--- Log opened Sun Mar 21 00:00:02 2021 00:16 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-230-226.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 00:20 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-230-226.dyn.295.ca] has joined ##taproot-activation 00:26 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-230-226.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 00:30 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-230-226.dyn.295.ca] has joined ##taproot-activation 00:32 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:32 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined ##taproot-activation 00:51 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net] 00:51 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation 00:55 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:55 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has joined ##taproot-activation 01:06 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:06 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined ##taproot-activation 01:06 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host] 01:06 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation 01:23 -!- pox [~pox@gateway/tor-sasl/pox] has quit [Quit: pox] 01:24 -!- pox [~pox@gateway/tor-sasl/pox] has joined ##taproot-activation 01:26 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:26 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined ##taproot-activation 01:52 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net] 01:53 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation 02:08 -!- pox [~pox@gateway/tor-sasl/pox] has quit [Quit: pox] 02:12 -!- pox [~pox@gateway/tor-sasl/pox] has joined ##taproot-activation 02:27 -!- Belieffresh [~belieffre@202.143.110.33] has joined ##taproot-activation 03:09 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.3.195] has joined ##taproot-activation 03:21 -!- Belieffresh [~belieffre@202.143.110.33] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.7.5 - https://znc.in] 03:21 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 03:22 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has joined ##taproot-activation 03:25 <@michaelfolkson> harding: 19:00 UTC (in the title of the email) 03:33 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 03:34 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has joined ##taproot-activation 03:38 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation 03:57 < harding> michaelfolkson: :facepalm: thanks! 03:57 < harding> michaelfolkson: maybe add that to the /topic ? 03:58 <@michaelfolkson> Oh you mean in this channel? Sure 04:02 -!- michaelfolkson changed the topic of ##taproot-activation to: Weekly meeting to discuss Speedy Trial activation on Tuesdays at 19:00 UTC Logs: http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/ Development of a LOT=true implementation belongs in ##uasf. Discussion on Taproot itself belongs in ##taproot-bip-review. 04:40 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.3.195] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:48 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation 04:50 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation 04:51 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:22 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:02 -!- _andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has joined ##taproot-activation 07:05 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.86.91] has joined ##taproot-activation 07:05 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 07:15 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:21 -!- rumm [252ec792@37.46.199.146] has joined ##taproot-activation 07:23 -!- rumm [252ec792@37.46.199.146] has quit [Client Quit] 07:52 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation 07:56 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:27 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation 08:28 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined ##taproot-activation 08:41 < devrandom> michaelfolkson: the meeting is every two weeks (or at least that's what jeremyrubin posted on the ML) 08:55 -!- stortz [c8b9cbcf@200.185.203.207] has joined ##taproot-activation 09:01 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 09:39 < jeremyrubin> harding: sorry for the uncertainty -- some people have definitely pinged me about this as well, you're not alone :) 09:39 < jeremyrubin> I think if you drag and drop the .ics onto e.g. google cal it should work? That's how I generated it... 10:08 <@michaelfolkson> devrandom: Right, I think we'll need to do it every week though. Proposed (not finalized) startheight is May 1st which is six weeks away. I'll leave it as weekly as the topic unless we decide weekly is unnecessary on Tuesday 10:12 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation 10:15 <@michaelfolkson> Transcript up for luke-jr interview on Stephan Livera podcast discussing Taproot activation https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/stephan-livera-podcast/2021-03-17-luke-dashjr-taproot-activation/ 10:38 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@024-176-247-182.