1 2017-01-19 00:17:30	0|Guest88196|hey guys
  2 2017-01-19 00:17:51	0|Guest88196|Allah is doing
  3 2017-01-19 00:18:07	0|Guest88196|sun is not doing allah is doing
  4 2017-01-19 00:18:10	0|Guest88196|to accept Islam say that i bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad peace be upon him is his slave and messenger
  5 2017-01-19 00:19:59	0|sipa|Guest88196: off topic
  6 2017-01-19 02:36:23	0|BlueMatt|cfields: hummm...feel free
  7 2017-01-19 02:36:28	0|BlueMatt|though I'm not a huge fan of that, actually
  8 2017-01-19 02:36:46	0|BlueMatt|wellll
  9 2017-01-19 02:36:47	0|BlueMatt|hum
 10 2017-01-19 02:36:56	0|cfields|BlueMatt: heh, one of these days we'll just agree on something and that will be that :)
 11 2017-01-19 02:37:18	0|BlueMatt|i mean it just seems shit to do this
 12 2017-01-19 02:37:29	0|BlueMatt|like, we should always be checking something else
 13 2017-01-19 02:37:52	0|sipa_|did i miss something?
 14 2017-01-19 02:37:59	0|BlueMatt|https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/commit/ed60b005fa0b61ab4454e075e6c7d9a54e2c24a0
 15 2017-01-19 02:38:12	0|BlueMatt|based on https://github.com/bitcoinfibre/bitcoinfibre/commit/8e2c2cf418adb3dad1479c3f8890e0a2c8b6f709
 16 2017-01-19 02:38:14	0|cfields|BlueMatt: well, i have a plan for going forward...
 17 2017-01-19 02:38:22	0|BlueMatt|to fix #9212
 18 2017-01-19 02:38:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9212 | Assertion failed: (nSendVersion != 0), function GetSendVersion, file ./net.h, line 775. · Issue #9212 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 19 2017-01-19 02:39:00	0|cfields|BlueMatt: net side will use fSuccessfullyConnected, processor will use nVersion
 20 2017-01-19 02:39:13	0|BlueMatt|oh?
 21 2017-01-19 02:39:14	0|cfields|BlueMatt: not sure what you mean by " we should always be checking something else" ?
 22 2017-01-19 02:39:16	0|BlueMatt|i mean...ok?
 23 2017-01-19 02:39:45	0|BlueMatt|i mean my point is all of this should be redundant
 24 2017-01-19 02:40:30	0|cfields|BlueMatt: still not sure what you mean
 25 2017-01-19 02:41:21	0|BlueMatt|deserializing into temps should be redundant
 26 2017-01-19 02:41:40	0|BlueMatt|ie all of those variables are supposed to be unused prior to version recv
 27 2017-01-19 02:43:46	0|cfields|BlueMatt: well sure. But i think it's just sloppy to it half-set if a deserialization throws.
 28 2017-01-19 02:45:21	0|BlueMatt|not really? internal state protected by a mutex (nVersion) is allowed to be filled with garbage
 29 2017-01-19 02:47:16	0|BlueMatt|anyway, ehh, doesnt matter
 30 2017-01-19 02:47:52	0|cfields|BlueMatt: ok, let's put it another way. Why would you prefer not to do them all in place?
 31 2017-01-19 02:48:08	0|BlueMatt|extra variables? dont really give a shit, really
 32 2017-01-19 02:48:37	0|BlueMatt|think its redundant, but ehh
 33 2017-01-19 02:48:40	0|BlueMatt|doesnt matter much
 34 2017-01-19 03:07:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #9579: Net: Trivial-review: Make SendMessages easier to review (06master...060.15-split-sendmessages) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9579
 35 2017-01-19 06:24:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15droark opened pull request #9580: Fix various minor linearization script issues (06master...06linearizefix) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9580
 36 2017-01-19 06:59:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9529: Bug fix: Update the instance variable self.lastDate (not the locally scoped variable lastDate) (06master...06fix-bug-in-BlockDataCopier) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9529
 37 2017-01-19 08:04:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 11 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6012967c4746...9c9af5ab2d9e
 38 2017-01-19 08:04:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c735540 15Matt Corallo: Move ORPHAN constants from validation.h to net_processing.h
 39 2017-01-19 08:04:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14edded80 15Matt Corallo: Make ATMP optionally return the CTransactionRefs it replaced
 40 2017-01-19 08:04:20	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141531652 15Matt Corallo: Keep shared_ptrs to recently-replaced txn for compact blocks
 41 2017-01-19 08:04:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9499: Use recent-rejects, orphans, and recently-replaced txn for compact-block-reconstruction (06master...062016-12-recent-tx-cache-cmpct) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9499
 42 2017-01-19 09:14:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9581: [pep-8] Prefer "foo not in bar" to "not foo in bar" (06master...06test-for-membership) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9581
 43 2017-01-19 09:53:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9582: [pep-8] Prefer "foo is None" to "foo == None" (06master...06is-none) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9582
 44 2017-01-19 09:56:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #9582: [pep-8] Prefer "foo is None" to "foo == None" (06master...06is-none) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9582
 45 2017-01-19 13:12:11	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fc089ae 15James White: Add IPv6 support to qos.sh
 46 2017-01-19 13:12:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9c9af5ab2d9e...41cb05cc8f3c
 47 2017-01-19 13:12:12	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1441cb05c 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9552: Add IPv6 support to qos.sh...
 48 2017-01-19 13:12:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9552: Add IPv6 support to qos.sh (06master...06qos-ipv6) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9552
 49 2017-01-19 14:21:12	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c70622e 15John Newbery: Docs: Update CONTRIBUTING.md...
