1 2016-06-16 01:58:52	0|phantomcircuit|jonasschnelli, can you review 8152? i'd like to move onto the next step which is moving things that aren't called externally to private and having them use a cached CWalletDB*
  2 2016-06-16 06:03:26	0|paveljanik|I'd like to be able to save mempool snapshot at shutdown so it could be "loaded" back on startup...
  3 2016-06-16 06:53:22	0|jonasschnelli|phantomcircuit: 8152 has a large diff now... but I'll try to review it.
  4 2016-06-16 06:54:50	0|jonasschnelli|?w=1 helps though
  5 2016-06-16 06:58:25	0|phantomcircuit|jonasschnelli: there's very little changed only things moved
  6 2016-06-16 06:58:35	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Will test now.
  7 2016-06-16 06:58:44	0|phantomcircuit|(there is some changed, but most of the lines are just moving stuff and changing the indentation)
  8 2016-06-16 07:20:53	0|jonasschnelli|paveljanik MarcoFalke: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8207 is this ready?
  9 2016-06-16 07:37:09	0|paveljanik|yes, we can fix the URL later
 10 2016-06-16 08:56:53	0|GitHub163|13bitcoin/06master 14fa58e5e 15MarcoFalke: [doc] Add website links to about dialog
 11 2016-06-16 08:56:53	0|GitHub163|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fb0ac482eee7...f7a403b4cf22
 12 2016-06-16 08:56:54	0|GitHub163|13bitcoin/06master 14f7a403b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8207: [trivial] Add a link to the Bitcoin-Core repository and website to the About Dialog...
 13 2016-06-16 08:57:03	0|GitHub19|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8207: [trivial] Add a link to the Bitcoin-Core repository and website to the About Dialog (06master...06Mf1606-LicInfo) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8207
 14 2016-06-16 08:58:21	0|GitHub171|13bitcoin/06master 14bc0a895 15Pieter Wuille: Do not set extra flags for unfiltered DNS seed results
 15 2016-06-16 08:58:21	0|GitHub171|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f7a403b4cf22...0a64777b909e
 16 2016-06-16 08:58:22	0|GitHub171|13bitcoin/06master 140a64777 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8208: Do not set extra flags for unfiltered DNS seed results...
 17 2016-06-16 08:58:33	0|GitHub118|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8208: Do not set extra flags for unfiltered DNS seed results (06master...06simplerservices) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8208
 18 2016-06-16 09:04:11	0|GitHub95|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0a64777b909e...e4bb4a85a551
 19 2016-06-16 09:04:12	0|GitHub95|13bitcoin/06master 145d0ca81 15Gregory Maxwell: Add recently accepted blocks and txn to AttemptToEvictConnection....
 20 2016-06-16 09:04:12	0|GitHub95|13bitcoin/06master 146ee7f05 15Gregory Maxwell: Allow disconnecting a netgroup with only one member in eviction....
 21 2016-06-16 09:04:13	0|GitHub95|13bitcoin/06master 14e4bb4a8 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8084: Add recently accepted blocks and txn to AttemptToEvictConnection....
 22 2016-06-16 09:04:21	0|GitHub166|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8084: Add recently accepted blocks and txn to AttemptToEvictConnection. (06master...06protect_recent_blocks) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8084
 23 2016-06-16 09:07:12	0|GitHub112|13bitcoin/06master 146fa950a 15Jonas Schnelli: [RPC] Fix createrawtx sequence number unsigned int parsing
 24 2016-06-16 09:07:12	0|GitHub112|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e4bb4a85a551...62fcf27bd8d7
 25 2016-06-16 09:07:13	0|GitHub112|13bitcoin/06master 1462fcf27 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8171: [RPC] Fix createrawtx sequence number unsigned int parsing...
 26 2016-06-16 09:07:22	0|GitHub191|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8171: [RPC] Fix createrawtx sequence number unsigned int parsing (06master...062016/06/fix_crt) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8171
 27 2016-06-16 09:07:35	0|jonasschnelli|cfields_: I'm working on Qt5.6.1 fix... I can compile it.. but had to restore two .pc files. Any idea why Qt.5.6.1 does not come with Qt5XcbQpa.pc and Qt5PlatformSupport.pc?
 28 2016-06-16 09:22:23	0|wumpus|I don't think cfields_ is back yet :)
 29 2016-06-16 09:28:35	0|paveljanik|interesting, I'll again try new dmg installer on OS X
 30 2016-06-16 09:32:06	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: that's curious! maybe qt git history will tell us something
 31 2016-06-16 09:32:14	0|ws2k3|hello, my bitcoin core says no source for block available how can i fix this?
 32 2016-06-16 09:32:32	0|jonasschnelli|Ah right. cfields_ is not here...
 33 2016-06-16 09:32:47	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: I looked into it and could not figure it out... but maybe need to look closer.
 34 2016-06-16 09:32:54	0|wumpus|ws2k3: fix your internet connection, usually :)
 35 2016-06-16 09:33:20	0|wumpus|usually means it cannot connect to other nodes (on port 8333)
 36 2016-06-16 09:34:54	0|paveljanik|jonasschnelli, https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-50073
 37 2016-06-16 09:35:10	0|ws2k3|wumpus it does say 8 connection to the bitcoin network
 38 2016-06-16 09:35:21	0|ws2k3|but in the left bottum it still says no source for blocks available
 39 2016-06-16 09:35:27	0|wumpus|how long has it been showing that there is no source for blocks available?
 40 2016-06-16 09:35:45	0|ws2k3|wumpus sinds i started using it(15 min ago)
 41 2016-06-16 09:36:07	0|ws2k3|wumpus i already restarted it a few times
 42 2016-06-16 09:36:28	0|wumpus|ok, no idea then
 43 2016-06-16 09:36:56	0|wumpus|anything strange in debug.log?
 44 2016-06-16 09:42:55	0|ws2k3|wumpus no nothing strange there i now have connection with 8 nodes it says. but it still does not download data
 45 2016-06-16 09:43:45	0|wumpus|what is the output of 'getpeerinfo'?
 46 2016-06-16 09:44:25	0|ws2k3|wumpus it shows a huge list i can pastebin if you want?
 47 2016-06-16 09:44:31	0|wumpus|yes
 48 2016-06-16 09:44:59	0|jonasschnelli|paveljanik: thanks!
 49 2016-06-16 09:46:43	0|wumpus|also the output of getblockchaininfo would be useful
 50 2016-06-16 09:48:22	0|ws2k3|wumpus i sended you a link
 51 2016-06-16 09:49:12	0|wumpus|hm apparently the node is at block 136572 - which means it did download some blocks earlier on
 52 2016-06-16 09:49:44	0|wumpus|but it isn't requesting any new blocks
 53 2016-06-16 09:51:24	0|wumpus|can you try: getblockheader 00000000000003ba98accad570d9b74fff1287508cbabb0955b54f0dc18ef64e  (that's the block after it)
 54 2016-06-16 09:52:45	0|wumpus|ok this makes no sense, it is supposed to return BLOCK_SOURCE_NETWORK in every case that there is more than one network connection
 55 2016-06-16 09:53:04	0|wumpus|so with those peers it certainly shouldn't be showing no block source available
 56 2016-06-16 09:53:17	0|ws2k3|wumpus i runned the command and it gave me some output
 57 2016-06-16 09:53:30	0|wumpus|looks like the GUI is stuck but it is actually doing something in the background?
 58 2016-06-16 09:53:39	0|ws2k3|wumpus should i pastebin it
 59 2016-06-16 09:53:47	0|ws2k3|wumpus it does not seem to do anything atm
 60 2016-06-16 09:54:00	0|wumpus|if you call getblockchaininfo multiple times in a row does the number of blocks increase?
 61 2016-06-16 09:54:07	0|wumpus|nah, not necessary
 62 2016-06-16 09:54:52	0|ws2k3|wumpus no the block number does not raise
 63 2016-06-16 09:55:32	0|ws2k3|wumpus but the network graph shows it does around 50 kbps
 64 2016-06-16 09:55:33	0|wumpus|can you try reconsiderblock 00000000000003ba98accad570d9b74fff1287508cbabb0955b54f0dc18ef64e
 65 2016-06-16 09:56:20	0|ws2k3|wumpus i runned the command output is emty
 66 2016-06-16 09:56:37	0|wumpus|anything in debug.log?
