cool, thanks
10:17 < andytoshi> problem with making key types an enum is that we undermine the extensibility
10:17 < andytoshi> i guess we can add an Other variant
10:36 < dr-orlovsky> andytoshi:
10:36 < dr-orlovsky> > problem with making key types an enum is that we undermine the extensibility
10:36 < dr-orlovsky> No, we don’t: we have “unknown” keys
10:43 < andytoshi> ok, yeah, that makes sense
10:44 < andytoshi> stevenroose: can you reack https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/482
10:45 < andytoshi> also https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin/pull/492#pullrequestreview-505021650
10:56 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@2601:646:100:3410:b455:70bf:aea4:e2b0] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:04 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@mobile-166-171-249-141.mycingular.net] has joined #rust-bitcoin
11:26 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@mobile-166-171-249-141.mycingular.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
11:36 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@2601:640:e:988f:a9ba:c714:5f2d:15b] has joined #rust-bitcoin
11:42 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@2601:640:e:988f:a9ba:c714:5f2d:15b] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
12:20 -!- fiatjaf [~fiatjaf@2804:7f2:2a85:2fc:ea40:f2ff:fe85:d2dc] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
12:25 -!- fiatjaf [~fiatjaf@179.180.231.131] has joined #rust-bitcoin
12:32 -!- fiatjaf [~fiatjaf@179.180.231.131] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:08 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@2601:646:100:3410:b9c5:8f73:c633:700] has joined #rust-bitcoin
13:56 -!- fiatjaf [~fiatjaf@179.180.231.131] has joined #rust-bitcoin
15:39 < ariard> BlueMatt: on #653 can you give your branch ? to be sure we look on the same thing :)
15:39 < BlueMatt> ariard: the diff pasted there was a second commit in between the two - pasted exactly as git show gave (I may have lost the commit by now)
15:55 < ariard> BlueMatt: hmmm your diff isn't building on top of commit 8c339e3 "Add transaction index in watchted_outputs" ?
15:56 < ariard> because now get_outputs_to_watch() return a Vec<(u32, Script)>
15:59 < BlueMatt> oh, sorry, I'd also swapped the order of your commits
15:59 < BlueMatt> so it was built on just the test, not the functional change
15:59 < ariard> ah understand better
16:00 < BlueMatt> so that I could check if the test *also* hit the tests in that diff, not just the test
16:00 < ariard> you mean if the bug was catched by the test ? Or your diff solving the bug?
16:01 < BlueMatt> no, i mean that that diff should have showed the bug in your new test
16:01 < BlueMatt> but it doesnt seem to, which means my understanding of the bug is off
16:01 < ariard> use the new test on master, it should fail
16:02 < BlueMatt> i know the test fails, but I was trying to see if I could *also* trigger the failure in new assertions in ChannelMonitor
16:02 < ariard> your diff may solve the bug let me verify
16:02 < BlueMatt> that diff has no functional changes? only new assertions.
16:02 < ariard> no you can't fail new assertions
16:02 < ariard> because both set as of the same size
16:02 < BlueMatt> ?
16:03 < ariard> assert!(idx, tx.output.len())
16:03 < BlueMatt> hmm?
16:04 < ariard> your comment "If we see a transaction which we registered previously..."
16:04 < ariard> doesn't make sense, we register spend of a transaction, not a future transaction of which we may not know the txid
16:05 < BlueMatt> right, but that registration implies knowledge of a previous transaction :p
16:05 < BlueMatt> or, you're saying that it doesnt make sense because at that point we'd already seen the previous transaction?
16:06 < ariard> "If we see spend of a transaction we previously registered"
16:06 < ariard> in my new test the previous transaction would be the local commitment
16:07 < ariard> and we will only register the HTLC spend as the balance output doesn't need to take action on `to_remote` output
16:07 < ariard> so watched output will be 1
16:07 < ariard> and tx.output.len() of the HTLC-timeout will be one too
16:13 -!- tibo [~tibo@2400:4050:2a83:7000:212a:26b6:9b38:3553] has joined #rust-bitcoin
16:13 < BlueMatt> ariard: right, but then if check_watched_output gets called with the local commitment tx (after registration), it should have asserted false, no?