 50 2017-01-19 14:21:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/41cb05cc8f3c...e9e7993007a9
 51 2017-01-19 14:21:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e9e7993 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9542: Docs: Update CONTRIBUTING.md...
 52 2017-01-19 14:21:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9542: Docs: Update CONTRIBUTING.md (06master...06CONTRIBUTINGcomponents) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9542
 53 2017-01-19 14:29:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e9e7993007a9...054d664215ca
 54 2017-01-19 14:29:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149f03110 15Jeremy Rubin: Add Basic CheckQueue Benchmark
 55 2017-01-19 14:29:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14aad4cb5 15Jeremy Rubin: Address ryanofsky feedback on CCheckQueue benchmarks. Eliminated magic numbers, fixed scoping of vectors (and memory movement component of benchmark).
 56 2017-01-19 14:29:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14054d664 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9498: Basic CCheckQueue Benchmarks...
 57 2017-01-19 14:29:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9498: Basic CCheckQueue Benchmarks (06master...06checkqueue_bench) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9498
 58 2017-01-19 16:02:07	0|instagibbs|When is feature freeze happening? May have missed memo if changed.
 59 2017-01-19 16:05:11	0|sipa_|it was postponed to today, i believe
 60 2017-01-19 16:07:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #9583: Move wallet callbacks into cs_main (this effectively reverts #7946) (06master...062017-01-revert-7946) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9583
 61 2017-01-19 16:12:53	0|BlueMatt|sorry jonasschnelli, I think we waited too long to fix all the issues #7946 caused for 0.14
 62 2017-01-19 16:12:56	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7946 | Reduce cs_main locks during ConnectTip/SyncWithWallets by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 63 2017-01-19 16:14:06	0|BlueMatt|in 0.15 we'll need to re-add it
 64 2017-01-19 16:17:19	0|sipa_|all we need is that the wallet has its own idea of what the best chain is, right?
 65 2017-01-19 16:17:34	0|sipa_|so its responses are consistent
 66 2017-01-19 16:17:52	0|BlueMatt|morcos: is writing up an issue with two other concerns we just found
 67 2017-01-19 16:18:11	0|BlueMatt|even #9570 is a big chunk of code for 0.14
 68 2017-01-19 16:18:16	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9570 | Block Wallet RPCs until wallet is synced to our current chain by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9570 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 69 2017-01-19 16:18:25	0|BlueMatt|and it would need a few more changes
 70 2017-01-19 16:18:41	0|sipa_|sigh
 71 2017-01-19 16:19:01	0|BlueMatt|sipa_: did you look at 9570?
 72 2017-01-19 16:19:04	0|BlueMatt|its nontrivial
 73 2017-01-19 16:19:36	0|sipa_|but is it needed once the wallet has its own idea about the chaintip?
 74 2017-01-19 16:19:50	0|BlueMatt|9570 gives the wallet its own idea about the chaintip
 75 2017-01-19 16:19:58	0|sipa_|oh
 76 2017-01-19 16:19:59	0|BlueMatt|though not in a very full-featured way
 77 2017-01-19 16:20:12	0|BlueMatt|but, its a bit too late to be making major changes like that for 0.14, I think
 78 2017-01-19 16:20:40	0|BlueMatt|i think at the start of the 0.15 release cycle we should move the wallet callbacks into a separate thread with all these fixes and let it simmer for 0.15
 79 2017-01-19 16:20:51	0|sipa_|ok
 80 2017-01-19 16:21:08	0|BlueMatt|same with multi-threaded message handler
 81 2017-01-19 16:22:01	0|BlueMatt|'cause a lot of these wallet issues on master are only realistic if you call submitblock (though some are also triggerable as a result of the additional ActivateBestChains added in #9375)
 82 2017-01-19 16:22:03	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9375 | Relay compact block messages prior to full block connection by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9375 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 83 2017-01-19 16:28:36	0|morcos|sipa: #9584
 84 2017-01-19 16:28:37	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 85 2017-01-19 16:29:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt closed pull request #9570: Block Wallet RPCs until wallet is synced to our current chain (06master...062017-01-fix-wallet-rpc-stale) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9570
 86 2017-01-19 18:35:02	0|luke-jr|sipa: Can you give me a text-"verbal" okay for some license to put on BIPs 30, 32, 62, 66, and 103?
 87 2017-01-19 18:35:04	0|luke-jr|CodeShark: ^ for BIP 123
 88 2017-01-19 18:43:14	0|cfields|BlueMatt/morcos: I'm staring at the locking issue too, writing up some potential fixes (throwaways) in order to understand the issue fully
 89 2017-01-19 18:48:57	0|MarcoFalke|jonasschnelli: #9461 is ready for merge, if you are here right now.
 90 2017-01-19 18:48:59	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 91 2017-01-19 18:49:46	0|MarcoFalke|Fixing the nit should be done for the whole src/qt tree, so you can leave it for another pull
 92 2017-01-19 18:50:18	0|instagibbs|reminder: meeting in 10
 93 2017-01-19 18:50:32	0|MarcoFalke|oh nice. Will be here today
 94 2017-01-19 18:50:35	0|MarcoFalke|:P
 95 2017-01-19 18:50:49	0|MarcoFalke|I think #9554 is ready as well.
 96 2017-01-19 18:50:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9554 | [test] Avoid potential NULL pointer dereference in addrman_tests.cpp by practicalswift · Pull Request #9554 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 97 2017-01-19 18:52:09	0|MarcoFalke|I remember someone was worried about NULL pointer derefs showing up in the release notes and they cause panic, when in fact there should be no reason to panic...
 98 2017-01-19 18:52:16	0|MarcoFalke|Should I change the title before merge?
 99 2017-01-19 18:52:35	0|wumpus|yes, if you change the title preferably do it before merge
100 2017-01-19 18:53:44	0|CodeShark|luke-jr: license?