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 10:39 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@024-176-247-182.res.spectrum.com] has joined ##taproot-activation 10:40 < jeremyrubin> michaelfolkson: I think you should be careful to over-scheduling people. 2 weeks is better for giving people time to seriously consider anything / do work between meetings. weekly will lead to burnout. 10:42 < jeremyrubin> If you have an issue with my proposal for every other week you should solicit interest for it, I haven't seen appetite for a meeting more frequent 10:42 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: We can have a slot. It doesn't need to be used. Or I can just show up and see if anyone has any questions. 10:42 <@michaelfolkson> If people want they can have 24 1 hour meetings every day, it doesn't need to be formal 10:43 <@michaelfolkson> We do have to try to get users (including miners) to run this thing at the end of the day. And the proposed timetable isn't relaxed 10:43 < jeremyrubin> Sure, I think it's fine for people to meet when they want, but the meeting that I am hosting and requesting that people "speak now or forever hold peace" is a fortnightly meeting. 10:43 <@michaelfolkson> Cool, understood 10:44 < jeremyrubin> I don't anticipate needing more than 1 such meeting. 10:44 < jeremyrubin> but have scheduled in advance to reserve it so that scheduling isn't an issue. 10:45 <@michaelfolkson> Yeah plan for Tuesday sounds good 10:50 < jeremyrubin> in the scope of months/quarters I think it makes sense to be agressive on getting things accomplished. But making the present rate of change faster isn't really possible so if we have to adjust release dates by a few weeks it really isn't an issue. Much more important to not stumble at the finish line. Injecting urgency will only frustrate and increase risk of error. 10:51 < jeremyrubin> If we can't finalize details on Tuesday and we need to push a proposed date back by two weeks, it is not a big deal. 10:59 < luke-jr> yes it is 11:00 < luke-jr> since BA seems to be dead, I may have to NACK ST 11:00 < jeremyrubin> BA? 11:00 < luke-jr> BitcoinActivation 11:00 < jeremyrubin> what's that? 11:00 < luke-jr> Bitcoin Core w/ Taproot 11:01 < jeremyrubin> Why does a dead side project mean that you'll NACK the thing actually proceeding towards activation? 11:01 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: ST is only okay as an effort to precede a real activation method with LOT=True 11:01 < luke-jr> ST is not okay as a primary activation method 11:01 < jeremyrubin> And why does pushing 2 weeks kill BA? 11:02 < luke-jr> different issue 11:02 < jeremyrubin> No it is not. 11:02 < jeremyrubin> You literally just claimed that pushing 2 weeks will cause you to nack ST 11:02 < luke-jr> BA is already dead afaict. Nobody is working on it. 11:02 < jeremyrubin> Ok so you already NACK ST then 11:02 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: no, waiting 2 weeks isn't a non-issue; that's separate from the BA/NACK stuff 11:03 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: I don't want to NACK ST, so I'm trying to hold off 11:03 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: A weekly meeting will "frustrate and increase risk of error"? I'm not sure of that... 11:03 < luke-jr> in hopes BA starts moving again 11:03 < jeremyrubin> Gotcha. Usually if people say 2 unrelated things back to back joined by a conjunction they mean they are related 11:03 < luke-jr> there wasn't a conjunction :P 11:03 < jeremyrubin> since is a conjunction 11:04 < luke-jr> not joinign the previous line 11:04 < luke-jr> read it by itself, it's clear 11:04 < jeremyrubin> it really isn't... since means "For the reason that, because" 11:04 < jeremyrubin> so "yes it is, since" explains why you're saying it is a big deal 11:04 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: I'm leaving the option open for a weekly meeting. As I said if people want to have 24 1 hour meetings every day they can. You or I don't need to attend them all 11:05 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: BA being dead would be the reason to NACK ST 11:05 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: cmon, aren't you a native English speaker? I shouldn't have to explain this -.- 11:06 <@michaelfolkson> luke-jr: I don't disagree BA is dead. Just waiting for finalized dates on ST so it doesn't release something incompatible 11:06 < jeremyrubin> luke-jr: so you are already NACK ST then. "BA is already dead afaict" 11:06 <@michaelfolkson> luke-jr: *I disagree BA is dead 11:07 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: tentatively, if you insist 11:07 < jeremyrubin> luke-jr: Then you should pre-register a nack comment on the mailing list as requested with an explanation of the logic :) 11:07 < luke-jr> michaelfolkson: if it were just activation params, that would make sense; but it's not moving at all 11:07 < midnight> ... 11:08 <@michaelfolkson> luke-jr: I can only speak for myself but I will be very interested in BA once activation params are finalized. I don't want to make it look like I'm trying to disrupt ST until it is finalized. 11:09 <@michaelfolkson> luke-jr: Some people will say any activity on BA throws doubt on ST. I'm wary of that personally 11:12 < luke-jr> gotta run, bbl 11:19 -!