 67 2016-06-16 09:57:36	0|ws2k3|wumpus check link i pastebinned
 68 2016-06-16 09:58:04	0|wumpus|2016-06-16 09:50:28 ProcessMessages(headers, 162003 bytes) FAILED peer=2
 69 2016-06-16 09:58:04	0|wumpus|2016-06-16 09:55:51 ERROR: ConnectBlock(): tried to overwrite transaction
 70 2016-06-16 09:58:08	0|wumpus|ouch, your database is broken
 71 2016-06-16 09:58:18	0|wumpus|restart with the -reindex flag
 72 2016-06-16 09:59:04	0|ws2k3|wumpus i did its not reindexing
 73 2016-06-16 09:59:41	0|wumpus|ok then backup wallet.dat, remove the entire data directory
 74 2016-06-16 09:59:54	0|wumpus|and restart
 75 2016-06-16 10:00:37	0|ws2k3|wumpus sorry i made a typo. it is reindexing now
 76 2016-06-16 10:00:53	0|ws2k3|5 years 2 weeks and counting down
 77 2016-06-16 10:07:14	0|GitHub161|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/62fcf27bd8d7...3f89a534acfe
 78 2016-06-16 10:07:15	0|GitHub161|13bitcoin/06master 141111b80 15Pieter Wuille: Rework addnode behaviour...
 79 2016-06-16 10:07:15	0|GitHub161|13bitcoin/06master 14f9f5cfc 15Pieter Wuille: Prevent duplicate connections where one is by name and another by ip
 80 2016-06-16 10:07:16	0|GitHub161|13bitcoin/06master 141a5a4e6 15Pieter Wuille: Randomize name lookup result in ConnectSocketByName
 81 2016-06-16 10:07:18	0|GitHub63|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8113: Rework addnode behaviour (06master...06saneaddednode) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8113
 82 2016-06-16 10:08:53	0|GitHub188|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 6 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3f89a534acfe...9c3d0fab3623
 83 2016-06-16 10:08:54	0|GitHub188|13bitcoin/06master 1460ab9b2 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Squashed 'src/univalue/' changes from 2740c4f..f32df99...
 84 2016-06-16 10:08:55	0|GitHub188|13bitcoin/06master 146315152 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge commit '60ab9b200654ef0914459711cf2b22be16be3dc2'
 85 2016-06-16 10:08:55	0|GitHub188|13bitcoin/06master 14a406fcb 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: test: add ensure_ascii setting to AuthServiceProxy...
 86 2016-06-16 10:08:59	0|GitHub4|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7892: Add full UTF-8 support to RPC (06master...062016_04_i18n_unicode_rpc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7892
 87 2016-06-16 10:17:36	0|wumpus|PSA: it looks like the build system doesn't detect changes to univalue source files and will not automatically rebuild the library: **if you get RPC test failures concerning unicode, please build from a clean tree**
 88 2016-06-16 17:21:18	0|GitHub98|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9c3d0fab3623...66db2d62d598
 89 2016-06-16 17:21:19	0|GitHub98|13bitcoin/06master 1429fac19 15Suhas Daftuar: Add unit tests for ancestor feerate mining
 90 2016-06-16 17:21:19	0|GitHub98|13bitcoin/06master 14c82a4e9 15Suhas Daftuar: Use ancestor-feerate based transaction selection for mining...
 91 2016-06-16 17:21:20	0|GitHub98|13bitcoin/06master 1466db2d6 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #7600: Mining: Select transactions using feerate-with-ancestors...
 92 2016-06-16 17:21:23	0|GitHub152|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #7600: Mining: Select transactions using feerate-with-ancestors (06master...06ancestor-mining) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7600
 93 2016-06-16 17:25:00	0|sdaftuar|woot!
 94 2016-06-16 17:25:18	0|gmaxwell|Woot.
 95 2016-06-16 17:25:46	0|Chris_St1|woot?
 96 2016-06-16 17:28:59	0|sdaftuar|Chris_St1: i'm just glad ancestor feerate mining ("child pays for parent") was merged, is all.
 97 2016-06-16 17:49:57	0|GitHub121|[13bitcoin] 15jl2012 opened pull request #8209: Showing "not_applicable" if BIP9 timeout is 0 (06master...06patch-13) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8209
 98 2016-06-16 18:19:04	0|btcdrak|sdaftuar: congratz
 99 2016-06-16 18:27:39	0|jonasschnelli|sdaftuar: I haven't fully read myself through the CPFP PR. But how would this affect the wallet regarding fee bumps, etc.?
100 2016-06-16 18:28:14	0|jonasschnelli|Usecase: how could you "unstuck" a tx with CPFP... just use your unconfirmed/stuck input in a new transaction paying higher fees?
101 2016-06-16 18:29:54	0|sipa|yes
102 2016-06-16 18:30:12	0|sipa|(though that's less efficient than RBF, as you'll need to pay for inclusion of two transactions)
103 2016-06-16 18:30:41	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. Thanks... but..
104 2016-06-16 18:31:01	0|jonasschnelli|Could the enduser usecases be identical for RBF and CPFP?
105 2016-06-16 18:31:17	0|jonasschnelli|Something like the "bumpfee" API?
106 2016-06-16 18:32:54	0|Chris_St1|Has there been any effort to introduce property based testing? From what I can tell there isn't any in the code base yet
107 2016-06-16 18:50:43	0|GitHub157|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #8210: [Qt] Bump to Qt5.6.1 (06master...062016/06/qt_561) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8210
108 2016-06-16 18:57:17	0|Frederic94500|When Segwit update is available and when he is activate?
109 2016-06-16 19:00:41	0|wumpus|meeting time?
110 2016-06-16 19:00:50	0|petertodd|yup
111 2016-06-16 19:00:52	0|btcdrak|yup
112 2016-06-16 19:00:53	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Jun 16 19:00:53 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
113 2016-06-16 19:00:53	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
114 2016-06-16 19:00:53	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
115 2016-06-16 19:01:00	0|Frederic94500|Okay
116 2016-06-16 19:01:15	0|BakSAj|hi
117 2016-06-16 19:01:17	0|wumpus|topic suggestion: merge compactblocks for 0.13
118 2016-06-16 19:01:22	0|btcdrak|ack
119 2016-06-16 19:01:29	0|gmaxwell|I like topics.
120 2016-06-16 19:02:05	0|jonasschnelli|replacements (RBF/bumpfee) in 0.13
121 2016-06-16 19:02:30	0|btcdrak|segwit status
122 2016-06-16 19:02:32	0|jonasschnelli|ack for compactblocks topic
123 2016-06-16 19:02:35	0|sipa|topic: i propose pushing the feature freeze one week further for CB and segwit to stabilize
124 2016-06-16 19:02:43	0|gmaxwell|sipa: morcos: sdaftuar: jonasschnelli: btcdrak: phantomcircuit: paveljanik:
125 2016-06-16 19:02:49	0|wumpus|I really don't like that\
126 2016-06-16 19:02:53	0|wumpus|we already pushed it back a month
127 2016-06-16 19:02:56	0|gmaxwell|sipa: hm. so feature freeze doesn't mean the software is done.
128 2016-06-16 19:03:04	0|wumpus|I really want to feature freeze this week
129 2016-06-16 19:03:06	0|gmaxwell|it's not like we're waiting for new features for these things.
130 2016-06-16 19:03:21	0|gmaxwell|Is the issue just that we're worred about destablizing master a bit?
131 2016-06-16 19:03:28	0|wumpus|note that it's okay to merge something that still needs some work given that it can be done before rc1
132 2016-06-16 19:03:36	0|btcdrak|CB is mergeable. any bug fixes woudl be minor and can be merged afterwards.
133 2016-06-16 19:03:36	0|wumpus|but we really want to merge things now
134 2016-06-16 19:03:43	0|sdaftuar|CB is not mergeable imo
135 2016-06-16 19:03:52	0|sipa|well CB and segwit cannot be merged both
136 2016-06-16 19:03:55	0|wumpus|of course it shouldn't leave master in broken state
137 2016-06-16 19:03:57	0|sdaftuar|also true
138 2016-06-16 19:04:04	0|sipa|not right now
139 2016-06-16 19:04:27	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: do you think it's mergable with the outstanding raised issues resolved?
140 2016-06-16 19:04:37	0|luke-jr|we can merge segwit+CB+CPFP and let them stabilise in master?
141 2016-06-16 19:04:43	0|wumpus|sdaftuar: you realize that means it misses the merge window for 0.13?
142 2016-06-16 19:04:45	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: CPFP is merged now.
143 2016-06-16 19:04:45	0|sdaftuar|i haven't finished my review, but i raised some issues last night that i think need to be addressed
144 2016-06-16 19:04:49	0|btcdrak|luke-jr: CPFP merged
145 2016-06-16 19:04:51	0|luke-jr|oh, missed that, k
146 2016-06-16 19:05:14	0|sdaftuar|actually
147 2016-06-16 19:05:25	0|sdaftuar|bluematt hasn't updated yet to remove the work limit
148 2016-06-16 19:05:26	0|sdaftuar|that has to go
149 2016-06-16 19:05:54	0|sdaftuar|i hadn't bothered commenting because i was under the impression he's working on it
150 2016-06-16 19:05:55	0|gmaxwell|the criteria for merging isn't bugfree, its free of major architectural flaws or so full of issues we're not confident that it can be believed bugfree by rc1.
