1 2016-03-03 02:17:20	0|gmaxwell|12:47 < paveljanik> ECDSA Key Extraction from Mobile Devices via Nonintrusive Physical Side Channels (http://eprint.iacr.org/2016/230.pdf)
  2 2016-03-03 02:17:56	0|gmaxwell|Indeed, we were aware that OpenSSL was vulnerable to this kind of attack (though the pratical exploitation of it is quite interesting) and stopped using it several years ago as a result.
  3 2016-03-03 10:35:32	0|GitHub33|[13bitcoin] 15elliotolds opened pull request #7635: [Documentation] Add dependency info to test docs (06master...06docs4) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7635
  4 2016-03-03 10:51:30	0|GitHub21|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon closed pull request #7310: MOVEONLY: Move consensus functions out of main (06master...06consensus-moveonly-0.13.99) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7310
  5 2016-03-03 10:53:00	0|GitHub57|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon closed pull request #6907: Chainparams: Use a regular factory for creating chainparams (06master...06chainparams-factory-0.12.99) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6907
  6 2016-03-03 10:53:20	0|GitHub133|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon closed pull request #7566: WIP: Implement BIP9 and get BIP113 to be ready to be deployed with it as an example (06master...06bip9-0.12.99) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7566
  7 2016-03-03 10:55:16	0|GitHub13|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon closed pull request #7565: bip9/bip113/libconsensus-p2a: Deployment preparations forBIP113 + #7552 + Introduce Consensus::VerifyTx() (06master...06libconsensus-p2a-verifytx-bip113-0.12.99) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7565
  8 2016-03-03 11:11:39	0|GitHub153|[13bitcoin] 15makevoid opened pull request #7636: Add bitcoin address label to request payment QR code (06master...06request_payment_qrcode_address_label) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7636
  9 2016-03-03 11:19:11	0|jouke|bitcoind -help-debug checks if bitcoin core is running?
 10 2016-03-03 11:19:23	0|jouke|bitcoind -help does not. Intended behaviour?
 11 2016-03-03 11:22:21	0|jouke|oh, --help -help-debug
 12 2016-03-03 11:22:26	0|jouke|never mind
 13 2016-03-03 11:54:38	0|GitHub198|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon closed pull request #7563: libconsensus-p2a: Decouple pow.o from chain.o and move it to the consensus package (06master...06libconsensus-p2a-chain-cpp-interface-0.12.99) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7563
 14 2016-03-03 11:57:56	0|GitHub11|13bitcoin/06master 14fa1b80d 15MarcoFalke: [travis] Only run check-doc.py once
 15 2016-03-03 11:57:56	0|GitHub11|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/409f843f2ed2...1b68de35250e
 16 2016-03-03 11:57:57	0|GitHub11|13bitcoin/06master 141b68de3 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7620: [travis] Only run check-doc.py once...
 17 2016-03-03 11:58:06	0|GitHub17|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7620: [travis] Only run check-doc.py once (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7620
 18 2016-03-03 12:31:51	0|GitHub58|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #7637: Fix memleak in TorController [rework] (06master...062016_03_torcontrol_leak) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7637
 19 2016-03-03 12:32:06	0|GitHub143|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7610: Fix memleak in TorController (06master...062016/02/torctrl_memleak) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7610
 20 2016-03-03 12:56:16	0|GitHub137|13bitcoin/06master 145ecfa36 15Jonas Schnelli: Remove openssl info from init/log and from Qt debug window
 21 2016-03-03 12:56:16	0|GitHub137|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1b68de35250e...7f001bdf641d
 22 2016-03-03 12:56:17	0|GitHub137|13bitcoin/06master 147f001bd 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7605: Remove openssl info from init/log and from Qt debug window...
 23 2016-03-03 12:56:21	0|GitHub45|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7605: Remove openssl info from init/log and from Qt debug window (06master...062016/02/rm_openssl_log) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7605
 24 2016-03-03 12:56:31	0|GitHub59|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7586: fixes/refactoring for building against LibreSSL (06master...062016/02/fix_openssl_libressl) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7586
 25 2016-03-03 13:32:44	0|GitHub83|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj reopened pull request #7517: test: script_error checking in script_invalid tests (06master...062016_02_test_script_errors) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7517
 26 2016-03-03 14:10:26	0|GitHub6|13bitcoin/06master 145a2b1c0 15Alex Morcos: Don't resend wallet txs that aren't in our own mempool
 27 2016-03-03 14:10:26	0|GitHub6|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7f001bdf641d...3368895c3b94
 28 2016-03-03 14:10:27	0|GitHub6|13bitcoin/06master 143368895 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7521: Don't resend wallet txs that aren't in our own mempool...