101 2017-01-19 18:53:54	0|luke-jr|CodeShark: yes, for the BIP text
102 2017-01-19 18:54:34	0|CodeShark|public domain, not sure what you mean by license
103 2017-01-19 18:55:00	0|CodeShark|Example?
104 2017-01-19 18:55:06	0|luke-jr|ok, PD is acceptable since it predates BIP 2 I guess
105 2017-01-19 18:55:08	0|MarcoFalke|ugh, another 0.14 blocker: #9585
106 2017-01-19 18:55:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9585 | An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information.
107 2017-01-19 18:55:27	0|CodeShark|Or what would you suggest otherwise?
108 2017-01-19 18:55:27	0|luke-jr|CodeShark: ideally it would be one of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki#Recommended_licenses
109 2017-01-19 18:55:54	0|cfields|MarcoFalke: Not a feature-freeze blocker, just a bug
110 2017-01-19 18:56:05	0|CodeShark|luke-jr: ok, let me look it over and get back to you then
111 2017-01-19 18:56:10	0|luke-jr|CodeShark: k thanks
112 2017-01-19 18:56:18	0|BlueMatt|any last-minute review for #8456?
113 2017-01-19 18:56:21	0|BlueMatt|or #9461?
114 2017-01-19 18:56:23	0|BlueMatt|or #9294
115 2017-01-19 18:56:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8456 | [RPC] Simplified bumpfee command. by mrbandrews · Pull Request #8456 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
116 2017-01-19 18:56:25	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
117 2017-01-19 18:56:28	0|BlueMatt|those are the 3 for feature freeze
118 2017-01-19 18:56:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
119 2017-01-19 18:56:45	0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: well if push comes to shove we can always revert the qt version bump
120 2017-01-19 18:57:05	0|MarcoFalke|Jup
121 2017-01-19 18:57:09	0|luke-jr|IMO 8456 can be merged
122 2017-01-19 18:57:35	0|luke-jr|9294 is prob good too, maybe btcdrak wants to re-ACK
123 2017-01-19 18:59:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8456: [RPC] Simplified bumpfee command. (06master...06ba-rpcbumpfee) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8456
124 2017-01-19 18:59:50	0|sdaftuar_|cfields: when you have a chance, please see #9586
125 2017-01-19 18:59:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9586 | bip68-sequence.py failing on master after recent net changes, due to mocktime interaction · Issue #9586 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
126 2017-01-19 19:00:04	0|sipa|PLOINK
127 2017-01-19 19:00:06	0|jonasschnelli|\o/
128 2017-01-19 19:00:09	0|BlueMatt|mtg time
129 2017-01-19 19:00:12	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Jan 19 19:00:10 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
130 2017-01-19 19:00:12	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
131 2017-01-19 19:00:12	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
132 2017-01-19 19:00:15	0|Chris_Stewart_5|ello
133 2017-01-19 19:00:25	0|MarcoFalke|cfields: If you need the gitian log for the failing build: https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/nightlybuilds/2017-01-19/build-win.log
134 2017-01-19 19:00:46	0|cfields|MarcoFalke: ah, didn't realize gitian was actually failing. Thanks.
135 2017-01-19 19:00:48	0|wumpus|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 instagibbs
136 2017-01-19 19:00:55	0|morcos|here
137 2017-01-19 19:00:59	0|CodeShark|Hi
138 2017-01-19 19:01:13	0|instagibbs|prezent
139 2017-01-19 19:01:21	0|MarcoFalke|topics?
140 2017-01-19 19:01:22	0|jtimon|here
141 2017-01-19 19:01:29	0|morcos|suggested topic #9583 and #9584
142 2017-01-19 19:01:29	0|wumpus|topic: last-minute merges before feature freeze
143 2017-01-19 19:01:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9583 | Move wallet callbacks into cs_main (this effectively reverts #7946) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
144 2017-01-19 19:01:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
145 2017-01-19 19:01:36	0|instagibbs|Last stuff to shove in before freeze naturally...
146 2017-01-19 19:01:39	0|kanzure|hi.
147 2017-01-19 19:01:58	0|jonasschnelli|I guess https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 is ready...
148 2017-01-19 19:02:14	0|gmaxwell|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
149 2017-01-19 19:02:20	0|sipa|any 0.14 milestoned PRs that we don't expect are reasonable to make it?
150 2017-01-19 19:02:29	0|BlueMatt|#9535 got thourough review from jtimon (and others) and is a big win
151 2017-01-19 19:02:29	0|jtimon|suggested topic, what's missing to branch 0.14
152 2017-01-19 19:02:29	0|wumpus|do we all agree 9294 is ready?
153 2017-01-19 19:02:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
154 2017-01-19 19:02:41	0|instagibbs|any multiwallet stuff isn't going to make it I assume
155 2017-01-19 19:02:47	0|BlueMatt|i like 9294, but i think it needs another review
156 2017-01-19 19:02:54	0|wumpus|multiwallet was already untagged
157 2017-01-19 19:02:55	0|BlueMatt|I'm ok with merge as long as one or two folks give it a postumous ack
158 2017-01-19 19:03:06	0|sipa|i have not reviewed 9294, sorry
159 2017-01-19 19:03:14	0|gmaxwell|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/21
160 2017-01-19 19:03:15	0|sipa|(but i plan to, whether it's merged or not)
161 2017-01-19 19:03:38	0|jonasschnelli|we can always fix issues after the freeze
162 2017-01-19 19:03:41	0|instagibbs|I could give it an updated review, but not sure if that's enough
163 2017-01-19 19:03:45	0|luke-jr|there's a pre-MW PR that's probably ready, but not a prioirty
164 2017-01-19 19:04:04	0|sipa|pre-mimblewimble?