151 2016-06-16 19:06:04	0|wumpus|what about merging it and putting it behind an experimental option?
152 2016-06-16 19:06:23	0|btcdrak|sdaftuar: agreed, but it can be removed post merge in a separate PR.
153 2016-06-16 19:06:30	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: I presume he'll remove it as soon as he's back on.
154 2016-06-16 19:06:36	0|luke-jr|which topic are we on now? CB?
155 2016-06-16 19:06:42	0|btcdrak|yes CB
156 2016-06-16 19:06:43	0|jeremyrubin|luke-jr: yes
157 2016-06-16 19:06:45	0|luke-jr|#topic Compact block relay
158 2016-06-16 19:07:07	0|gmaxwell|(thats why I asked if you'd think it would be mergable if the outstanding identified issues were resolved)
159 2016-06-16 19:07:39	0|btcdrak|CB is clearly working as it's being live tested in the wild by major pools.
160 2016-06-16 19:07:49	0|sdaftuar|there's DoS risk that has not been analyzed at all
161 2016-06-16 19:07:56	0|gmaxwell|btcdrak: that doesn't mean that there aren't outstanding issues.
162 2016-06-16 19:08:05	0|wumpus|what about merging it experimentally for 0.13.0
163 2016-06-16 19:08:07	0|luke-jr|btcdrak: well, so is X-thin.. working in practice doesn't mean reliable
164 2016-06-16 19:08:08	0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell: present
165 2016-06-16 19:08:15	0|sdaftuar|wumpus: that sounds fine to me
166 2016-06-16 19:08:25	0|wumpus|put itbehind an option, then when the outstanding issues are fixed, remove that in 0.13.1 or so
167 2016-06-16 19:08:27	0|sdaftuar|and we can use the time between now and the release candidates to make it more stable/reliable?
168 2016-06-16 19:08:35	0|instagibbs|here as well
169 2016-06-16 19:08:37	0|jeremyrubin|I'd like to see more limit options to address sdaftuar's concerns
170 2016-06-16 19:08:46	0|btcdrak|the point of the feature freeze is that the main bulk of the master branch enters a stabalisation phase.
171 2016-06-16 19:08:50	0|sipa|wumpus: i can live with that
172 2016-06-16 19:09:11	0|luke-jr|wumpus: 0.13.1 shouldn't remove features IMO, but maybe changing the default would make sense
173 2016-06-16 19:09:11	0|wumpus|the other option is to move compactblocks to 0.14
174 2016-06-16 19:09:21	0|luke-jr|I don't think CB can wait for 0.14, unfortunately
175 2016-06-16 19:09:24	0|jeremyrubin|I would also like to see more analysis on how CB would affect miner's txn selection
176 2016-06-16 19:09:34	0|wumpus|luke-jr: this would be adding features, not removing them, and yes it's cheating of a sort
177 2016-06-16 19:09:38	0|petertodd|jeremyrubin: I don't think that's a barrier to merging though
178 2016-06-16 19:09:54	0|sipa|jeremyrubin: without work limit, there shouldn't be any
179 2016-06-16 19:10:05	0|instagibbs|sipa, sorry what's the "work limit" here?
180 2016-06-16 19:10:06	0|wumpus|seems there are still a lot of concerns for CB. why so last minute?
181 2016-06-16 19:10:10	0|wumpus|why didn't this come up weeks ago?
182 2016-06-16 19:10:19	0|sipa|instagibbs: not checking the entire mempool
183 2016-06-16 19:10:22	0|instagibbs|oh ok
184 2016-06-16 19:10:30	0|sdaftuar|i've been reviewing segwit :P
185 2016-06-16 19:10:45	0|instagibbs|sdaftuar, why aren't you doing both simultaneously?
186 2016-06-16 19:10:49	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: these are implementation details and people have been reviewing other things, some are driven out of last minute opimizations matt added that he didn't need to add.
187 2016-06-16 19:10:59	0|wumpus|wasns't talking about you specifically sdaftuar :)
188 2016-06-16 19:11:07	0|jonasschnelli|we could delay 0.13 once again. There are no urgent features and the release due date is artificial. Right?
189 2016-06-16 19:11:08	0|wumpus|I know you focused on segwit, that's good
190 2016-06-16 19:11:18	0|wumpus|I don't want to delay 0.13 again
191 2016-06-16 19:11:19	0|jeremyrubin|sipa: without work limit there is also DOS concern (although limited by needing to re-connect)
192 2016-06-16 19:11:32	0|gmaxwell|jeremyrubin: thats not true.
193 2016-06-16 19:11:37	0|wumpus|too much slip and we can just forget 0.14
194 2016-06-16 19:11:39	0|gmaxwell|jeremyrubin: please, this isn't helpful.
195 2016-06-16 19:12:00	0|wumpus|0.13 is good enough for a release right now
196 2016-06-16 19:12:30	0|luke-jr|release 0.13 without segwit+CB then, and merge those immediately for 0.14?
197 2016-06-16 19:12:32	0|jonasschnelli|I agree with wumpus: CB 0.13 as experimental (for our own protection) and non-exp in 0.13.1
198 2016-06-16 19:12:36	0|wumpus|it would be nice to merge CB, and i think we should, but it's not a requiremnt
199 2016-06-16 19:12:37	0|gmaxwell|lets take a step back there are two categories of remaining issue on CB,  one if the work limit stuff matt added recently. This was driven purely out of his unrelated UDP forwarding that is based on CB, which sent him into microsecond shaving mode.
200 2016-06-16 19:12:42	0|sipa|i don't want (1) keep rebasing segwit (2) wait until february 2017 for CB
201 2016-06-16 19:12:59	0|wumpus|sipa: me neither
202 2016-06-16 19:13:12	0|jeremyrubin|I think that segwit should take priority in merging.
203 2016-06-16 19:13:14	0|luke-jr|wumpus: 1 MB blocks is already killing; segwit without CB is likely to be a disaster
204 2016-06-16 19:13:21	0|sipa|i am fine with making CB experimental in 0.13
205 2016-06-16 19:13:29	0|petertodd|sipa: ack
206 2016-06-16 19:13:31	0|sipa|if there are a few days to work out the kinks
207 2016-06-16 19:13:32	0|jeremyrubin|sipa: experimental sounds fine
208 2016-06-16 19:13:39	0|gmaxwell|We cannot have SW deployed with no prospect of CB live nad in use.
209 2016-06-16 19:13:44	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: also ack
210 2016-06-16 19:13:46	0|wumpus|sipa: there's still until july 7 for the planned rc1
211 2016-06-16 19:13:58	0|sipa|wumpus: that should be plenty
212 2016-06-16 19:14:15	0|wumpus|but the point is we want to merge feaatures *now*, exactly so that the next weeks can be fixing the remaining issues
213 2016-06-16 19:14:18	0|BakSAj|guys, please dont delay segwit, whole community is watching you and we need capacity increase soon :-(
214 2016-06-16 19:14:25	0|gmaxwell|yes, the concerns there appear small. And indeed, we SW activation not set we don't need to have CB requesting enabled.
215 2016-06-16 19:14:37	0|sipa|BakSAj: this has no effect on segwit's activation time
216 2016-06-16 19:14:57	0|sdaftuar|must we merge CB now though?  i feel like the bug fixes are more likely to happen in the initial PR, than trying to clean up post merge to meet the feature freeze deadline
217 2016-06-16 19:15:05	0|BakSAj|oh ok then
218 2016-06-16 19:15:12	0|luke-jr|oh, we're leaving SW undefined on mainnet?
219 2016-06-16 19:15:17	0|sipa|luke-jr: yes
220 2016-06-16 19:15:25	0|sipa|luke-jr: until a backport to 0.12 is ready
221 2016-06-16 19:15:30	0|wumpus|sdaftuar: if we don't merge CB this week it misses the merge window for 0.13, and will be merged for 0.14
222 2016-06-16 19:15:32	0|luke-jr|ok
223 2016-06-16 19:15:49	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: I assumed the outstanding issues raised last night will be fixed before its merged.
224 2016-06-16 19:15:53	0|wumpus|sdaftuar: bug fixes do not need to be done before the feature freeze
225 2016-06-16 19:16:01	0|wumpus|it's a feature freeze, not a bug fix freeze, that would be silly
226 2016-06-16 19:16:23	0|btcdrak|sdaftuar: it alows master to stabalise. Then we know there wont be hugely disruptive things getting merged post freeze.
227 2016-06-16 19:16:27	0|BakSAj|sipa: how hard is it to backport segwit to 0.12.2 ?
228 2016-06-16 19:16:30	0|wumpus|integration testing
229 2016-06-16 19:16:41	0|jeremyrubin|wumpus: can we keep the feature freeze date and alloc an addtl week for bug fix now?
230 2016-06-16 19:16:53	0|phantomcircuit|BakSAj: after the meeting?
