1 2017-05-18 00:14:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bee35299716c...e317c0d19201
  2 2017-05-18 00:14:44	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149f7341b 15Gregory Sanders: Add witness data output to TxInError messages
  3 2017-05-18 00:14:45	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146e9e026 15Gregory Sanders: Expand signrawtransaction.py to cover error witness checking
  4 2017-05-18 00:14:46	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e317c0d 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #8384: Add witness data output to TxInError messages...
  5 2017-05-18 00:23:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e317c0d19201...c33652576ce2
  6 2017-05-18 00:23:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141b936f5 15practicalswift: Replace boost::function with std::function (C++11)
  7 2017-05-18 00:23:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c336525 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #10395: Replace boost::function with std::function (C++11)...
  8 2017-05-18 00:23:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #10395: Replace boost::function with std::function (C++11) (06master...06replace-boost-function) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10395
  9 2017-05-18 00:36:53	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ad415bc 15Thomas Snider: [net] Added SetSocketNoDelay() utility function
 10 2017-05-18 00:36:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c33652576ce2...ae786098bc58
 11 2017-05-18 00:36:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ae78609 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #10061: [net] Added SetSocketNoDelay() utility function...
 12 2017-05-18 00:37:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #10061: [net] Added SetSocketNoDelay() utility function (06master...06tjps_nodelay) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10061
 13 2017-05-18 00:38:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #8952: Add query options to listunspent RPC call (06master...06enhancement/improve-rpc-listunspent) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8952
 14 2017-05-18 01:30:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni closed pull request #10285: net: refactor the connection process. moving towards async connections. (06master...06connman-events6) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10285
 15 2017-05-18 04:50:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10417: BIP 148 support (06master...06master-BIP148) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10417
 16 2017-05-18 05:25:34	0|paveljanik|... the first night when my IRC log buffer doesn't show the whole night communication...
 17 2017-05-18 05:26:00	0|paveljanik|and more over it even rolled out my TODOs 8)
 18 2017-05-18 05:52:00	0|jcorgan|it think we need CAPRs (Contributor Activated Pull Requests) :-)
 19 2017-05-18 05:54:18	0|wumpus|heh
 20 2017-05-18 07:53:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10419: [trivial] Fix two recently introduced typos (06master...06typos-201705) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10419
 21 2017-05-18 08:09:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ae786098bc58...2acface32aba
 22 2017-05-18 08:09:56	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1464aa36e 15ロハン ダル: param variables made const
 23 2017-05-18 08:09:56	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d60d54d 15ロハン ダル: merge with bitcoin core
 24 2017-05-18 08:09:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142acface 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9750: Bloomfilter: parameter variables made constant...
 25 2017-05-18 08:10:10	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9750: Bloomfilter: parameter variables made constant (06master...06bloomVar) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9750
 26 2017-05-18 08:13:41	0|fanquake|What we really need is a bot that picks out every typo, spurious include and incorrect space from every new PR, and embarrassingly notifies the contributor of their transgression
 27 2017-05-18 08:13:54	0|fanquake|/s
 28 2017-05-18 08:14:17	0|wumpus|in triplicate, of course
 29 2017-05-18 08:15:39	0|wumpus|for typos in translation strings it could even be useful
 30 2017-05-18 08:15:43	0|wumpus|but in comments, bleh
 31 2017-05-18 08:16:16	0|wumpus|especially if the gist of the word is clear anyway
 32 2017-05-18 09:18:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 8 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2acface32aba...962cd3f0587e
 33 2017-05-18 09:18:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142ec911f 15Jonas Schnelli: Add cs_wallet lock assertion to SignTransaction()
 34 2017-05-18 09:18:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fbf385c 15Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] simple fee bumper with user verification
 35 2017-05-18 09:18:55	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142678d3d 15Jonas Schnelli: Show old-fee, increase a new-fee in Qt fee bumper confirmation dialog
 36 2017-05-18 09:19:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #9697: [Qt] simple fee bumper with user verification (06master...062017/02/qt_bumpfee) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9697
 37 2017-05-18 09:20:19	0|jonasschnelli|Added https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10240 to the "High-priority for review" project
 38 2017-05-18 09:39:19	0|timothy|hi, is there a max size for rev*.dat files?
 39 2017-05-18 09:40:34	0|wumpus|timothy: afaik no, the size of the rev depends on what is in the blk*.dat which is size-limited though
 40 2017-05-18 09:40:51	0|timothy|yes, max size of blk is 128 MiB
 41 2017-05-18 09:41:18	0|wumpus|I suppose the rev will always be smaller than the blk
 42 2017-05-18 09:41:44	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: it could be larger if you did something absurd.
 43 2017-05-18 09:41:58	0|timothy|gmaxwell: absurd like what?
 44 2017-05-18 09:42:15	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: e.g. say early blocks make zillions of 9999 byte outputs, spendable with OP_TRUE.  then later blocks spend them and do nothing else.