165 2017-01-19 19:04:08	0|jonasschnelli|heh
166 2017-01-19 19:04:09	0|gmaxwell|I think #9526 should be dropped from that. (perhaps we should do something later, but it shouldn't be tagged #14)
167 2017-01-19 19:04:10	0|luke-jr|multiwallet ;)
168 2017-01-19 19:04:11	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9526 | -blocksonly should disable sharing of mempool with dbcache · Issue #9526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
169 2017-01-19 19:04:12	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14 | bitcoin: URI and/or bitcoin-request MIME type for click-to-pay · Issue #14 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
170 2017-01-19 19:04:38	0|btcdrak|issue #14 ?
171 2017-01-19 19:04:39	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14 | bitcoin: URI and/or bitcoin-request MIME type for click-to-pay · Issue #14 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
172 2017-01-19 19:04:42	0|BlueMatt|I'd consider 9526 is a bugfix, but i guess i dont care strongly either way
173 2017-01-19 19:04:48	0|luke-jr|#8775 specifically
174 2017-01-19 19:04:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8775 | RPC refactoring: Access wallet using new GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest by luke-jr · Pull Request #8775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
175 2017-01-19 19:04:51	0|sipa|i think 9526 is a bugfix
176 2017-01-19 19:05:01	0|luke-jr|but it seems it conflicted again, so I guess less than ready anyway :x
177 2017-01-19 19:05:53	0|BlueMatt|ok, so to conclude, #9461 and #9294 - 9461 i think is ready-ish (one more look-over, please, its easy?), and 9294 I think we should merge with a few commitments to postumous reviews
178 2017-01-19 19:05:54	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
179 2017-01-19 19:05:57	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
180 2017-01-19 19:06:39	0|jtimon|I generally dislike that we fork the branch knowing that some fix will be needed in both branches in advance
181 2017-01-19 19:06:42	0|BlueMatt|9377 we agreed previously was bugfix, and 9526, if we merge it for 14, i'd call a bugfix
182 2017-01-19 19:07:05	0|MarcoFalke|jtimon: There won't be a branch today
183 2017-01-19 19:07:10	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: no, we branch in 2 weeks
184 2017-01-19 19:07:21	0|MarcoFalke|We still have next week to fix bugs
185 2017-01-19 19:07:23	0|jtimon|the whole "we can merge it after fork, because it's a bugfix" concept
186 2017-01-19 19:07:39	0|sipa|the fork is only in 2 weeks
187 2017-01-19 19:07:39	0|wumpus|who is talking about a fork?
188 2017-01-19 19:07:46	0|sipa|bugfixes can go in in between
189 2017-01-19 19:07:54	0|wumpus|bugfixes can be merged, by definition, after the feature freeze
190 2017-01-19 19:07:58	0|jtimon|oh, I see, just mean 0.14 git fork, ie just branching
191 2017-01-19 19:08:01	0|wumpus|because it's a feature freeze nto a bug fix freeze
192 2017-01-19 19:08:13	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. And technically 9294 is kind-of-a-fix for the missed HD chain split in 0.13. And there are no things to fix... only stuff to improve
193 2017-01-19 19:08:25	0|sipa|jtimon: today (or whenever we decide) is the feature freeze. the actual 0.14 branch is only created in 2 weeks
194 2017-01-19 19:08:31	0|BlueMatt|9294 has string changes, so must be today or not at all
195 2017-01-19 19:08:35	0|wumpus|the branch is created at rc1 time
196 2017-01-19 19:08:56	0|jtimon|sipa: thanks I mixed feature freeze with branching
197 2017-01-19 19:08:57	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: Yes. I'm happy to merge it without the Consensus::Params::nPowTargetTimespan change
198 2017-01-19 19:08:58	0|wumpus|(so that releases happen from a branch, not from master)
199 2017-01-19 19:09:07	0|jonasschnelli|If no objections...
200 2017-01-19 19:09:14	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: open a new pr for that change, and then merge it, I'd say
201 2017-01-19 19:09:27	0|BlueMatt|(merge the one without the Consensus::Params thing, then open a pr to change it)
202 2017-01-19 19:09:27	0|MarcoFalke|jonasschnelli: Agree
203 2017-01-19 19:09:31	0|jonasschnelli|Okay.
204 2017-01-19 19:09:35	0|jtimon|so ideally all the bugfixes we know will be merged before branching, forget about my previous comment then
205 2017-01-19 19:09:51	0|morcos|I apologize for not reviewing 9294, but i feel like i never got up to speed enough with the code in question.  I do thik that although it's not critical and isn't already tagged 0.14, #9535 could be merged now and i know cfields wants it too
206 2017-01-19 19:09:54	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
207 2017-01-19 19:10:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1440ec7c7 15Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding
208 2017-01-19 19:10:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2ef52d3cf11b...b25068697fdb
209 2017-01-19 19:10:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b250686 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #9461: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding...
210 2017-01-19 19:10:19	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: multiwallet pains me. because darn, such a simple set of changes remaining.  we need to get out of this mode where all the intensity is in the week before feature freeze. :P  (maybe new major version every month. :P )
211 2017-01-19 19:10:19	0|wumpus|all the bugfixes we know and can realistically make the release (or are critical enough to delay it) should be merged before rc1, yes, thus before the branch
212 2017-01-19 19:10:22	0|sipa|i think 9525 is pretty trivial
213 2017-01-19 19:10:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #9461: [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding (06master...062017/01/qt_sync) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9461
214 2017-01-19 19:10:36	0|sipa|eh, 9535
215 2017-01-19 19:11:24	0|wumpus|all the intensity isn't in the week before feature freeze, we've merged tons of stuff in the last months
216 2017-01-19 19:11:30	0|morcos|it's got enough ack's are there any objections to 9535 sipa?