231 2016-06-16 19:16:58	0|gmaxwell|jeremyrubin: we have until july 7th for that.
232 2016-06-16 19:16:59	0|petertodd|jeremyrubin: bug fix time isn't "allocated"
233 2016-06-16 19:17:05	0|wumpus|jeremyrubin: do you need an additional week for bug fixing? rc1 is planned for july 7, according to sipa that was good
234 2016-06-16 19:17:19	0|gmaxwell|the whole reason for feature freeze ahead of rc1 is to allow time for fixing and testing. :)
235 2016-06-16 19:17:23	0|sipa|i think 3 weeks to work out the problems in CB is sufficient
236 2016-06-16 19:17:28	0|sipa|they are details
237 2016-06-16 19:17:36	0|BakSAj|phantomcircuit: yeah, sure
238 2016-06-16 19:17:41	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: ack
239 2016-06-16 19:17:41	0|sipa|my concern with merging is that the code has been in flux the past days
240 2016-06-16 19:17:43	0|wumpus|and that's only rc1, I'm sure there will be bugs in rc1, and we'll need rc2 rc3
241 2016-06-16 19:17:50	0|sdaftuar|i think so too, but it seems silly that we're merging a PR that we otherwise wouldn't merge to get around a self-imposed deadline
242 2016-06-16 19:18:14	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: I know it seems stupid, but long time expirence with creep shows that deadlines have value.
243 2016-06-16 19:18:15	0|wumpus|sdaftuar: you don't think the release schedule is important?
244 2016-06-16 19:18:40	0|gmaxwell|Or another way to look at it, it's fine that some well known important features get fixes and evolution, but we need a bar against other creep.
245 2016-06-16 19:18:41	0|sdaftuar|wumpus: probably no point in arguing further.  i'll be happy to help work the bugs out...
246 2016-06-16 19:18:54	0|wumpus|sdaftuar: no, there is really no point in arguing this
247 2016-06-16 19:18:56	0|gmaxwell|(you don't want me submitting the n-th fold relay improvement or whatnot in the next couple weeks)
248 2016-06-16 19:19:04	0|petertodd|sdaftuar: well, I think gmaxwell has a good point that CB is very important to get in to be ready for segwit
249 2016-06-16 19:19:05	0|wumpus|and I'm kind of tired having to argue the value of having deadlines for every release
250 2016-06-16 19:20:05	0|gmaxwell|With a big team, bright lines are helpful. Even if they're sometimes objectively dumb.
251 2016-06-16 19:20:15	0|btcdrak|wumpus: well I for one appreciate the scheduling. It's more productive.
252 2016-06-16 19:20:32	0|Chris_St1|^^^
253 2016-06-16 19:20:50	0|luke-jr|scheduled releases IMO are great; the only problem I think we're hitting is outside pressure to get specific things in sooner
254 2016-06-16 19:20:57	0|wumpus|I do agree CB is still a lot in flux
255 2016-06-16 19:21:21	0|wumpus|which is why I brought up this topic in the first place instead of just merging it
256 2016-06-16 19:22:03	0|wumpus|so, ok, let's decide that CB still gets a week to be ready
257 2016-06-16 19:22:16	0|gmaxwell|Thank you.
258 2016-06-16 19:22:24	0|sdaftuar|sounds good to me.
259 2016-06-16 19:22:26	0|btcdrak|great.
260 2016-06-16 19:22:37	0|jeremyrubin|wumpus: can you clarify "gets a week" meaning
261 2016-06-16 19:22:42	0|sipa|wumpus: ack
262 2016-06-16 19:22:50	0|jeremyrubin|i think I am interpreting it as 1 more week till merge
263 2016-06-16 19:22:55	0|btcdrak|jeremyrubin: it get's merged next week.
264 2016-06-16 19:22:56	0|wumpus|jeremyrubin: can you clarify what is unclear about it?
265 2016-06-16 19:23:11	0|achow101|is segwit ready for merging?
266 2016-06-16 19:23:44	0|sipa|segwit is ready for merging, though i'd like to get review on the changes made the past few days
267 2016-06-16 19:23:59	0|luke-jr|I think it should increase the pkh length limit to 75 bytes, but not important
268 2016-06-16 19:24:02	0|wumpus|segwit is also still very much in flux
269 2016-06-16 19:24:04	0|jeremyrubin|wumpus: not too much... just a little unclear what the week is for etc
270 2016-06-16 19:24:08	0|gmaxwell|the changes were just related to merging it without an activation date, right?
271 2016-06-16 19:24:14	0|Frederic94500|Because the last night, there are 40K+ unconfirmed transaction
272 2016-06-16 19:24:16	0|wumpus|jeremyrubin: to finish up the pull request so that it can be merged
273 2016-06-16 19:24:18	0|sipa|they're mostly making segwit p2p deal correctly with having no activation date
274 2016-06-16 19:24:27	0|jeremyrubin|wumpus: but all ok now (I think you missed my second msg)
275 2016-06-16 19:24:30	0|sipa|and tests/nots
276 2016-06-16 19:24:33	0|luke-jr|Frederic94500: #bitcoin
277 2016-06-16 19:24:33	0|sipa|*nits
278 2016-06-16 19:25:00	0|btcdrak|and ticks
279 2016-06-16 19:25:02	0|gmaxwell|Okay can we move to the next topic?
280 2016-06-16 19:25:07	0|wumpus|#topic segwit
281 2016-06-16 19:25:10	0|instagibbs|luke-jr, noted, but I think that ship has sailed
282 2016-06-16 19:25:30	0|sipa|i don't think there will be any further changes to segwit necessary, apart from potentially making it cooperate with CB
283 2016-06-16 19:26:21	0|sipa|we may find some edge cases in the transition between activation date unset and set, which i plan to actively help testing he next few days
284 2016-06-16 19:26:38	0|sipa|that is, assuming people find the review and testing it has had so far sufficient
285 2016-06-16 19:26:54	0|wumpus|so it would be better to merge segwit *before* CB?
286 2016-06-16 19:27:03	0|sipa|i don't care
287 2016-06-16 19:27:15	0|sipa|i'll help rebase either one on top of the other
288 2016-06-16 19:27:34	0|sipa|sdaftuar: opinion?
289 2016-06-16 19:27:35	0|instagibbs|sdaftuar, any outstanding concerns re testing?
290 2016-06-16 19:27:40	0|wumpus|at the least we need to make sure one of them is merged asap
291 2016-06-16 19:27:45	0|wumpus|so the other one can be integrated into it
292 2016-06-16 19:27:46	0|instagibbs|wumpus, ACK
293 2016-06-16 19:27:52	0|gmaxwell|sipa: if you were to do the rebase which do you think would be less work?  I have a pref for merging segwit first due to review things.  (though I believe we can't set an activation for it without CB)
294 2016-06-16 19:28:11	0|sdaftuar|instagibbs: i'm doing testing now for the activation date unset -> set scenario
295 2016-06-16 19:28:20	0|Chris_St1|'activation' is wrt BIP9 right?
296 2016-06-16 19:28:20	0|sdaftuar|i'd like more eyes on that issue, as it only just came up
297 2016-06-16 19:28:22	0|wumpus|otherwise we'll keep this 'we need to rebase it over X' problem, and integration (and fixing bugs in integration) always causes unexpected issues
298 2016-06-16 19:28:28	0|gmaxwell|basically CB is less to review, and fewer have reviewed it, disrupting review with a rebase there is less of an issue.
299 2016-06-16 19:28:34	0|luke-jr|merging CB first makes it potentially easier to backport if people want to
300 2016-06-16 19:28:44	0|btcdrak|Chris_St1: yes, the parameters for activation on mainnet (starttime, timeout, bit)
301 2016-06-16 19:28:44	0|gmaxwell|Chris_St1: BIP9 starting date, yes.
302 2016-06-16 19:28:56	0|luke-jr|but if CB needs a week of revisions, merging segwit first might just make more sense
303 2016-06-16 19:28:58	0|wumpus|the thing is though: CB is bound by the feature freeze, segwit is not
304 2016-06-16 19:29:03	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: a backport of CB without segwit wouldn't be very interesting in any case.
305 2016-06-16 19:29:03	0|luke-jr|especially since segwit needs backports anyway
306 2016-06-16 19:29:17	0|jonasschnelli|good point wumpus
307 2016-06-16 19:29:35	0|luke-jr|wumpus: it's less important so long as segwit has no mainnet activation params set
308 2016-06-16 19:29:40	0|luke-jr|IMO
309 2016-06-16 19:30:09	0|wumpus|luke-jr: just need to get the code into master, it's been reviewed and tested so extensively
310 2016-06-16 19:30:45	0|gmaxwell|yes the merge there is about code maintance.