 29 2016-03-03 14:10:31	0|GitHub64|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7521: Don't resend wallet txs that aren't in our own mempool (06master...06testBeforeRelay) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7521
 30 2016-03-03 14:43:10	0|jouke|wallet config has spendzeroconfchange=0, but with 0.12 it does create transactions with inputs that were not confirmed yet.
 31 2016-03-03 15:04:18	0|wumpus|jouke: ugh! can you open an issue?
 32 2016-03-03 15:06:04	0|wumpus|strange, I wonder what changed in that code, looking at CWalletTx::IsTrusted() it still returns false when depth is not >=1 and that option isn't set
 33 2016-03-03 15:07:21	0|wumpus|so is it spending outputs that aren't IsTrusted?
 34 2016-03-03 15:08:12	0|wumpus|shouldn't be, AvailableCoins is always called with fOnlyConfirmed, and it skips coins that aren't trusted if that is set
 35 2016-03-03 15:08:17	0|wumpus|no, I don't see how this could happen :/
 36 2016-03-03 15:08:44	0|wumpus|maybe there was a reorg, and a transaction went from 1 to 0 confirms?
 37 2016-03-03 15:12:18	0|jonasschnelli|jouke, wumpus: interesting... testing local
 38 2016-03-03 15:17:03	0|jonasschnelli|Can't reproduce in a local test.
 39 2016-03-03 15:17:18	0|jonasschnelli|-spendzeroconfchange=0 worked for me
 40 2016-03-03 15:17:27	0|jonasschnelli|maybe a reorg thing.. yes.
 41 2016-03-03 15:27:09	0|GitHub120|13bitcoin/06master 14fa5f193 15MarcoFalke: [travis] Exit early when check-doc.py fails
 42 2016-03-03 15:27:09	0|GitHub120|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3368895c3b94...7f966713a413
 43 2016-03-03 15:27:10	0|GitHub120|13bitcoin/06master 147f96671 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7455: [travis] Exit early when check-doc.py fails...
 44 2016-03-03 15:27:14	0|GitHub163|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7455: [travis] Exit early when check-doc.py fails (06master...06Mf1601-travisCheckDoc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7455
 45 2016-03-03 19:00:00	0|gmaxwell|Meeting time?
 46 2016-03-03 19:00:08	0|Luke-Jr|yep
 47 2016-03-03 19:01:01	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: wumpus: phantomcircuit: petertodd: sipa: paveljanik: sdaftuar: morcos: BlueMatt:
 48 2016-03-03 19:02:23	0|petertodd|hi
 49 2016-03-03 19:03:01	0|gmaxwell|petertodd: I figured we should wait for some more people to show to start.
 50 2016-03-03 19:03:28	0|sdaftuar|present
 51 2016-03-03 19:04:11	0|sipa|present
 52 2016-03-03 19:05:31	0|CodeShark|Hello
 53 2016-03-03 19:05:49	0|gmaxwell|cfields: btcdrak: CodeShark:
 54 2016-03-03 19:06:25	0|gmaxwell|#startmeeting
 55 2016-03-03 19:06:26	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Mar  3 19:06:26 2016 UTC.  The chair is gmaxwell. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
 56 2016-03-03 19:06:26	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
 57 2016-03-03 19:06:33	0|gmaxwell|#topic Agenda
 58 2016-03-03 19:06:51	0|gmaxwell|What things need to be discussed today?
 59 2016-03-03 19:07:21	0|CodeShark|Versionbits, segwit status
 60 2016-03-03 19:08:06	0|gmaxwell|okay lets start on versionbits for now and we'll see what else gets raised?
 61 2016-03-03 19:08:12	0|gmaxwell|#topic Versionbits (BIP9)
 62 2016-03-03 19:08:21	0|btcdrak|hi
 63 2016-03-03 19:08:42	0|sipa|i'm about to push a few changes to 7575 (non semantic ones), and it should be ready for review
 64 2016-03-03 19:08:49	0|gmaxwell|Sipa has been working on refining the proposal and has made some recent changes which I think are pretty good-- eliminate some corner cases around start/stop.
 65 2016-03-03 19:09:12	0|btcdrak|The BIP update is looking nice.
 66 2016-03-03 19:09:14	0|CodeShark|Yes, I like the latest changes
 67 2016-03-03 19:09:16	0|sipa|so BIP9 currently guarantees that as long as the start/end times of deployments are non-overlapping, the bits are never ambiguous
 68 2016-03-03 19:09:44	0|sipa|so no need for dependency tracking between different deployments, just choose start/end times sanely
 69 2016-03-03 19:10:27	0|CodeShark|Yes, that's what I had in mind in my implementation but sipa did it better :)
 70 2016-03-03 19:10:38	0|sipa|7575 currently implements that, and has tests (for the low-level logic, not for the integration with consensus logic)
 71 2016-03-03 19:11:04	0|gmaxwell|I continue to be a little concerned that the activation threshold may be too high considering the low variance triggering mechenism, and activation delay. But I see nothing to do about that except try it and see if our first versionbits fork attempt fails to activate in a reasonable time.