217 2017-01-19 19:11:35	0|luke-jr|it's okay
218 2017-01-19 19:11:49	0|BlueMatt|sipa: ok, so press the button? I'd call jtimon's review pretty thourough (even ignoring all the lock testing I plan on doing in the next 2 weeks)
219 2017-01-19 19:11:55	0|wumpus|and some things won't make a release, that's okay
220 2017-01-19 19:12:47	0|BlueMatt|ok, so we need to figure out what to do about #9294, does anyone have any objections to merging so that we can freeze and getting postumous acks?
221 2017-01-19 19:12:47	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: I wouldn't call it complete, but I noted the parts I did not do
222 2017-01-19 19:12:47	0|wumpus|priority for 0.14 is solving the nasty remaining issues, like the wallet sync problems
223 2017-01-19 19:12:50	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
224 2017-01-19 19:12:58	0|morcos|assuming someone is about to press merge on 9535, the only open question is do we hold off the feature freeze for 9294  (what he said)
225 2017-01-19 19:13:06	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: next topic...lets finalize list of things for freeze today first :p
226 2017-01-19 19:13:43	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: I agree with the two you mentioned
227 2017-01-19 19:14:02	0|cfields|i'm afraid i'm unable to provide meaningful review on 9294. I had a few nits that weren't worth pointing out, but nothing else
228 2017-01-19 19:14:03	0|wumpus|#9461 and #9294
229 2017-01-19 19:14:06	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9461 | [Qt] Improve progress display during headers-sync and peer-finding by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9461 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
230 2017-01-19 19:14:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
231 2017-01-19 19:14:24	0|sipa|what about #9519 and #9377. are those bugfixes?
232 2017-01-19 19:14:25	0|jonasschnelli|9461 is merged
233 2017-01-19 19:14:26	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9519 | Exclude RBF replacement txs from fee estimation by morcos · Pull Request #9519 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
234 2017-01-19 19:14:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9377 | fundrawtransaction: Keep change-output keys by default, make it optional by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9377 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
235 2017-01-19 19:14:37	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yes, bugfixes with no translation string changes
236 2017-01-19 19:14:48	0|sipa|ok
237 2017-01-19 19:14:49	0|morcos|9519 is a bugfix and it's extremely simple
238 2017-01-19 19:14:51	0|BlueMatt|(if we decide to merge them, I'm confident in calling both bugfixes)
239 2017-01-19 19:15:20	0|jtimon|cfields: same for me, I just did concept aCK for #9294
240 2017-01-19 19:15:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
241 2017-01-19 19:15:36	0|instagibbs|If it helps hd split get in, I promise a tACK after the fact
242 2017-01-19 19:16:08	0|cfields|sipa: do you plan on needing to change any behavior or meaning of any options for #9526?
243 2017-01-19 19:16:10	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9526 | -blocksonly should disable sharing of mempool with dbcache · Issue #9526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
244 2017-01-19 19:16:18	0|wumpus|ok that leaves #9294 then, let's all review that
245 2017-01-19 19:16:22	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
246 2017-01-19 19:16:30	0|BlueMatt|ok, so acks on the following for today: hd split (9294), net lock split (9535)
247 2017-01-19 19:16:31	0|wumpus|#action review #9294 asap so it can still make the cut
248 2017-01-19 19:16:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
249 2017-01-19 19:16:46	0|BlueMatt|then we can move on to next topic
250 2017-01-19 19:17:30	0|jonasschnelli|Should we touch/chat about the wallet sync issue? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9583
251 2017-01-19 19:17:33	0|BlueMatt|ok, next topic: wallet inconsistency (revert #7946 for 0.14 is pr 9583), see issue #9584 and #9148
252 2017-01-19 19:17:35	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7946 | Reduce cs_main locks during ConnectTip/SyncWithWallets by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
253 2017-01-19 19:17:36	0|BlueMatt|?
254 2017-01-19 19:17:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
255 2017-01-19 19:17:38	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9148 | Wallet RPCs can return stale info due to ProcessNewBlock Race · Issue #9148 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
256 2017-01-19 19:17:45	0|wumpus|#topic #9583 and #9584 (morcos)
257 2017-01-19 19:17:47	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9583 | Move wallet callbacks into cs_main (this effectively reverts #7946) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
258 2017-01-19 19:17:48	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9584 | Synchronization problems with wallet. · Issue #9584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
259 2017-01-19 19:18:12	0|morcos|gmaxwell: please make sure you see this so you don't complain later that you didn't realize we were sticking everything back into cs_main again
260 2017-01-19 19:18:13	0|jonasschnelli|I apologise for 7946,... I wasn't aware that this could cause sync issues
261 2017-01-19 19:18:28	0|wumpus|I tagged 9535 for 0.14 (I uess that's the intent?)
262 2017-01-19 19:18:40	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: ehh, nbd, thats why it was early in a release cycle...sadly no one fixed it before now :(
263 2017-01-19 19:18:48	0|morcos|wumpus: yes or just merge. i think its ready, but not sure why it hasn't been
264 2017-01-19 19:18:49	0|BlueMatt|turns out there is complicated machinery to fix it, eg #9570
265 2017-01-19 19:18:51	0|BlueMatt|but like x2
266 2017-01-19 19:18:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9570 | Block Wallet RPCs until wallet is synced to our current chain by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9570 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
267 2017-01-19 19:19:11	0|BlueMatt|I'm working on a version of it, but I really dont like that much change this late in cycle
268 2017-01-19 19:19:27	0|BlueMatt|e
269 2017-01-19 19:19:27	0|BlueMatt|so hopefully we can get the changes in super early in 0.15, and get lots of eyes on it through that cylc
270 2017-01-19 19:19:33	0|BlueMatt|^ this is my recommendation
271 2017-01-19 19:19:40	0|wumpus|morcos: well it's not tagged for 0.14, so it has been hidden for me as that's what I've been focusing on
272 2017-01-19 19:19:41	0|BlueMatt|which is merge 9583
273 2017-01-19 19:20:08	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: the issue to track this (9148) has been tagged for 14 all along
274 2017-01-19 19:20:12	0|CodeShark|What's the target date for 0.15?