311 2016-06-16 19:30:49	0|sdaftuar|wumpus: fyi the issue that came up this week about merging with no mainnet activation was a surprise to all of us
312 2016-06-16 19:30:53	0|BakSAj|isnt segwit the most reviewed btc code ever?
313 2016-06-16 19:30:54	0|instagibbs|sdaftuar, I can take a look too.
314 2016-06-16 19:30:55	0|Frederic94500|Actually, there are 13K+ unconfirmed transaction and we need segwit
315 2016-06-16 19:30:58	0|sdaftuar|wumpus: i think that particular issue should be thought abou tmore
316 2016-06-16 19:31:01	0|sdaftuar|to make sure we haven't missed anything
317 2016-06-16 19:31:02	0|sipa|Frederic94500: #bitcoin
318 2016-06-16 19:31:15	0|Frederic94500|#bitcoin
319 2016-06-16 19:31:23	0|sdaftuar|sipa: but to answer your question about my opinion, i think i agree it should be fine to merge
320 2016-06-16 19:31:43	0|jeremyrubin|Frederic94500: it means move your conversation to that channel as it is off topic here.
321 2016-06-16 19:31:58	0|sdaftuar|i will finish my testing/review of the latest changes, and then hopefully ack this week
322 2016-06-16 19:32:03	0|sdaftuar|ie today/tomorrow
323 2016-06-16 19:32:27	0|Chris_St1|sdaftuar: So BIP9 parameters need to be set in the pull request before being merged into master correct?
324 2016-06-16 19:32:39	0|gmaxwell|Chris_St1: no, it can be merged with no starting date set.
325 2016-06-16 19:32:41	0|sipa|wumpus: segwit is merged this week or not at all, CB thursday or not at all.
326 2016-06-16 19:32:51	0|btcdrak|no. they will bet set later in a seprate pull
327 2016-06-16 19:32:52	0|sipa|wumpus: is that acceptable?
328 2016-06-16 19:32:56	0|gmaxwell|Which is what will happen for master.
329 2016-06-16 19:33:02	0|luke-jr|sipa: next thursday*
330 2016-06-16 19:33:08	0|wumpus|sipa: CB needs to be merged before (or on) next week thursday
331 2016-06-16 19:33:15	0|wumpus|sipa: segwit doesn't really have  a constraint
332 2016-06-16 19:33:24	0|sipa|wumpus: ok
333 2016-06-16 19:33:45	0|wumpus|I just thought merging it first was preferable, so that maintenance and testing of it can happen on master
334 2016-06-16 19:33:55	0|sipa|yes, i agree
335 2016-06-16 19:34:04	0|gmaxwell|I'm really tired of not being able to work on some things due to avoiding disrupting segwit, it'll be good to have it merged.
336 2016-06-16 19:34:08	0|gmaxwell|:)
337 2016-06-16 19:34:11	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Merging it before 0.13 would make things more testable/tested
338 2016-06-16 19:34:13	0|wumpus|right
339 2016-06-16 19:34:14	0|instagibbs|Only a few ACKs so far, start cracking the whip!
340 2016-06-16 19:34:39	0|gmaxwell|all my focus is on things that were freeze gated.
341 2016-06-16 19:34:42	0|btcdrak|instagibbs: this meeting is one huge ACK :-p
342 2016-06-16 19:34:47	0|gmaxwell|(in the last week)
343 2016-06-16 19:34:49	0|jonasschnelli|I have reviewed SW for serval hours but I don't feel myself in a position to give a it a utACK (or more)
344 2016-06-16 19:34:58	0|sipa|i would also like to point to #8149 for review, where i've reorganized the commits per BIP
345 2016-06-16 19:35:20	0|sipa|it may make sense for people to just ack certain sections of it, as it touches many relatively unrelated things
346 2016-06-16 19:35:23	0|btcdrak|sipa: is #8149 the version to merge?
347 2016-06-16 19:35:40	0|sipa|(testing, wallet, p2p, consensus, script)
348 2016-06-16 19:35:44	0|sipa|btcdrak: yes
349 2016-06-16 19:35:53	0|wumpus|#link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8149 for review with reorganized commits per BIP
350 2016-06-16 19:35:56	0|gmaxwell|I really like the ordering of 8149, FWIW.
351 2016-06-16 19:36:06	0|instagibbs|jonasschnelli, just pick a part you can review comfortably
352 2016-06-16 19:36:28	0|sipa|and don't look at the commit by github; there is a summary comment with a list of all commits organized per section
353 2016-06-16 19:36:32	0|sipa|which i keep up to date
354 2016-06-16 19:36:46	0|jeremyrubin|sipa: thank you it's much easier to review
355 2016-06-16 19:37:41	0|sipa|ok, any other topics?
356 2016-06-16 19:37:53	0|jeremyrubin|yes
357 2016-06-16 19:38:02	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli had one
358 2016-06-16 19:38:06	0|jeremyrubin|I'd like to briefly call for more review on cory's cconman
359 2016-06-16 19:38:09	0|jeremyrubin|refctor
360 2016-06-16 19:38:18	0|sipa|jeremyrubin: i will, but after 0.13
361 2016-06-16 19:38:19	0|jonasschnelli|I think we should have a replacement option for the wallet in 0.13
362 2016-06-16 19:38:22	0|wumpus|#topic replacements (RBF/bumpfee) in 0.13
363 2016-06-16 19:38:29	0|sipa|ack topic
364 2016-06-16 19:38:35	0|wumpus|jeremyrubin: when Cory is back
365 2016-06-16 19:38:54	0|instagibbs|cory is answering pr stuff now, but I think he's not supposed to be :)
366 2016-06-16 19:38:56	0|jonasschnelli|Also,... what happens if users start up a node and immediately send a tx?
367 2016-06-16 19:39:02	0|gmaxwell|am I missing something in thinking thats post 0.13 work now?
368 2016-06-16 19:39:05	0|wumpus|oh, more review, yes that's always good, although peopel are very busy with pre-0.13 issues now
369 2016-06-16 19:39:06	0|luke-jr|cfields_:
370 2016-06-16 19:39:08	0|gmaxwell|(the conman stuff)
371 2016-06-16 19:39:11	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: yes
372 2016-06-16 19:39:21	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: I mena, no, you're not missing anything
373 2016-06-16 19:39:26	0|gmaxwell|Thanks. whew.
374 2016-06-16 19:39:34	0|sipa|i'd to see conman go in right after 0.13 branch off
375 2016-06-16 19:39:42	0|sdaftuar|jonasschnelli: are you talking about how fee estimation should work in that case?
376 2016-06-16 19:39:47	0|gmaxwell|jeremyrubin: thats why there isn't attention on it right at this second (also because cory is out)
377 2016-06-16 19:39:47	0|jonasschnelli|Review of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8182 would be nice. Its a bumpfee command for GUI only.
378 2016-06-16 19:39:47	0|sipa|*conmann
379 2016-06-16 19:39:52	0|wumpus|sipa: +1
380 2016-06-16 19:39:54	0|jonasschnelli|sdaftuar: yes
381 2016-06-16 19:39:58	0|jeremyrubin|gmaxwell: he's been responsive
382 2016-06-16 19:40:09	0|jeremyrubin|gmaxwell: but maybe let him relax a bit
383 2016-06-16 19:40:11	0|petertodd|jonasschnelli: yeah, my apologies for not having already looked at that!
384 2016-06-16 19:40:14	0|sipa|doesn't matter, there is no benefit in merging conman before the branch
385 2016-06-16 19:40:16	0|gmaxwell|jeremyrubin: I want that too. Well, I really want the sequence setting parts and fee even on the bump parts.
386 2016-06-16 19:40:28	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: I don't think "signals replaceability" is very useful
387 2016-06-16 19:40:47	0|luke-jr|"Enable fee bumping" would make more sense
388 2016-06-16 19:40:52	0|gmaxwell|er s/fee even/feel 50/50 on the bump parts/
389 2016-06-16 19:40:59	0|jeremyrubin|I brought it up not for the 0.13 but because it seemed like we were out of topics so I raised it, no need to address further.
390 2016-06-16 19:41:07	0|sipa|ok
391 2016-06-16 19:41:12	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: you mean the text comment in the transaction details? Whats wrong with it. IMO we agreed on that term in a recent meeting.
392 2016-06-16 19:41:18	0|luke-jr|right
393 2016-06-16 19:41:31	0|gmaxwell|thats nits, can be worked out on the PR or out of meeting.
394 2016-06-16 19:41:42	0|gmaxwell|please don't go into field naming details here. :)
395 2016-06-16 19:41:43	0|luke-jr|k
396 2016-06-16 19:41:48	0|phantomcircuit|jonasschnelli, maybe this is just me, but i generally much prefer that things be added to the cli before the gui
397 2016-06-16 19:41:50	0|wumpus|nits shouldn't be a reason to hold up the feature merge
398 2016-06-16 19:41:52	0|jonasschnelli|Agree. The question is do we want a feebump option in 0.13...