 45 2017-05-18 09:42:27	0|gmaxwell|That will make the rev data larger than the related blocks.
 46 2017-05-18 09:43:01	0|timothy|right
 47 2017-05-18 09:43:18	0|gmaxwell|you could get them up to a ratio of perhaps 230 times larger.
 48 2017-05-18 09:44:15	0|timothy|still less than 4GB (max file size of FAT32)
 49 2017-05-18 09:44:16	0|gmaxwell|of course none of these txn would pass standardness tests and what not... not likely to see it in mainnet, but it's possible.
 50 2017-05-18 09:44:33	0|timothy|uhm no, more than that
 51 2017-05-18 09:44:48	0|timothy|30 GB
 52 2017-05-18 09:46:37	0|wumpus|oh wow that's pretty bad
 53 2017-05-18 09:47:26	0|wumpus|so I guess ideally the logic should be: if *either* the rev or dat reaches 128MB, roll to the next file
 54 2017-05-18 09:52:02	0|timothy|is there any reason to use 128 MiB instead of other values?
 55 2017-05-18 09:52:37	0|gmaxwell|it should be relatively small because it preallocates to reduce fragmentation. (or otherwise windows users cry)
 56 2017-05-18 09:52:56	0|timothy|NTFS doesn't support fallocate or similar?
 57 2017-05-18 09:52:59	0|gmaxwell|but not so small that its making a kazillion files and causing poor file system performance.
 58 2017-05-18 09:53:18	0|timothy|I mean, preallocation without really writing the bytes
 59 2017-05-18 09:53:45	0|gmaxwell|I long since forgot what the tradeoff surface was on windows.
 60 2017-05-18 09:53:57	0|gmaxwell|But I didn't think NTFS did sparse files.
 61 2017-05-18 09:54:08	0|wumpus|I guess it could harmlessly be changed to 256, but I expect there to be no performance gain
 62 2017-05-18 09:54:25	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: 60 GB rev files! :P
 63 2017-05-18 09:54:38	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: yeah after rev files capped ofcourse
 64 2017-05-18 09:59:02	0|wumpus|with a blow-up of 230, at least one block's undo data would fit into that :-)
 65 2017-05-18 10:00:32	0|gmaxwell|sipa might have more accurate figures on the worst case, but it's something around that much.
 66 2017-05-18 10:02:58	0|wumpus|"Most modern file systems support sparse files, including most Unix variants and NTFS, but notably not Apple's HFS+. Sparse files are commonly used for disk images, database snapshots, log files and in scientific applications."
 67 2017-05-18 10:03:08	0|wumpus|so MacOS is the problem here, not windows
 68 2017-05-18 10:10:15	0|gmaxwell|The extra question though is if they prevent fragmentation.
 69 2017-05-18 10:12:14	0|wumpus|I don't know, is there such a guarantee for UNIX filesystems?
 70 2017-05-18 10:14:41	0|wumpus|oh I was confused, this isn't about sparse files at all but posix_fallocate
 71 2017-05-18 10:15:14	0|wumpus|in which case the disk space is reserved explicitly
 72 2017-05-18 10:17:30	0|gmaxwell|sorry, confusion I caused, late here.
 73 2017-05-18 10:19:22	0|wumpus|we apparently do have an implementation of AllocateFileRange for windows, but as I understand from MSDN it might create a sparse file (SetEndOfFile sets the file size,but not the "allocation size"), so this confusion is more general :)
 74 2017-05-18 10:22:44	0|wumpus|the documentation is confusing though so I'm not sure
 75 2017-05-18 12:59:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #9427: Use compact blocks for blocks that have equal work to our active tip (06master...06UseCmpctBlockForCompetingBlocks) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9427
 76 2017-05-18 14:30:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #10420: Add Qt tests for wallet spends & bumpfee (06master...06pr/btest) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10420
 77 2017-05-18 15:27:16	0|BartokIT|I want a clarification about the BIP32, is this the correct group
 78 2017-05-18 15:32:55	0|BartokIT|The BIP32 allow to audit sharing the master public key
 79 2017-05-18 15:33:17	0|BartokIT|This is mentioned in the mediawiki
 80 2017-05-18 15:35:37	0|BartokIT|But if we use the hardened key this is impossible? Is this wrong?
 81 2017-05-18 16:36:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10421: [qt] Remove excess logic (06master...06if-expr-return-true-else-return-false) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10421
 82 2017-05-18 16:39:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15morcos opened pull request #10422: Fix timestamp in fee estimate debug message (06master...06fixtimeunits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10422
 83 2017-05-18 16:51:28	0|sipa|wumpus, gmaxwell: the 128 MiB is a tradeoff between fragmentation overhead and granularity for pruning
 84 2017-05-18 16:51:50	0|sipa|the very first versions of the patch that introduced it (ultraprune) just used a single file per block
 85 2017-05-18 16:51:57	0|sipa|but that was very slow
 86 2017-05-18 16:54:31	0|luke-jr|sipa: I wonder if pruning ought to perhaps consider punching sparse holes?