 72 2016-03-03 19:11:29	0|sipa|we can reduce the threshold if needed
 73 2016-03-03 19:11:49	0|sipa|increasing is harder, as it may cause warning to not fire
 74 2016-03-03 19:12:08	0|sdaftuar|sipa: is 7575 going to eventually include deployment code for BIP68/112/113, or are you going to remove the last commit for a different PR?
 75 2016-03-03 19:12:26	0|sipa|sdaftuar: going to remove the last commit, and replace with whatever is agreed
 76 2016-03-03 19:12:29	0|gmaxwell|Thats a good argument. (that it's easier to reduce the threshold)
 77 2016-03-03 19:12:47	0|btcdrak|sdaftuar: I have the deployment code done for VB
 78 2016-03-03 19:13:07	0|morcos|sipa: should the regtest window be smaller than 2016?
 79 2016-03-03 19:13:19	0|sdaftuar|btcdrak: ok great.  i was just going to say that saving the deployment for a subsequent PR might be easier for reviewing tests, etc
 80 2016-03-03 19:13:49	0|morcos|just seems like it'll make the tests less cumbersome if you want to watch what happens as you go up and down through a couple different windows
 81 2016-03-03 19:13:50	0|btcdrak|I was going to say, regtest with 2016 retarget is cumbersome
 82 2016-03-03 19:13:54	0|gmaxwell|we need to fix regtest to not fall over at retargeting.
 83 2016-03-03 19:14:01	0|sdaftuar|i think that is fixed
 84 2016-03-03 19:14:02	0|morcos|didn't we do that
 85 2016-03-03 19:14:08	0|gmaxwell|oh sorry! :)
 86 2016-03-03 19:14:10	0|sdaftuar|but it still might be cumbersome to generate long chains
 87 2016-03-03 19:14:18	0|sipa|yes, regtest just never changes difficulty now
 88 2016-03-03 19:14:27	0|btcdrak|it's cumbersome to generate long chains, since there are two retarget windows required.
 89 2016-03-03 19:14:40	0|sipa|but good point; i can set the regtest window/threshold lower
 90 2016-03-03 19:14:49	0|cfields|whoops, present. thanks gmaxwell.
 91 2016-03-03 19:14:51	0|btcdrak|sipa: +1
 92 2016-03-03 19:14:52	0|gmaxwell|why is typing setgenerate 4032 a problem?
 93 2016-03-03 19:15:01	0|sdaftuar|however i also worry that we're no longer testing mainnet parameters, and the consensus parameters are duplicated for each chain
 94 2016-03-03 19:15:07	0|sipa|gmaxwell: you want generate 4032
 95 2016-03-03 19:15:16	0|btcdrak|gmaxwell: it's too much for RPC tests
 96 2016-03-03 19:15:24	0|sipa|gmaxwell: setgenerate starts the internal miner with the specified number of cores; it no longer has special casing for regtest
 97 2016-03-03 19:15:28	0|morcos|it just takes a little longer...
 98 2016-03-03 19:15:39	0|gmaxwell|I do like to avoid avoidable differences between regtest and mainnet.
 99 2016-03-03 19:16:16	0|gmaxwell|perhaps the answer if it's taking to long is to make regtest even faster?
100 2016-03-03 19:16:36	0|sipa|reintroduce SSE mining code? :p
101 2016-03-03 19:16:44	0|btcdrak|:p
102 2016-03-03 19:16:52	0|gmaxwell|I meant lower the difficulty. :)
103 2016-03-03 19:17:07	0|morcos|12 secs
104 2016-03-03 19:17:08	0|sipa|the regtest difficulty is 1/2000000000
105 2016-03-03 19:17:25	0|sipa|you can at most get a 2x speedup
106 2016-03-03 19:17:38	0|morcos|i think it would make the rpc test for this pretty slow as i imagine you'd need to do that many times
107 2016-03-03 19:17:49	0|gmaxwell|OK, suggestion withdrawn.
108 2016-03-03 19:18:23	0|sdaftuar|i worry more that a typo in the mainnet chain's deployment bitmask might go unnoticed/untested
109 2016-03-03 19:18:40	0|gmaxwell|(why is it so slow? 6 seconds for 4k blocks seems like a lot)
110 2016-03-03 19:19:13	0|sdaftuar|would anything catch that?
111 2016-03-03 19:19:16	0|sipa|i'm still fine with lower window for regtest
112 2016-03-03 19:19:41	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: review; I guess. (hahaha)
113 2016-03-03 19:20:05	0|btcdrak|gmaxwell: it's much slower on RPC tests
114 2016-03-03 19:20:40	0|sdaftuar|especially if there's stuff in your mempool right?