399 2016-06-16 19:41:58	0|jonasschnelli|if so,.. its extermly late. :)
400 2016-06-16 19:42:01	0|phantomcircuit|makes the initial review much easier for the feature itself
401 2016-06-16 19:42:18	0|gmaxwell|So I think we really should have the sequence setting stuff, I kept trying to ack the prior PRs but they've been closed for new prs several times.
402 2016-06-16 19:42:20	0|jonasschnelli|phantomcircuit: there is also a CLI PR. :)
403 2016-06-16 19:42:26	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: especially for the GUI isn't [retty much too late
404 2016-06-16 19:42:33	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: as it adds new translation strings
405 2016-06-16 19:42:46	0|wumpus|translation for 0.13 already started a few weeks ago
406 2016-06-16 19:42:58	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. I agree. But I just think option to increase fees for 0.14 is to late..
407 2016-06-16 19:42:58	0|sipa|that's sad, but understandable
408 2016-06-16 19:43:01	0|achow101|I think the fee bump stuff should definitely be in 0.13
409 2016-06-16 19:43:04	0|wumpus|having the CLI option would make sense though
410 2016-06-16 19:43:07	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: where did we land with bumping interacting with the changs outputs already having been spent?
411 2016-06-16 19:43:20	0|gmaxwell|achow101: I want a pony.
412 2016-06-16 19:43:36	0|wumpus|achow101: 'should', but there's preactical issues with timing and planning we're trying to cope with here
413 2016-06-16 19:43:38	0|phantomcircuit|jonasschnelli, 0.13.1 ?
414 2016-06-16 19:43:39	0|sipa|achow101: i think we all like that, but we can't bypass safe practices for review and testing because we want it
415 2016-06-16 19:43:42	0|phantomcircuit|it's a minor feature
416 2016-06-16 19:43:57	0|jonasschnelli|Not sure if we want BP a bumpfeature...
417 2016-06-16 19:44:15	0|sipa|BP?
418 2016-06-16 19:44:18	0|jonasschnelli|backport
419 2016-06-16 19:44:23	0|wumpus|to be honest I think getting CB and segwit is enough worry for next week
420 2016-06-16 19:44:37	0|jonasschnelli|yes... agree.
421 2016-06-16 19:44:58	0|jonasschnelli|Although it's a triangle. CB <-> SW <-> RBF
422 2016-06-16 19:45:17	0|petertodd|so, I'd strongly suggest we at least get in my global optin setting, so that people who need RBF can easily use external scripts to do so: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7132
423 2016-06-16 19:45:18	0|wumpus|it's unfortunate that your PRs with feebump got little attention, but it's kind of late now, we can't just cram everything in last minute
424 2016-06-16 19:45:32	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: Agree.
425 2016-06-16 19:45:49	0|wumpus|in any case: RPC functionality must be in before the GUI
426 2016-06-16 19:45:50	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Did we figure the ordering for those merges?
427 2016-06-16 19:45:51	0|jonasschnelli|My feeling is that it is too late for 0.13 and I just wanted to make this clear. :)
428 2016-06-16 19:45:55	0|instagibbs|petertodd, I agree with this
429 2016-06-16 19:45:56	0|sipa|i will focus on reviewing RPC bumpfee
430 2016-06-16 19:45:56	0|wumpus|that's always how we work
431 2016-06-16 19:46:00	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: could we split the sequence setting parts and do those? I think they're simple and not risky and have been reviewed under several PRs.
432 2016-06-16 19:46:09	0|Chris_Stewart_5|segwit -> CB or CB -> segwit?
433 2016-06-16 19:46:13	0|gmaxwell|The issue for them is that those PRs kept getting closed with changing scope.
434 2016-06-16 19:46:19	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: sounds good to me
435 2016-06-16 19:47:01	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: we'll see how it goes with the actual timing of the changes.
436 2016-06-16 19:47:03	0|luke-jr|suggested topic: how should GBT react to pre-segwit miners, once segwit activates?
437 2016-06-16 19:47:04	0|wumpus|make sure the API is extensible enough to add the other things so we don't need to deprecate it already next version
438 2016-06-16 19:47:07	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: we don't need to decide that now.
439 2016-06-16 19:47:16	0|wumpus|but that's arguably a minor concern
440 2016-06-16 19:47:37	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: what does it do in the current implementation?
441 2016-06-16 19:47:44	0|Chris_Stewart_5|gmaxwell: Also, these are BOTH to be included before the feature freeze, correct? Or is that tbd
442 2016-06-16 19:47:50	0|Chris_Stewart_5|to be determined*
443 2016-06-16 19:48:03	0|wumpus|Chris_Stewart_5: no, CB needs to be in before the feature freeze, softforks can in principle go in any time
444 2016-06-16 19:48:17	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: SW is freeze unrelated, CB has another week to mature.
445 2016-06-16 19:48:17	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: just errors
446 2016-06-16 19:48:31	0|sipa|luke-jr: what is the alternative?
447 2016-06-16 19:48:33	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: the RPC call errors, that is. so the miner will failover or stop
448 2016-06-16 19:48:42	0|luke-jr|sipa: mine blocks without any witness transactions
449 2016-06-16 19:49:03	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: question might suggest a misunderstanding, SW merge for master is not tightly coupled to deployment; it's mostly a discussion of code management.
450 2016-06-16 19:49:18	0|sipa|luke-jr: that means mining on top of a chain they have not fully validated
451 2016-06-16 19:49:23	0|sipa|oh, no, they have
452 2016-06-16 19:49:24	0|sipa|sorry
453 2016-06-16 19:49:29	0|luke-jr|sipa: no, the bitcoind is updated, just not the miner
454 2016-06-16 19:49:31	0|sipa|i'm confusing client and server
455 2016-06-16 19:49:48	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: might be better to return an empty block, if the implementation would be simple.
456 2016-06-16 19:50:08	0|gmaxwell|the failover might just cause it to fail over to something even stupider.
457 2016-06-16 19:50:17	0|btcdrak|Chris_Stewart_5: the lifecycle page got updated to clarify some of this https://bitcoincore.org/en/lifecycle/
458 2016-06-16 19:50:17	0|luke-jr|I guess that's another option, but empty block is :<
459 2016-06-16 19:50:17	0|sdaftuar|presumably this is not a feature that there can possibly be a lot of demand for.  is it relaly worth the trouble?
460 2016-06-16 19:50:23	0|wumpus|consensus changes are not on bitcoin core's major release schedule, the first release introducing segwit would ideally be 0.12.x
461 2016-06-16 19:50:44	0|Chris_Stewart_5|gmaxwell: I guess it seems CB from my understanding isn't tightly coupled to deployment either since I'm assuming old block relay code will still be in core? I'll ask more questions after meeting..
462 2016-06-16 19:50:46	0|wumpus|but that doesn't mean segwit code can't be merged (just not activated) in 0.13
463 2016-06-16 19:50:59	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: concern with non-witness template being code complexity, I guess?
464 2016-06-16 19:51:20	0|sipa|i prefer empty block
465 2016-06-16 19:51:21	0|luke-jr|I suppose empty blocks are also more likely to get noticed and upgraded
466 2016-06-16 19:51:31	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: just more features to test when hopefully thats just an emergency fallback.
467 2016-06-16 19:51:34	0|sdaftuar|throwing an error should get noticed very fast
468 2016-06-16 19:51:42	0|wumpus|Chris_Stewart_5: the old relay code will still be used in most cases, like with peers that don't support CB
469 2016-06-16 19:51:55	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: error will result in failover to another daemon, perhaps without segwit support, which is somewhat less desirable. :)
470 2016-06-16 19:51:58	0|Chris_Stewart_5|btcdrak: Thanks
471 2016-06-16 19:52:15	0|sdaftuar|little known fact: those blocks will be orphaned,  that should also get noticed!
472 2016-06-16 19:52:17	0|petertodd|ack empty blocks - that's a reasonable failsafe in a lot of conditions in general
473 2016-06-16 19:52:23	0|luke-jr|sdaftuar: they won't, though
474 2016-06-16 19:52:27	0|gmaxwell|I think error and empty are both acceptable, with a small preference for empty that would be overridden if i find out the implementation is more than about 4 lines of code.
475 2016-06-16 19:52:28	0|sdaftuar|they won't relay
476 2016-06-16 19:52:33	0|luke-jr|sdaftuar: they're valid
477 2016-06-16 19:52:34	0|sdaftuar|yes
478 2016-06-16 19:52:36	0|sdaftuar|but they won't relay
479 2016-06-16 19:52:38	0|luke-jr|…
480 2016-06-16 19:52:41	0|luke-jr|why not?
481 2016-06-16 19:52:41	0|sdaftuar|hence, little known fact
482 2016-06-16 19:52:57	0|gmaxwell|ah, well if they won't realy, okay, well no reason to not error then.