- stortz [c8b9cbcf@200.185.203.207] has quit [Quit: Connection closed] 11:33 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: I think with 6 weeks to go to the proposed startheight Taproot activation becomes a priority now for everyone with a stake in Taproot activation. If it isn't we're just waiting for ST to fail 11:34 <@michaelfolkson> A weekly meeting is probably the least we should be doing 11:54 -!- Guest30742 is now known as pigeons 12:06 < robert_spigler> Unfortunately, I am unable to make this Tuesday's meeting, but I will be reading the backlog 12:07 < robert_spigler> I also don't believe BA/UASF is completely dead, but I too don't want to make any impression that I am trying to disrupt ST, and I wish it to be compatible (that is how the discussions have been going so far) 12:11 < robert_spigler> With timeoutheight happening in 2022 12:38 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net] 12:40 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation 13:35 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.86.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 13:56 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.86.91] has joined ##taproot-activation 14:18 -!- carboncarlo [900263cd@bbcs-99-205.pub.wingo.ch] has joined ##taproot-activation 14:24 -!- carboncarlo [900263cd@bbcs-99-205.pub.wingo.ch] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:24 -!- carbon [900263cd@bbcs-99-205.pub.wingo.ch] has joined ##taproot-activation 14:25 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.167.86.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 14:26 -!- carbon [900263cd@bbcs-99-205.pub.wingo.ch] has quit [Client Quit] 14:27 -!- carboncarlo [900263cd@bbcs-99-205.pub.wingo.ch] has joined ##taproot-activation 14:30 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-230-226.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 14:31 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-230-226.dyn.295.ca] has joined ##taproot-activation 14:44 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-45-58-230-226.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 14:47 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.166.26.72] has joined ##taproot-activation 14:52 < luke-jr> achow101: I'm actually at a loss for wtf C++ is doing here. Seems to be a C++17 incompatibility? 14:52 < luke-jr> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8016780/undefined-reference-to-static-constexpr-char 14:53 < achow101> in the backport? 14:54 < luke-jr> that's where I encounter an issue, yes 14:54 < luke-jr> building with C++17 enabled works, but not C++11 14:55 < luke-jr> ironically, the compatibility note on the SO doesn't work at all :/ 14:59 < achow101> I'll try to backport it now 15:05 < achow101> luke-jr: were you able to resolve the issue from last night or is this part of that problem? 15:06 < luke-jr> same issue 15:12 -!- tromp [~tromp@dhcp-077-249-230-040.chello.nl] has joined ##taproot-activation 15:24 < luke-jr> it's like the bug preexisted, but wasn't detected 15:24 < luke-jr> (but even then I'm not sure how to fix it properly) 15:36 < achow101> luke-jr: the bug appears to do with how c++11(?) is putting constexpr things into functions with variable number of arguments 15:36 < achow101> I'm seeing it in two places: strprintf and BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL 15:37 < achow101> The fix I have now is to just put the values in the string directly instead of trying to use strprintf with those values, and then use BOOST_CHECK instead of BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL 15:37 < achow101> Dunno why or how. maybe it's a gcc bug maybe something else? 15:41 < achow101> luke-jr: https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/0.21-bip8-speedy-trial 17:00 -!- b10c [~b10c@2a01:4f8:200:1036::1] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.1 - https://znc.in] 17:08 < luke-jr> achow101: seems like it's a GCC bug that it works in other cases? 17:09 < luke-jr> ie, it works when inlined, but C++11 doesn't require inlining 17:13 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net] 17:15 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation 17:27 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation 17:33 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 17:49 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined ##taproot-activation 17:51 -!- adiabat_ [~adiabat@63.209.32.102] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 17:51 -!- adiabat_ [~adiabat@63.209.32.102] has joined ##taproot-activation 18:14 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net] 18:17 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation 18:19 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation 18:31 -!- gwillen [~gwillen@unaffiliated/gwillen] has joined ##taproot-activation 19:30 -!- colin1 [5d296bd2@93-41-107-210.ip81.fastwebnet.it] has joined ##taproot-activation 19:32 -!- colin1 [5d296bd2@93-41-107-210.ip81.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Client Quit] 21:20 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 21:21 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation 23:48 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds] 23:52 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has joined ##taproot-activation --- Log closed Mon Mar 22 00:00:03 2021