16:13 < BlueMatt> I admit its possible its not being called (after registration) with the local commitment tx
16:14 < BlueMatt> specifically, this should fail: assert_eq!(tx.output[idx].script_pubkey, *script_pubkey);
16:14 < ariard> okay your diff is failing by swapping order
16:14 < ariard> but not on the asset
16:14 < BlueMatt> hmm?
16:14 < BlueMatt> but also why do the later scripts not fail?
16:16 < ariard> I'm adding printer to understand better
16:16 < BlueMatt> alright.
16:16 < ariard> btw #738 does make running the test framework faster? it's painfully slow those days
16:16 < ariard> and I'm still using the same hardware since a while
16:18 < BlueMatt> yea, that makes it way faster. it in fact used to be that fast and I borke it...sorry
16:18 < BlueMatt> but if you ack it I can merge it :p
16:18 < ariard> lol you should have told me this at the second you open it
16:19 < BlueMatt> lol sorry
16:19 < ariard> okay sounds your new assert are never called
16:19 < ariard> so the detection failure must happen higher
16:20 < BlueMatt> right, ok, try calling spends_watched_output at the end of block_connected duplicatively?
16:20 < BlueMatt> I dont have the code in front of me.
16:23 < ariard> yep tracking where the HTLC-timeout isn't passed downward
16:29 < BlueMatt> ariard: anyway, if you get those new assertions to blow up in your test then I'm happy, I just want to make sure we get as much coverage as we can.
16:48 -!- tibo_ [~tibo@2400:4050:2a83:7000:b5bc:8479:32f7:3221] has joined #rust-bitcoin
16:51 -!- tibo [~tibo@2400:4050:2a83:7000:212a:26b6:9b38:3553] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:00 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:04 < jeremyrubin> BlueMatt: any thoughts on https://github.com/rust-bitcoin/bitcoin_hashes/pull/97
17:05 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined #rust-bitcoin
17:06 < BlueMatt> I'll leave it up to andrew if he wants to eat the maintinece burden :)
17:17 < jeremyrubin> fair
17:34 < ariard> BlueMatt: lol your new asserts are exactly circumvent by the bug, the first one is useless as it's looking in outputs_to_watch already-registered txid for an unknown txid
17:34 < ariard> I see if can try to fix the second to get the blow up
17:36 < BlueMatt> ariard: wait, but is the first one hittable if you run it *after* block_connected's new registrations :)
17:41 < ariard> BlueMatt: which wawe of registration the commitment or the HTLC-timeout?
17:42 < BlueMatt> hmm?
17:42 < ariard> in the new test, we first connect the commitment then the HTLC-timeout
17:43 < ariard> and we don't watch local HTLC-timeout output, we mark them for spend IIRC
17:44 < BlueMatt> ariard: right, I'm saying that assert *should* fail if you call it with the local commitment tx *after* the output from it is registered. so it would need to be at the end of block_connected, no?
17:44 < ariard> damn it's hard to assert as we're tring to prove the lack of a match
17:46 < ariard> ah  I see we don't connect twice the local commitment tx after the first match, let me modify the test by duplicating the block_connection
17:48 < ariard> BlueMatt: yep this hittin well your assert by connecting twice the local commitment
17:52 < BlueMatt> right! ok, so just need to move the assert to the end of block_connected.
18:26 < ariard> BlueMatt: updated, let me know if this work for you, I'm off for tonight
18:26 < BlueMatt> will look tomorrow, thanks!
18:49 -!- rloomba [~rloomba@2601:646:100:3410:b9c5:8f73:c633:700] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
22:38 -!- sgeisler [sid356034@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bdqmskrugramvupb] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
22:38 -!- sgeisler [sid356034@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xvuxswhasjcxjzit] has joined #rust-bitcoin
23:59 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
--- Log closed Fri Oct 09 00:00:41 2020