483 2016-06-16 19:53:04	0|sipa|why would they not relay?
484 2016-06-16 19:53:05	0|sdaftuar|segwit nodes will try to download blocks from WITNESS peers
485 2016-06-16 19:53:13	0|sdaftuar|after activation
486 2016-06-16 19:53:15	0|sipa|so, this is a witness peer
487 2016-06-16 19:53:17	0|luke-jr|^
488 2016-06-16 19:53:19	0|sdaftuar|not if it fails over
489 2016-06-16 19:53:19	0|sipa|just not a witness miner
490 2016-06-16 19:53:25	0|luke-jr|hm
491 2016-06-16 19:53:38	0|sipa|oh, i see what you're saying
492 2016-06-16 19:53:40	0|sdaftuar|sorry i was responding to gmaxwell's failover to an old daemon
493 2016-06-16 19:53:45	0|sipa|so, failover seems sufficient
494 2016-06-16 19:53:46	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: this is a witness node, but asking what happens when a non-sw hasher connects.
495 2016-06-16 19:53:52	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: OH!
496 2016-06-16 19:54:00	0|gmaxwell|well okay, that would get noticed too.
497 2016-06-16 19:54:09	0|luke-jr|yeah, I think this makes error the better behaviour
498 2016-06-16 19:54:18	0|gmaxwell|still, the crap blocks produced would be noise to non-upgraded nodes.
499 2016-06-16 19:54:20	0|petertodd|wait, did or didn't we remove the code that used to push new blocks to peers?
500 2016-06-16 19:54:43	0|sdaftuar|technically, mining a non-witness block on an upgraded peer would relay, as per sipa's suggestion to mine an empty block
501 2016-06-16 19:54:48	0|sdaftuar|i just don't think it's worth the trouble to code that up
502 2016-06-16 19:55:04	0|luke-jr|oh
503 2016-06-16 19:55:20	0|sdaftuar|code up/test/review
504 2016-06-16 19:55:21	0|sdaftuar|etc
505 2016-06-16 19:55:31	0|luke-jr|BFGMiner at least WILL submit blocks to local bitcoind regardless of what pool mined them, BUT it can only do that with GBT pools, and frankly nobody uses that
506 2016-06-16 19:55:48	0|luke-jr|so probably not worth considering IMO
507 2016-06-16 19:55:59	0|sipa|i think we're good
508 2016-06-16 19:56:07	0|gmaxwell|K
509 2016-06-16 19:56:08	0|sipa|unless miners complain about the behaviour
510 2016-06-16 19:56:13	0|sipa|then wr can reconsider
511 2016-06-16 19:56:16	0|sdaftuar|sounds good
512 2016-06-16 19:56:44	0|wumpus|three minutes to go!
513 2016-06-16 19:56:49	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: if you split that PR I will go ack the non-bump part super fast.
514 2016-06-16 19:56:53	0|petertodd|also, if a block is relayed to non-witness peers, we only need one node on the network to bridge that gap...
515 2016-06-16 19:57:07	0|sipa|agree
516 2016-06-16 19:57:16	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: which one?
517 2016-06-16 19:57:24	0|sipa|which their private infrastructure may do unknowlingly
518 2016-06-16 19:57:28	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: the bump fee PR.
519 2016-06-16 19:57:39	0|luke-jr|petertodd: we don't *want* to bridge that gap, but I guess that's your point
520 2016-06-16 19:57:44	0|luke-jr|any malicious actor could do it
521 2016-06-16 19:58:09	0|petertodd|luke-jr: having consensus depend on nuances of network behavior is icky...
522 2016-06-16 19:58:15	0|luke-jr|but on the other hand, these blocks are only defective in being not fully verified parents, which won't affect full nodes
523 2016-06-16 19:58:20	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: the actual bumping reqiures review and testing for that I don't think we have time for pre-freeze regretable, but the rest (setting the sequence numbers and what not) is fine, and I've already reviewed it and tested it.
524 2016-06-16 19:58:28	0|luke-jr|so this can only be done for valid blocks anyway
525 2016-06-16 19:58:46	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: okay. I'll try to factor this out in an independent PR
526 2016-06-16 19:59:08	0|instagibbs|1 minute
527 2016-06-16 19:59:30	0|petertodd|instagibbs: hopefully we land on the drone ship this time
528 2016-06-16 19:59:35	0|luke-jr|petertodd: consensus doesn't depend on it, just a slightly higher risk miners don't upgrade their nodes
529 2016-06-16 19:59:37	0|phantomcircuit|sdaftuar, it should be only a few lines of code to simply not include any transactions which have witness data
530 2016-06-16 19:59:39	0|gmaxwell|(also, in general, layering in seperate PRs RPC and GUI is useful, since we're usually more eager about merging rpc features-- easier to test, more sophicated users)
531 2016-06-16 20:00:03	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-06-16-19.00.log.html
532 2016-06-16 20:00:03	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Jun 16 20:00:03 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
533 2016-06-16 20:00:03	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-06-16-19.00.html
534 2016-06-16 20:00:03	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-06-16-19.00.txt
535 2016-06-16 20:00:03	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
536 2016-06-16 20:00:05	0|sipa|phantomcircuit: there are 3 transaction selection algorithms now
537 2016-06-16 20:00:23	0|sdaftuar|phantomcircuit: i agree, but this should not be anyone's priority
538 2016-06-16 20:00:51	0|Chris_Stewart_5|wumpus: CB needs to be merged in before 0.13 because the protocol version in the version message indicates nodes need to talk using CB?
539 2016-06-16 20:00:57	0|luke-jr|petertodd: I do think you've convinced me that maybe the empty-block behaviour is better again though.
540 2016-06-16 20:01:01	0|petertodd|luke-jr: by "depends" I just mean the outcome of the consensus protocol is strongly affected by that nuance, in that case
541 2016-06-16 20:01:29	0|petertodd|luke-jr: so in general, we're better off having an empty blockchain with everyone's funds frozen than other possible failure modes
542 2016-06-16 20:01:41	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: hm? no unrelated. The issue is that if it isn't merged it would slip by something like a half year, which would be kinda dumb because the protocol is dumb.
543 2016-06-16 20:01:59	0|BakSAj|what is the meeting result on merging segwit? tnx
544 2016-06-16 20:02:07	0|petertodd|luke-jr: empty blocks work towards that goal
545 2016-06-16 20:02:46	0|Chris_Stewart_5|gmaxwell: Is this because of the release policy we have come up with or something inherent to the protocol itself? I guess I'm missing the limitation for not being able to put this out in a minor..
546 2016-06-16 20:02:57	0|wumpus|Chris_Stewart_5: it doesn't *need* to be merged before 0.13, we could postpone it to 0.14
547 2016-06-16 20:03:16	0|wumpus|Chris_Stewart_5: but because it is such a useful feature everyone really wants it in 0.13
548 2016-06-16 20:03:22	0|petertodd|though systems like Lightning are an annoying counterexample to the "empty blocks are safe" assumption...
549 2016-06-16 20:03:36	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: there is nothing about the protocol being discussed today, this is all project management.
550 2016-06-16 20:03:49	0|Chris_Stewart_5|gotcha.
551 2016-06-16 20:04:12	0|wumpus|Chris_Stewart_5: also, because of bandwidth reasons people want CB with segwit
552 2016-06-16 20:04:37	0|luke-jr|does segwit currently fetch the whole block in one chunk, or stripped + witness separately?
553 2016-06-16 20:05:04	0|sipa|the whole block
554 2016-06-16 20:05:15	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: there is no seperate thing, it's just a block and you seralize it with or without the witness.
555 2016-06-16 20:05:33	0|wumpus|also CB is pretty much ready, it hasbeen tested extensively, and reviewed quite well, as I see it there are just some last nits
556 2016-06-16 20:05:40	0|GreenIsMyPepper|petertodd: w/r/t Lightning, i think with CSV, should be OK. transactions in-flight should be biased towards smaller values in the near term for the hard CLTV deadlines so impact for straight payments with empty blocks should be minimal but i'm not 100% sure
557 2016-06-16 20:05:44	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: oh, it's not even supported to fetch just the witness data? :/  would be nice for nodes that skip it and go back and check later
558 2016-06-16 20:05:48	0|luke-jr|oh well, future improvements
559 2016-06-16 20:06:11	0|sipa|luke-jr: indeed, that may be something useful to add at some point
560 2016-06-16 20:06:20	0|wumpus|no scope creep please :)
561 2016-06-16 20:06:30	0|instagibbs|action item: creep the scope
562 2016-06-16 20:06:37	0|luke-jr|CB changes things too much to consider it now anyway
563 2016-06-16 20:06:46	0|gmaxwell|fortunately the meeting is over so we don't have to take instagibbs' action.