115 2016-03-03 19:21:08	0|sdaftuar|blockindex consistency checks and mempool consistency checks both add up i guess
116 2016-03-03 19:21:21	0|morcos|maybe we didn't fix everything...  blocks 4k -> 8k = 32 secs,   blocks 8k -> 12k = 53 secs
117 2016-03-03 19:21:22	0|sdaftuar|i'd guess*
118 2016-03-03 19:21:30	0|btcdrak|yeah it's like 45 seconds for me
119 2016-03-03 19:21:32	0|sdaftuar|blockindex checks are n^2 no?
120 2016-03-03 19:21:37	0|sdaftuar|er
121 2016-03-03 19:21:45	0|morcos|i suppose..  i think we're in the weeds
122 2016-03-03 19:21:48	0|sdaftuar|yeah sorry
123 2016-03-03 19:22:20	0|gmaxwell|So, sipa what do you need now for versionbits?
124 2016-03-03 19:23:09	0|sipa|let me push a few changes, and then review
125 2016-03-03 19:23:18	0|sipa|and tests are welcome
126 2016-03-03 19:23:43	0|gmaxwell|#action after sipa pushes a few changes; reivew/test 7575, review BIP9
127 2016-03-03 19:24:11	0|gmaxwell|Move on to segwit status? anyone have other agenda items to add?
128 2016-03-03 19:24:24	0|paveljanik|feefilter review etc. please
129 2016-03-03 19:24:36	0|morcos|and i hae a quick comment on tx backlog
130 2016-03-03 19:24:39	0|paveljanik|BIP113
131 2016-03-03 19:24:58	0|gmaxwell|k, lets do txbacklog right now.
132 2016-03-03 19:24:58	0|Luke-Jr|I still think feefilter should be a little more flexible.
133 2016-03-03 19:25:02	0|gmaxwell|#topic txbacklog
134 2016-03-03 19:25:29	0|Luke-Jr|is there one?
135 2016-03-03 19:25:33	0|morcos|i was wondering what kind of improvements are acceptable for minor releases
136 2016-03-03 19:25:37	0|paveljanik|s/113/133/
137 2016-03-03 19:25:51	0|sdaftuar|CPFP mining! :)
138 2016-03-03 19:25:55	0|sipa|morcos: in response to an urgent problem, i'd say "anything"
139 2016-03-03 19:26:03	0|morcos|i've noticed block validation seems to have slowed down significantly..  my theory is this is due to the daily cache flush and now many txs in blocks are older than that
140 2016-03-03 19:26:09	0|morcos|this isn't urgent for sure
141 2016-03-03 19:26:12	0|sipa|ok
142 2016-03-03 19:26:32	0|gmaxwell|Right now there has been an increase in tx with fees over 1 satoshi per byte. The months standing background spam load of a around a gigabyte below that seems largely unchanged to me.
143 2016-03-03 19:26:35	0|morcos|but it seems to me if we can correctly fix the "write but don't flush" aspect of the coinsviewcache, then that should be a significant performance boost
144 2016-03-03 19:27:08	0|morcos|i guess it depends on whether we think validation times are a significant bottleneck for anything
145 2016-03-03 19:27:08	0|sipa|morcos: yes...
146 2016-03-03 19:27:18	0|gmaxwell|morcos: I've noticed the startup checks being much slower and was wondering if we'd made some regression someplace. Haven't tried bisecting.
147 2016-03-03 19:27:27	0|petertodd|morcos: until we change to sending blocks before validating them they do add up
148 2016-03-03 19:27:44	0|Luke-Jr|has anyone looked into whether the new txs are real or spam?
149 2016-03-03 19:28:05	0|gmaxwell|Luke-Jr: some people have, petertodd was tweeting some analysis that strongly supported the latter.
150 2016-03-03 19:28:08	0|petertodd|Luke-Jr: yeah, they look like long chains where eventually everything goes back to the sender, apaprently
151 2016-03-03 19:28:15	0|Luke-Jr|hmm
152 2016-03-03 19:28:15	0|petertodd|Luke-Jr: but no formal writeups exist yet
153 2016-03-03 19:28:21	0|morcos|heh, you mean short chains..  woo hoo for chain limits!
154 2016-03-03 19:28:40	0|Luke-Jr|any patterns to identify it with?
155 2016-03-03 19:28:40	0|petertodd|morcos: no, they're long chains - once the txs confirm the chain is extended further
156 2016-03-03 19:29:29	0|gmaxwell|in general most wallets are responding well (hurray! big improvement from 6 months ago) though not all.