275 2017-01-19 19:20:13	0|cfields|BlueMatt: which is your recommendation? 9538?
276 2017-01-19 19:20:17	0|BlueMatt|cfields: yes
277 2017-01-19 19:20:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b25068697fdb...82274c02ed2d
278 2017-01-19 19:20:26	0|cfields|heh, laggy.
279 2017-01-19 19:20:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14376b3c2 15Matt Corallo: Make the cs_sendProcessing a LOCK instead of a TRY_LOCK...
280 2017-01-19 19:20:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d7c58ad 15Matt Corallo: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending...
281 2017-01-19 19:20:28	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1482274c0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9535: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending...
282 2017-01-19 19:20:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9535: Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending (06master...062017-01-cs-vsend-split) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9535
283 2017-01-19 19:21:07	0|morcos|Can anyone think of any downside for merging 9583?  Is there any chance we made further changes later that somehow were depending on the fact that we weren't holding cs_main through the wallet updates any more?
284 2017-01-19 19:21:09	0|cfields|BlueMatt: sadly, I think I agree. I've been down the rabbit hole today trying to come up with something simple, and it gets more complicated (and I become less comfortable) quickly.
285 2017-01-19 19:21:23	0|wumpus|CodeShark: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8719
286 2017-01-19 19:21:35	0|morcos|I can't think of anything htat could make sense, but really thats the only downside I could imagine... Otherwise its just not making an improvement that would have been nice to make..
287 2017-01-19 19:22:02	0|CodeShark|wumpus: thx
288 2017-01-19 19:22:03	0|jonasschnelli|morcos: Yes. Downside is slighly slower sync/rescan
289 2017-01-19 19:22:04	0|BlueMatt|(and I do not believe it is (yet) a major performance regression because this is pretty much all called from the single ProcessMessages thread)
290 2017-01-19 19:22:11	0|gmaxwell|I don't think any design depended on not holding it, varrious testing might have.
291 2017-01-19 19:22:20	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: I don't see how it could result in a slower sync, it's all in one thread.
292 2017-01-19 19:22:42	0|gmaxwell|(and the networking thread doesn't itself grab cs_main)
293 2017-01-19 19:23:10	0|cfields|morcos: isn't there still one site where it gets called without cs_main though?
294 2017-01-19 19:23:13	0|jonasschnelli|Hmm.. I guess I'm wrong. #7946 didn't and it was acctually a stepping stone for stuff that's not PRed.
295 2017-01-19 19:23:16	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7946 | Reduce cs_main locks during ConnectTip/SyncWithWallets by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7946 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
296 2017-01-19 19:23:17	0|BlueMatt|my intention for 0.15 is to move these callbacks into a background thread asap
297 2017-01-19 19:24:35	0|BlueMatt|cfields: that will not be true after the revert, i think
298 2017-01-19 19:24:41	0|morcos|cfields: Do you mean after the reversion in 9583?  I don't think so?
299 2017-01-19 19:25:11	0|cfields|ok, maybe i traced it wrong. Will do again.
300 2017-01-19 19:25:16	0|BlueMatt|ok, if no one has any conceptual objections to 9583, then I dont think there is much to discuss on it now, just note that thoruough review is needed
301 2017-01-19 19:25:50	0|wumpus|any other proposed topics?
302 2017-01-19 19:25:58	0|sipa|sad, but i accept that 9583 is probably the only viable solution for 0.14
303 2017-01-19 19:26:27	0|BlueMatt|indeed
304 2017-01-19 19:26:36	0|BlueMatt|one step forward, one step back, but at least we learned something
305 2017-01-19 19:26:41	0|BlueMatt|2 steps forward for 0.15 :)
306 2017-01-19 19:26:44	0|luke-jr|☺
307 2017-01-19 19:27:08	0|jonasschnelli|We could wrap it in #ifdef WALLET_ENABLED... *duck*
308 2017-01-19 19:27:28	0|BlueMatt|its used in net_processing
309 2017-01-19 19:27:58	0|jonasschnelli|I meant the cs_main lock for SyncTransaction, but just kidding.
310 2017-01-19 19:29:54	0|wumpus|any other proposed topics?
311 2017-01-19 19:30:08	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: are we still doing #9501 for 0.14?
312 2017-01-19 19:30:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9501 | Final Alert for 0.14 · Issue #9501 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
313 2017-01-19 19:30:29	0|gmaxwell|AFAIK we are. When should we be sending it to the network?
314 2017-01-19 19:30:40	0|sipa|i think this is a good a time as any
315 2017-01-19 19:30:41	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: +1
316 2017-01-19 19:30:48	0|sipa|*as
317 2017-01-19 19:30:54	0|gmaxwell|We can't PR the message send until we're ready for the message to hit the network.
318 2017-01-19 19:31:03	0|wumpus|#topic  Final Alert for 0.14
319 2017-01-19 19:31:08	0|gmaxwell|Okay I can do that today, I don't think we need any delays or announcements given the prior alert.