564 2016-06-16 20:07:27	0|luke-jr|I think for L1 consensus, we probably want to bridge the old-node valid blocks to the main network :/  which means we might want GBT to do empty blocks for old miners
565 2016-06-16 20:07:29	0|wumpus|topic for next meeting :p
566 2016-06-16 20:07:32	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: really that kind of multistage sync is something independant of SW; it's just that it could be more efficient with segwit.
567 2016-06-16 20:07:38	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: right
568 2016-06-16 20:08:58	0|petertodd|GreenIsMyPepper: it's ok for a bit, but given a sufficiently long period of empty blocks being mined eventually lightning users are really screwed over; that's not true for other ways of using Bitcoin
569 2016-06-16 20:09:13	0|petertodd|GreenIsMyPepper: not necessarily a problem in practice, but it's worth considering
570 2016-06-16 20:09:57	0|luke-jr|sipa: is it trivial to configure a node to fetch and process blocks from old nodes?
571 2016-06-16 20:10:01	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: going back to your earlier comments, per the lifecycle, changes for network consensus exist outside of the bitcoin core release cycle,  the reason we're talking about segwit merge in master here is not so much related to deploying segwit in the network, but related to managing the code implementing segwit in core as part of master. This is important to us because of the overhead
572 2016-06-16 20:10:07	0|gmaxwell|s related to keeping it as a patch in flight.
573 2016-06-16 20:10:10	0|GreenIsMyPepper|petertodd: yes, i agree, esp for time-dependent aspects during the switchover from mining->empty
574 2016-06-16 20:10:29	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: generally a consensus rule change will show up in a point release, not in a new major release (though it might also be in the new major release in parallel)
575 2016-06-16 20:10:37	0|sipa|luke-jr: what do you mean?
576 2016-06-16 20:11:00	0|luke-jr|sipa: get a new node which downloads blocks from pre-segwit nodes, and relays them to the main/segwit nodes.
577 2016-06-16 20:11:07	0|petertodd|GreenIsMyPepper: yeah, the tl;dr: is Lightning means if Bitcoin breaks, we have deadlines to fix it or all hell breaks loose
578 2016-06-16 20:11:10	0|luke-jr|provided the block is valid without witness data
579 2016-06-16 20:11:40	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: also consenus changes in core are often merged without any activation. (or in some cases with no nearterm plans to activate.. like the low-S signature stuff.)
580 2016-06-16 20:11:46	0|luke-jr|petertodd: softfork sequence stuff to skip empty blocks
581 2016-06-16 20:11:59	0|sipa|luke-jr: sounds trivial, just disable that check
582 2016-06-16 20:12:00	0|petertodd|luke-jr: that's not a crazy idea
583 2016-06-16 20:12:13	0|luke-jr|petertodd: it's not a new idea either :P:
584 2016-06-16 20:12:25	0|luke-jr|empty blocks are just full blocks with a soft size limit of 0
585 2016-06-16 20:12:27	0|petertodd|luke-jr: it's so not crazy, multiple people have proposed it :)
586 2016-06-16 20:12:38	0|GreenIsMyPepper|petertodd: additionally, i think the 2016-block mining retargeting point is an interesting factor to consider with second-order effects/drivers
587 2016-06-16 20:12:52	0|GreenIsMyPepper|when talking about stopping vs. empty
588 2016-06-16 20:12:57	0|petertodd|GreenIsMyPepper: how so?
589 2016-06-16 20:14:00	0|GreenIsMyPepper|in the sense that if the default was to stop, to encourage time for development, there's still a hard deadline of block retarget from part of the hashpower still mining
590 2016-06-16 20:14:18	0|GreenIsMyPepper|still mining for one reason or another
591 2016-06-16 20:14:23	0|sipa|luke-jr: all you need is one witness-capable node that attempts to download from its non-witness peers
592 2016-06-16 20:14:37	0|luke-jr|sipa: what's the segwit branch I should work on top of, for adding GBT old-miner empty block stuff?
593 2016-06-16 20:14:48	0|petertodd|GreenIsMyPepper: oh, nah, I was only talking about cases where ~all miners are mining empty blocks due to some kind of failure mode
594 2016-06-16 20:14:57	0|GreenIsMyPepper|which I suspect may affect default selection of CSV timeouts
595 2016-06-16 20:15:05	0|sipa|luke-jr: segwit-master or segwit-master2 (they are identical apart from commit structure)
596 2016-06-16 20:15:19	0|GreenIsMyPepper|ah, i see, i was thinking of different problems. yeah in that case, if you presume that as a "backup feature" then yes that would be impacted, that's a very good point!
597 2016-06-16 20:15:25	0|gmaxwell|GreenIsMyPepper: BIP-68 was setup so there could be other kinds of CSV counters in the future pretty easily.
598 2016-06-16 20:16:36	0|GreenIsMyPepper|yeah, not sure whether you could sufficiently punt the problem via only "don't count if the blocks are empty", but this is veering into -wizards territory :P
599 2016-06-16 20:16:44	0|gmaxwell|(so, e.g. when it's clear thats whats wanted, one that counted in terms of confirmed transactions could be done.)
600 2016-06-16 20:17:32	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: empty block mining will be more than 4 lines.
601 2016-06-16 20:18:29	0|luke-jr|possibly quite a lot, due to code movement (we populate "transactions" before checking deployments)
602 2016-06-16 20:21:00	0|Chris_Stewart_5|gmaxwell: Thanks for the explanation
603 2016-06-16 20:22:32	0|phantomcircuit|luke-jr, select them and... dont use them
604 2016-06-16 20:26:37	0|luke-jr|http://codepad.org/t97X9nU3 is a bit ugly, but *might* work   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
605 2016-06-16 20:27:31	0|luke-jr|note that we cannot modify the value inside pblock, as it is cached for (potentially segwit) future GBT calls
606 2016-06-16 20:28:16	0|luke-jr|thoughts?
607 2016-06-16 20:30:06	0|sipa|luke-jr: why do you need to do that?
608 2016-06-16 20:30:41	0|luke-jr|sipa: this would avoid old miners failing over to possibly pre-segwit pools.
609 2016-06-16 20:31:12	0|sipa|just give a new on-the-fly constructed empty result
610 2016-06-16 20:31:19	0|sipa|instead of using the cached value
611 2016-06-16 20:31:33	0|gmaxwell|thats what phantomcircuit was saying.
612 2016-06-16 20:31:39	0|luke-jr|that's essentially what this is doing?
613 2016-06-16 20:32:04	0|luke-jr|just adds a few lines of code to add a variable and use it
614 2016-06-16 20:32:04	0|sipa|then why do you need to modify the cached value?
615 2016-06-16 20:32:12	0|luke-jr|I don't, I'm explaining why not.
616 2016-06-16 20:33:47	0|sipa|oh, i missed part of the conversation
617 2016-06-16 20:33:48	0|sipa|apologies
618 2016-06-16 20:34:01	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, i don't believe this is modifying the cached value
619 2016-06-16 20:34:04	0|phantomcircuit|it seems reasonable
620 2016-06-16 20:34:14	0|luke-jr|np
621 2016-06-16 20:34:59	0|sipa|luke-jr: can't this be generically applied to all non-force deployments?
622 2016-06-16 20:35:34	0|luke-jr|depends on the deployment.
623 2016-06-16 20:35:42	0|luke-jr|I don't see any reason we can assume it will be.
624 2016-06-16 20:35:45	0|sipa|or make the force field a tristate "no you can't use this without understanding", "you can make empty blocks without understanding", "yes you can always use this"
625 2016-06-16 20:36:02	0|luke-jr|not sure it's worth that until we have both kinds
626 2016-06-16 20:38:49	0|sipa|we only have two kinds now
627 2016-06-16 20:39:07	0|luke-jr|shall I remove the segwit conditional?
628 2016-06-16 20:43:56	0|luke-jr|eg http://codepad.org/gxEaJQpi
629 2016-06-16 20:44:11	0|sipa|sounds good; you probably want to add a comment to the force field to explain that it implies an empty block will be produced
630 2016-06-16 20:44:55	0|sipa|what is the "unsupported" you report?
631 2016-06-16 20:46:02	0|luke-jr|http://codepad.org/QSnQQRD6
632 2016-06-16 20:46:18	0|luke-jr|sipa: something to trigger BIP9-aware clients not to try merging the template
633 2016-06-16 20:46:48	0|luke-jr|ie, "rules":["unsupported","csv"]
634 2016-06-16 20:47:23	0|sipa|he, ok
635 2016-06-16 20:47:29	0|luke-jr|(how do I improve the comments on this?)
636 2016-06-16 20:47:44	0|sipa|is there any software in the real world that actually does such merging?
637 2016-06-16 20:47:48	0|sipa|anyway, does not hurt
638 2016-06-16 20:48:24	0|luke-jr|sipa: there is a fork of libblkmaker, not merged with BIP 9 code; but nothing uses it AFAIK