157 2016-03-03 19:29:53	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: speaking of, I noticed greenaddress has rbf code in their github repo
158 2016-03-03 19:29:56	0|morcos|it looks to me like the backlog is diminishing as well
159 2016-03-03 19:29:57	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: (for sending)
160 2016-03-03 19:30:56	0|gmaxwell|petertodd: interesting, yes.. gait has been working on that; I think he was off in a design rathole on how to best support updating with additional outputs.
161 2016-03-03 19:31:22	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: yeah, lots of possible ways wallets can do that, some of them quite different from how wallets work right now
162 2016-03-03 19:31:24	0|gmaxwell|FWIW, with the new proposal for schnorr aggregate signatures, updating for more outputs will be much more attractive.
163 2016-03-03 19:31:38	0|cfields|gmaxwell: speaking of, the -mintxfee behavior change may be worth a quick discussion.
164 2016-03-03 19:32:06	0|sipa|cfields: the -paytxfee change you mean? :)
165 2016-03-03 19:32:11	0|sipa|(too many fee parameters...)
166 2016-03-03 19:32:19	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: oh! that's a good point!
167 2016-03-03 19:33:02	0|cfields|sipa: er yes
168 2016-03-03 19:33:05	0|morcos|i think we just bungled not more clearly announcing the change in semantics for paytxfee
169 2016-03-03 19:33:52	0|morcos|surprising none of us flagged that as important at the time of the PR...  which does raise another issue, we should have a checklist of things to revisit before release
170 2016-03-03 19:34:00	0|gmaxwell|Did we know we really changed them? my view on the history was that it was changed to not round a long time ago, but another bug covered it up. That bug was fixed, and no one realized an announcement was needed.
171 2016-03-03 19:34:10	0|morcos|multiple times now we've said, ok we'll just need to fix that before release, and then forgotten or almost so
172 2016-03-03 19:34:24	0|morcos|gmaxwell: oh perhaps?
173 2016-03-03 19:34:26	0|Luke-Jr|morcos: well, the change in behaviour is definitely correct
174 2016-03-03 19:34:43	0|gmaxwell|I'm not sure that even if I realized it was a change I would have put "fee computation more accurate" as high importance-- since mining priority was changed to be precise a really long time ago. (0.6?)
175 2016-03-03 19:35:01	0|sipa|morcos: when i saw that discussion, i remembered the "fPayAtLeastCustomFee" global and associated problems, but I don't think I ever realized that that global and its default value equal to true was ever released
176 2016-03-03 19:35:45	0|gmaxwell|yea, I saw that fix but don't think I realized that it was ever in a release. When sipa asked me about paytxfee yesturday I told him it was changed to be accurate forever ago.
177 2016-03-03 19:35:56	0|gmaxwell|So I think thats the sequence of errors here.
178 2016-03-03 19:36:13	0|gmaxwell|A checklist would be useful, though I don't know if it would have saved us here.
179 2016-03-03 19:36:31	0|sipa|so what i think happened is that at some point we switched the mining code to be per byte instead of per kb, later that global was introduced which implicitly retained the behaviour of "rounding up to 1000 bytes for fee calculation" even though the rest of the code was updated to be per byte, and only now, with the global going away, we actually get the accurate change
180 2016-03-03 19:36:34	0|gmaxwell|asking people to document if a bug being fixed was ever released might have helped.
181 2016-03-03 19:36:35	0|morcos|yeah , a checklist on changing behavior of any options or rpc calls being properly documented
182 2016-03-03 19:36:58	0|morcos|another example is -maxsigcachesize
183 2016-03-03 19:37:04	0|sipa|and i expect that people who made these changes were aware of it, as they updated the rpc tests accordingly, but not review
184 2016-03-03 19:37:08	0|morcos|i pity the poor fool who has that set to 100000
185 2016-03-03 19:37:50	0|gmaxwell|you don't have 100 gb ram?
186 2016-03-03 19:37:52	0|Luke-Jr|ideally we should probably do the release notes in the PR itself
187 2016-03-03 19:37:59	0|morcos|i'm not sure how many people would catch all these warnings in the 2 foot think binder of release notes, but its still good to have them
188 2016-03-03 19:38:37	0|gmaxwell|I don't think it was a big deal here, but it could have been one.
189 2016-03-03 19:38:37	0|sipa|well if we'd have warning for unknown options, we can just switch to a practice of renaming them whenever their meaning changes
190 2016-03-03 19:38:41	0|CodeShark|make sure to say "WARNING" first so it's searchable :)
191 2016-03-03 19:38:57	0|btcdrak|yeah I've been meaning to suggest we add at least brief release note documentation in PRs
192 2016-03-03 19:39:14	0|sipa|btcdrak: i always do (or try to...)
193 2016-03-03 19:39:23	0|gmaxwell|okay, we're going on a tangent.