320 2017-01-19 19:31:12	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: we could PR it without the signature
321 2017-01-19 19:31:16	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: ACK
322 2017-01-19 19:31:20	0|wumpus|let's just do it
323 2017-01-19 19:31:25	0|luke-jr|fine with me
324 2017-01-19 19:31:30	0|achow101|ACK
325 2017-01-19 19:31:33	0|petertodd|wumpus: <insert meme here>
326 2017-01-19 19:32:28	0|gmaxwell|K. well at least we don't have to discuss text for it.
327 2017-01-19 19:33:03	0|achow101|I can pr an update to the bitcoin.org post
328 2017-01-19 19:33:03	0|wumpus|hehe
329 2017-01-19 19:33:18	0|BlueMatt|9108 needs an 0.14 tag, i believe
330 2017-01-19 19:33:46	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt: not necessarily
331 2017-01-19 19:33:50	0|BlueMatt|i vote 9392 gets a non-0.14 tag
332 2017-01-19 19:33:55	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: it fixes an 0.14-tagged issue
333 2017-01-19 19:34:04	0|BlueMatt|so either that or 9034 loses its tag
334 2017-01-19 19:34:09	0|jonasschnelli|WatchOnly where always with birthday 0
335 2017-01-19 19:34:14	0|sipa|https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder963/500x/74859963.jpg
336 2017-01-19 19:34:17	0|jonasschnelli|indeed
337 2017-01-19 19:34:31	0|gmaxwell|There are a number of importmulti serious bugfixes I have queued which I was waiting until after the freeze to finish.
338 2017-01-19 19:35:03	0|jonasschnelli|ack on untag #9034 for 0.14?
339 2017-01-19 19:35:04	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9034 | importmulti does not respect the given timestamp · Issue #9034 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
340 2017-01-19 19:35:29	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: tagged
341 2017-01-19 19:35:33	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: I assume that is related to #9491?
342 2017-01-19 19:35:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9491 | Importmulti api is confusing in a way that could lead to funds loss. · Issue #9491 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
343 2017-01-19 19:35:56	0|morcos|wait i'm confused...  gmaxwell you don't want those merged before 0.14 or you do?
344 2017-01-19 19:36:57	0|jonasschnelli|I guess he don't..
345 2017-01-19 19:36:58	0|morcos|nm, BlueMatt confused me...   importmulti fixes should be in 0.14, i think we all agree
346 2017-01-19 19:37:15	0|sipa|yes
347 2017-01-19 19:37:28	0|jonasschnelli|Ah.. okay. I read it wrong.
348 2017-01-19 19:37:32	0|luke-jr|the impression I got is that gmaxwell just has more work to do on them, and was prioritising stuff before it
349 2017-01-19 19:37:39	0|sipa|agree
350 2017-01-19 19:37:55	0|BlueMatt|I'm ok with untagging #9027 for 14 - it was pointed out that we can do a simple fix to address the issue mentioned there, but there are other issues so its nontrivial to *really* fix
351 2017-01-19 19:37:56	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9027 | Unbounded reorg memory usage · Issue #9027 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
352 2017-01-19 19:39:43	0|morcos|so in the category of fixes
353 2017-01-19 19:40:25	0|morcos|wumpus and sipa when you get a chance, take a look at #9371...   i think thats the direction you wanted me to go... and if we do 9583.. its pretty clearly no change in behavior from what txConflicted would have done..
354 2017-01-19 19:40:27	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9371 | Notify on removal by morcos · Pull Request #9371 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
355 2017-01-19 19:41:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15paveljanik opened pull request #9587: Do not shadow local variable named `tx`. (06master...0620170119_Wshadow_net_processing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9587
356 2017-01-19 19:42:25	0|wumpus|morcos: will do
357 2017-01-19 19:45:31	0|wumpus|ok, any other topics?
358 2017-01-19 19:45:40	0|sipa|i propose lunch
359 2017-01-19 19:45:41	0|BlueMatt|I'm done (finally) :p
360 2017-01-19 19:45:50	0|BlueMatt|sipa: too late, already did that
361 2017-01-19 19:46:03	0|wumpus|let's end early then
362 2017-01-19 19:46:08	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-19-19.00.log.html
363 2017-01-19 19:46:08	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Jan 19 19:46:06 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
364 2017-01-19 19:46:08	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-19-19.00.html
365 2017-01-19 19:46:08	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-19-19.00.txt
366 2017-01-19 19:46:08	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
367 2017-01-19 19:46:38	0|luke-jr|sipa: if you get a minute, can you give me at least a text-"verbal" ACK for some copyright license to put on BIPs 30, 32, 62, 66, and 103 please? is BSD-2-Clause okay?
368 2017-01-19 19:46:51	0|jonasschnelli|Anyone has an idea how to deal with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9294#pullrequestreview-17535025?
369 2017-01-19 19:47:02	0|sipa|luke-jr: ACK on 2-clause BSD for 30,32,62,66,103
370 2017-01-19 19:47:12	0|luke-jr|sipa: thanks
371 2017-01-19 19:47:14	0|sipa|(and for any other BIPs I contributed to)
372 2017-01-19 19:47:15	0|jonasschnelli|We did the same for 0.13 HD, but I actually think its a good finding by gmaxwell
373 2017-01-19 19:47:47	0|sipa|yeah, there is a race there
374 2017-01-19 19:48:02	0|sipa|that's always the case when a feature needs to be tied to a version number
375 2017-01-19 19:48:19	0|morcos|i don't see any problem leaving FEATURE_HD_SPLIT = 139900
376 2017-01-19 19:48:23	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: keeping in 139999 looks bad but is efficient?
377 2017-01-19 19:48:25	0|morcos|that seems the correct way to do it
378 2017-01-19 19:48:43	0|jonasschnelli|Agree with morcos
379 2017-01-19 19:48:55	0|sipa|a better way would be to disentangle the wallet version number for the software version number
380 2017-01-19 19:49:10	0|sipa|so the wallet version can just be bumped in the same PR as the feature is introduced
381 2017-01-19 19:49:12	0|jonasschnelli|Yes.