194 2016-03-03 19:39:36	0|sipa|going on a tangent is a sin
195 2016-03-03 19:39:41	0|gmaxwell|Anything more to say about backlog before we move to talk fee filter?
196 2016-03-03 19:39:42	0|morcos|oh no
197 2016-03-03 19:39:48	0|CodeShark|no trig puns
198 2016-03-03 19:39:58	0|gmaxwell|My sides hurt.
199 2016-03-03 19:39:58	0|sipa|CodeShark: i co-sign that
200 2016-03-03 19:39:59	0|btcdrak|sipa: can you cosign this?
201 2016-03-03 19:40:12	0|Luke-Jr|lol
202 2016-03-03 19:40:23	0|Luke-Jr|♥ sipa
203 2016-03-03 19:40:26	0|sdaftuar|so how about that fee filter
204 2016-03-03 19:40:33	0|gmaxwell|#topic feefilter
205 2016-03-03 19:40:45	0|morcos|it seems to work pretty well
206 2016-03-03 19:40:49	0|gmaxwell|Feefilter is awesome. I have not yet run it.
207 2016-03-03 19:40:59	0|Luke-Jr|sorry, I need to run.. I think feefilter at least needs some kind of "mode" for things like "how do we measure size" etc, but not a huge deal
208 2016-03-03 19:41:05	0|morcos|i mentioned in another context, it reduces tx send and rx bandwidth by around 40+%
209 2016-03-03 19:41:27	0|gmaxwell|thats fantastic.
210 2016-03-03 19:41:28	0|morcos|Luke-Jr: I'm basically of the mindset that we don't introduce complication until we need it
211 2016-03-03 19:41:47	0|morcos|its totally optional, so no reason not to replace it later with a more generic one if we ever bother implementing
212 2016-03-03 19:42:02	0|gmaxwell|We will not run out of message types, so we could introduce a modefilter later. I support that thinking.
213 2016-03-03 19:42:11	0|morcos|it seems to me the message type is the version, yep
214 2016-03-03 19:42:19	0|gmaxwell|I expect the way relay works to change substantially in the next couple years; so we should probably not overdesign here.
215 2016-03-03 19:43:08	0|morcos|i need to do a trivial pr rebase, but i guess it just needs more review
216 2016-03-03 19:43:23	0|morcos|i'm not sure what there is to discuss
217 2016-03-03 19:43:37	0|gmaxwell|Okay, I will test and review. Thanks for working on this.
218 2016-03-03 19:43:49	0|morcos|sure
219 2016-03-03 19:43:57	0|gmaxwell|#action Test and review fee filter. Morcos reports unicorns and rainbows result.
220 2016-03-03 19:44:09	0|paveljanik|great!
221 2016-03-03 19:44:14	0|morcos|well all depends on your test setup i guess.. :)
222 2016-03-03 19:44:20	0|gmaxwell|#topic CPFP mining
223 2016-03-03 19:44:31	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: hows it going?
224 2016-03-03 19:44:33	0|sdaftuar|it's awesome.
225 2016-03-03 19:44:52	0|sdaftuar|i've been running live for the last two days
226 2016-03-03 19:45:15	0|btcdrak|The PR number is #7600
227 2016-03-03 19:45:20	0|sdaftuar|comparing existing mining algorithm to new one
228 2016-03-03 19:45:25	0|sdaftuar|every ~128 tx's or so
229 2016-03-03 19:45:57	0|sdaftuar|looking at the last call to CNB before a block is found, i see a 72% increase in fee/block on the last 144 data points
230 2016-03-03 19:45:58	0|gmaxwell|I believe it should be making some pretty significant differences in selection from what I've seen. A number of users of OTHERBRAND wallet that has no fee estimation and always spends unconfirmed change seem to frequently produce chains of very low fee, very high fee (after realizing they needed more fee from the first tx).
231 2016-03-03 19:46:08	0|morcos|72% ?!?!??!
232 2016-03-03 19:46:15	0|sdaftuar|that could obviously be due to a small number of tx's that aren't getting mined for extended periods
233 2016-03-03 19:46:26	0|sdaftuar|but geez we need this deployed, i think
234 2016-03-03 19:46:41	0|btcdrak|amazing
235 2016-03-03 19:46:42	0|sipa|sdaftuar: i believe that test would result in an exaggerated result
236 2016-03-03 19:46:48	0|gmaxwell|the effect is likely exagerated due to the pattern I just described: the human controlled fees are exagerating the needed increase.
237 2016-03-03 19:47:06	0|sipa|sdaftuar: as you're not actually creating blocks on the network with the new CPFP algorithm, i guess?
238 2016-03-03 19:47:09	0|sdaftuar|yep
239 2016-03-03 19:47:10	0|sdaftuar|correct
240 2016-03-03 19:47:21	0|sdaftuar|so if a tx stays around for a day, and isn't selected by the old code, you'd count it over and over
241 2016-03-03 19:47:33	0|sipa|sdaftuar: meaning that in a real setting, those "better" transactions would be mined once and cleaned up, reducing the effect for later blocks
242 2016-03-03 19:47:37	0|sdaftuar|correct
243 2016-03-03 19:47:37	0|sipa|right,
244 2016-03-03 19:47:47	0|sipa|sdaftuar: how about performance?
245 2016-03-03 19:48:01	0|sdaftuar|so there are three areas of performance to consider
246 2016-03-03 19:48:11	0|sdaftuar|one is the additional work of the mempool to keep the index
247 2016-03-03 19:48:19	0|sdaftuar|another is the part of CNB before TestBlockValidity is called
248 2016-03-03 19:48:38	0|sdaftuar|and the last is the time TestBlockValidity takes (much larger than the rest of CNB, which is why i think it makes sense to split it out)
249 2016-03-03 19:48:58	0|gmaxwell|(whom ever makes the lay summary, please don't report 72% increase as what CPFP does; in consideration of sipa's above point about N-fold counting)
250 2016-03-03 19:49:18	0|sdaftuar|the mempool work isn't really a steady state increase, the concern i think is in what happens when a block is connected
251 2016-03-03 19:49:29	0|sdaftuar|because then we have to update all the scores for every in-block transaction's descendants
252 2016-03-03 19:49:54	0|morcos|gmaxwell: also the previous number he reported to me was 1%.. :)
253 2016-03-03 19:50:08	0|sdaftuar|(when you add a tx to the mempool, you statically count its ancestors once, so that's basically negligible additional work)
254 2016-03-03 19:50:40	0|sdaftuar|so i timed that extra delay in mempool.removeForBlock
255 2016-03-03 19:50:44	0|morcos|but i think it is a good point, that if the increase is sometimes very big, its important for miners to take it...  presumably the average increase wouldn't ever be much different from 0, as we don't see txs permantely residing in mempool
256 2016-03-03 19:50:46	0|sdaftuar|and reported some numbers in #7594
257 2016-03-03 19:51:13	0|sdaftuar|looks like what i saw was an increase from an average of 10.9ms to 11.2ms
258 2016-03-03 19:51:26	0|sdaftuar|that was on half a month's data from october
259 2016-03-03 19:51:32	0|sdaftuar|er 10 days i guess actually
260 2016-03-03 19:52:03	0|sdaftuar|so i figure that's negligible enough to not really worry about, especially because if we really cared, we could make block relay happen while the mempool was still being updated, though it'd take some work
261 2016-03-03 19:52:12	0|gmaxwell|do we worry that CPFP's utility is compromised without package relay? -- I guess these measurements suggest its not.
262 2016-03-03 19:52:22	0|sdaftuar|moving on to CreateNewBlock's performance:
263 2016-03-03 19:52:35	0|sdaftuar|vast majority of CNB's total time is taken up by TestBlockValidity
264 2016-03-03 19:53:06	0|CodeShark|sorry to interrupt - we only have 8 minutes and I wanted to discuss segwit
265 2016-03-03 19:53:16	0|sdaftuar|somehow, TBV is slightly faster using the new code than the old one.  i haven't dived into it, but my guess is that maybe it's faster to look up mempool inputs than pcoinsTip inputs?
266 2016-03-03 19:53:43	0|sdaftuar|that speed increase is actually larger than the small hit to performance on the rest of CNB, so it's actually faster in total.  anyway numbers are in the PR #7600
267 2016-03-03 19:53:45	0|morcos|gmaxwell: i don't see that as a big concern...  i think it'll likely become common practice to avoid fees so small that they get evicted unless its actual spam.  and CPFP will be useful for when you guess wrong on getting confirmed quickly
268 2016-03-03 19:53:46	0|sdaftuar|i think this is a clear win
269 2016-03-03 19:54:05	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: it sounds great, what now do you think we need to do to move forward?
270 2016-03-03 19:54:27	0|sdaftuar|review! i broke the work into 3 PR's for review.  one just adds the ancestor feerate index to the mempool (7594)
271 2016-03-03 19:54:29	0|gmaxwell|morcos: I guess thats one upside over the overly large mempool default size.
272 2016-03-03 19:54:38	0|sdaftuar|another is by morcos, which refactors CNB
273 2016-03-03 19:54:49	0|sdaftuar|and then 7600 builds on both with the change to CNB
274 2016-03-03 19:55:13	0|morcos|#7598
275 2016-03-03 19:55:30	0|gmaxwell|#action whip people into wroking on review for CFPF 7594 / 7598 / 7600  it's nicely broken up.
276 2016-03-03 19:55:39	0|gmaxwell|Can we segwit for CodeShark?