382 2017-01-19 19:49:24	0|morcos|ok.. but then you end up with a lot of version
383 2017-01-19 19:49:28	0|jonasschnelli|Together with a switch-away from BDB. :)
384 2017-01-19 19:49:33	0|morcos|i had this exact same issue with fee estimation
385 2017-01-19 19:49:47	0|morcos|for the data files it got merged with 139900
386 2017-01-19 19:50:57	0|morcos|but yeah if you ever wanted to backport something, it would be important to have different version for different feature types
387 2017-01-19 19:51:22	0|sipa|for the wallet we could just introduce a serialized set of strings
388 2017-01-19 19:51:30	0|sipa|one for each compatibility-breaking features
389 2017-01-19 19:51:39	0|BlueMatt|just set it to 14XXX and if it doesnt get merged set it to 15XXX prior to merge
390 2017-01-19 19:51:48	0|BlueMatt|i dont see whats wrong with a wallet saying 14 prior to 14
391 2017-01-19 19:51:55	0|jonasschnelli|I guess I once did that (what sipa said)
392 2017-01-19 19:52:02	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8369
393 2017-01-19 19:52:06	0|jonasschnelli|#8369
394 2017-01-19 19:52:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8369 | [FOR LATER USE][WIP][Wallet] add support for a flexible "set of features" by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #8369 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
395 2017-01-19 19:52:17	0|BlueMatt|ok, nvm, Ive been told I'm wrong
396 2017-01-19 19:52:19	0|BlueMatt|anyway, doesnt matter
397 2017-01-19 19:52:24	0|BlueMatt|pick a number out of a hat, I say
398 2017-01-19 19:52:30	0|BlueMatt|(and dont change it)
399 2017-01-19 19:52:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #9588: qt: Use nPowTargetSpacing constant (06master...06Mf1701-qtParams) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9588
400 2017-01-19 20:26:52	0|sdaftuar|sipa: i've been thinking about PrecomputedTransactionData (prompted by jl2012's pr, #9572, where he proposed skipping the calculation for non-segwit tx's)
401 2017-01-19 20:26:54	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9572 | Skip witness sighash cache for non-segwit transactions by jl2012 · Pull Request #9572 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
402 2017-01-19 20:28:10	0|sdaftuar|now that we avoid copying CTransaction's around, by deserializing directly to a shared pointer, which in turn gets stored in the mempool and typically reconstructed into a block via compact block relay, that we could calculate these PrecomputedTransactionData's just once
403 2017-01-19 20:28:23	0|sdaftuar|and store them somewhere, and avoid recalculation in ConnectBlock
404 2017-01-19 20:28:39	0|sdaftuar|my first thought was to just store them in CTransaction itself
405 2017-01-19 20:29:14	0|sdaftuar|which is not so hard to code up, but i don't know that the overhead is worth it in every situation, for instance reading a block off disk to deliver to a peer
406 2017-01-19 20:29:21	0|sdaftuar|or reading a tx off the network that we end up discarding
407 2017-01-19 20:32:17	0|sdaftuar|sipa: anyway i'd be curious to know whether you think this is worth pursuing, and if so what route you'd suggest i try.  for instance, i could try adding extra information to CTransaction that may be changed after it's deserialized, but that would undo all the effort you just went through to make it never change after deserialization!
408 2017-01-19 20:33:04	0|gmaxwell|We should generally figure out how to cut out needless computation in reading blocks from disk generally... like we shouldn't be computing hashroots just to reply to a getdata.
409 2017-01-19 20:33:10	0|gmaxwell|(or in wallet rescan)
410 2017-01-19 20:33:54	0|sdaftuar|gmaxwell: yeah that occurred to me as well.  i think there are other situations too, though -- such as someone sends you a giant block off the network that you end up not processing (say because it's low work)
411 2017-01-19 20:34:12	0|sdaftuar|we deserialize each transaction and calculate its hash before deciding to ignore it
412 2017-01-19 20:34:19	0|sdaftuar|and my proposed code would have quadrupled the hashing...
413 2017-01-19 20:35:51	0|gmaxwell|I do like the ideal of stapling that stuff to the transaction.
414 2017-01-19 20:37:21	0|sdaftuar|any suggestions on the best way to do it?  i've been brainstorming with ryanofsky and bluematt, some of the options that have been proposed include: keeping CTransaction as it is, but adding a new container CHashedTransaction that contains it and adds extra data, and storing that in the mempool
415 2017-01-19 20:37:46	0|sdaftuar|or, adding mutable data to the CTransaction, and possibly also some kind of synchronization primitives so that it can be updated after the fact (? ew)
416 2017-01-19 20:44:39	0|gmaxwell|I was thinking the container thing/
417 2017-01-19 20:45:14	0|ryanofsky|sdaftuar, for the mutable data approach, you could use c++11 call_once (http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/call_once) to implement it without having to use low-level synchronization primitives directly
418 2017-01-19 21:22:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15morcos opened pull request #9589: Use incrementalRelayFee for BIP 125 (RBF) replacement logic (06master...06incrementalFee) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9589
419 2017-01-19 21:26:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9590: Improve readability by removing redundant casts to same type (06master...06remove-redundant-casts) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9590
420 2017-01-19 21:48:00	0|achow101|gmaxwell: when is the alert going out?
421 2017-01-19 23:33:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #9591: [WIP] count mempool and extra pool matches correctly in PartiallyDownloadedBlock::InitData() (06master...06compactmatches) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9591
422 2017-01-19 23:44:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #9592: [Qt] Add checkbox in the GUI to opt-in to RBF when creating a transaction (06master...06pr/grbf) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9592