277 2016-03-03 19:55:43	0|CodeShark|lol
278 2016-03-03 19:55:43	0|gmaxwell|#topic segwit status
279 2016-03-03 19:55:52	0|CodeShark|we had a fork a few days ago
280 2016-03-03 19:56:05	0|sipa|i haven't had time to investigate
281 2016-03-03 19:56:19	0|sipa|my hope is that it is caused by miners running older versions of the code
282 2016-03-03 19:56:23	0|sipa|and not something else
283 2016-03-03 19:56:27	0|gmaxwell|Time for science then.
284 2016-03-03 19:56:43	0|CodeShark|that's most probable - but we haven't narrowed down the conditional that actually caused it
285 2016-03-03 19:56:48	0|sipa|i was planning on doing a segnet4 very soon, but we'd need to understand what's causing this first
286 2016-03-03 19:56:59	0|morcos|well is there anyone stuck on the short fork?
287 2016-03-03 19:57:13	0|CodeShark|I think there might still be a few
288 2016-03-03 19:57:26	0|morcos|seems like would be helpful to know what errors they have and what code they are running
289 2016-03-03 19:57:36	0|cfields|hmm, i'd be interested in taking a look there. sipa: any helpful references/context ?
290 2016-03-03 19:57:45	0|gmaxwell|might be useful if regtest networks put their git build info in their version numbers. awful for privacy... but would be useful here.
291 2016-03-03 19:57:49	0|sipa|cfields: CodeShark probably knows more
292 2016-03-03 19:58:10	0|gmaxwell|(e.g. a chainparam to put that info in the subver)
293 2016-03-03 19:58:11	0|cfields|ok. will ping CodeShark after
294 2016-03-03 19:58:22	0|CodeShark|I think the offending block was something like 22130
295 2016-03-03 19:58:26	0|CodeShark|or 22132
296 2016-03-03 19:58:29	0|CodeShark|or somewhere around there
297 2016-03-03 19:59:12	0|gmaxwell|okay So-- sounds good, a fleet of flying monkies will contemplate the segnet fork.  Posting forked IPs in the segwit IRC channel might get someone's attention.
298 2016-03-03 19:59:17	0|btcdrak|it's in the logs of #segwit-dev
299 2016-03-03 19:59:22	0|cfields|ok, thanks
300 2016-03-03 19:59:24	0|morcos|whats the actual block we're on now?
301 2016-03-03 19:59:40	0|CodeShark|22769
302 2016-03-03 20:00:06	0|CodeShark|https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/ is still stuck on 22153
303 2016-03-03 20:00:09	0|gmaxwell|okay any emergencies worth going over?
304 2016-03-03 20:00:11	0|CodeShark|so it's still running he old code
305 2016-03-03 20:00:31	0|gmaxwell|#endmeeting
306 2016-03-03 20:00:32	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-03-19.06.log.html
307 2016-03-03 20:00:32	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Mar  3 20:00:31 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
308 2016-03-03 20:00:32	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-03-19.06.html
309 2016-03-03 20:00:32	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-03-19.06.txt
310 2016-03-03 20:00:44	0|gmaxwell|Thanks everyone (of course feel free to keep discussing!)
311 2016-03-03 20:01:57	0|gmaxwell|Sorry we didn't get to all the topics.
312 2016-03-03 20:01:58	0|morcos|we still need tests for the soft fork BIPS right
313 2016-03-03 20:02:21	0|morcos|and 7187 still needs to be merged as well..
314 2016-03-03 20:02:59	0|btcdrak|morcos: I'm waiting on the python tests from sdaftuar for #7187
315 2016-03-03 20:03:57	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: if CPFP appears to be moderately stable, we might consider asking a moderately large miner to run it (in parallel to other stuff);  it would have most of it's usability benefit for the network if only one moderately large miner was running it.
316 2016-03-03 20:05:18	0|sdaftuar|gmaxwell: yeah i was wondering if any miners might be set up to test the new code using their production parameters at least?  so that we can measure performance in production settings and know we haven't missed anything
317 2016-03-03 20:05:45	0|sdaftuar|i thought it might make sense to wait until it was merged into master to ask someone to do that
318 2016-03-03 20:21:14	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: assuming that the surrounding enviroment is sufficently fail safe, even if it's a crash problem then it should be safe to try. but also no harm in getting some more maturity under its belt first.
319 2016-03-03 20:21:32	0|gmaxwell|The only reason I suggested it is because there are at least a few users whos delays could be avoided by it.
320 2016-03-03 20:24:39	0|sdaftuar|gmaxwell: that sounds reasonable to me.  do you have someone in mind to reach out to, or should i send out an email to the -dev list?
321 2016-03-03 20:37:30	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: I have someone in mind.
322 2016-03-03 20:46:46	0|sdaftuar|gmaxwell: cool, feel free to put them in touch with me