 87 2017-05-18 16:55:08	0|sipa|luke-jr: i think we can also just reduce that 128MiB number significantly
 88 2017-05-18 16:55:25	0|morcos|i think 128 works fine for now doesn't it?
 89 2017-05-18 16:55:34	0|luke-jr|maybe. but some filesystems perform differently than others..
 90 2017-05-18 16:55:41	0|morcos|perhaps if we properly introduce sharding, then we need to rethink the design
 91 2017-05-18 16:55:48	0|luke-jr|btrfs is annoyingly slow, I've found.
 92 2017-05-18 17:03:15	0|wumpus|sipa: yes, it seems a good compromise
 93 2017-05-18 17:03:55	0|wumpus|AFAIK monero stores all blocks in a single lmdb
 94 2017-05-18 17:04:09	0|wumpus|why reduce the 128? agree with morcosthat it works fine
 95 2017-05-18 17:06:38	0|wumpus|for pruning granularity it's also good enough, given how much space the utxo database takes a variance of 128mb+~16mb (usual rev files) doesn't seem to bad
 96 2017-05-18 17:19:31	0|wumpus|although it could be worse than that in some cases depending on how blocks are distributed over the files
 97 2017-05-18 17:31:54	0|sipa|wumpus: ok
 98 2017-05-18 17:49:39	0|wumpus|and 128mb is at most 128 blocks, less than a day of blocks, even less than that w/ witness data, it's not that much
 99 2017-05-18 17:59:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 7 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/962cd3f0587e...28c6e8d71b3a
100 2017-05-18 17:59:59	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1429f3c20 15Jack Grigg: torcontrol: Add unit tests for Tor reply parsers
101 2017-05-18 17:59:59	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d8e03c0 15Jack Grigg: torcontrol: Improve comments
102 2017-05-18 18:00:00	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d63677b 15Jack Grigg: torcontrol: Fix ParseTorReplyMapping...
103 2017-05-18 18:00:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10408: Net: Improvements to Tor control port parser (06master...06torcontrol-parser-patches) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10408
104 2017-05-18 18:13:34	0|luke-jr|wumpus: it's much more than 128 blocks early in the chain?
105 2017-05-18 18:13:41	0|sipa|yes
106 2017-05-18 18:13:58	0|wumpus|luke-jr: of course, but it blasts past that anyway
107 2017-05-18 18:14:10	0|wumpus|most pruning nodes will be - more or less - up to date
108 2017-05-18 18:20:38	0|wumpus|but yes it's easy to forget that once, blocks were that far from full
109 2017-05-18 18:51:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs closed pull request #9102: Really don't validate genesis block (06master...06dontvalidategenesis) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9102
110 2017-05-18 19:01:21	0|luke-jr|meeting?
111 2017-05-18 19:01:24	0|jonasschnelli|jup
112 2017-05-18 19:01:33	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
113 2017-05-18 19:01:37	0|sdaftuar|hello
114 2017-05-18 19:01:41	0|CodeShark|hi
115 2017-05-18 19:01:41	0|instagibbs|here
116 2017-05-18 19:01:43	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
117 2017-05-18 19:01:44	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu May 18 19:01:43 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
118 2017-05-18 19:01:44	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
119 2017-05-18 19:02:10	0|kanzure|hi.
120 2017-05-18 19:02:17	0|sipa|yow
121 2017-05-18 19:02:26	0|cfields|hi
122 2017-05-18 19:02:27	0|CodeShark|I just have one topic for today, but I'll let others suggest theirs
123 2017-05-18 19:02:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14618d07f 15Jorge Timón: MOVEONLY: tx functions to consensus/tx_verify.o...
124 2017-05-18 19:02:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/28c6e8d71b3a...ea6fde3f1d26
125 2017-05-18 19:02:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ea6fde3 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8329: Consensus: MOVEONLY: Move functions for tx verification...
126 2017-05-18 19:02:39	0|wumpus|topics?
127 2017-05-18 19:02:49	0|CodeShark|#topic clientside filtering
128 2017-05-18 19:02:55	0|jonasschnelli|ack
129 2017-05-18 19:03:27	0|luke-jr|BIP148
130 2017-05-18 19:03:34	0|luke-jr|(after clientside filtering etc)
131 2017-05-18 19:03:51	0|wumpus|I don't think that works CodeShark, I think only the chair can set the topic
132 2017-05-18 19:03:56	0|wumpus|#topic clientside filtering
133 2017-05-18 19:03:58	0|CodeShark|:)
134 2017-05-18 19:04:19	0|CodeShark|so there are several filtering options with different performance tradeoffs
135 2017-05-18 19:04:40	0|CodeShark|bloom filters have been typically considered - but there are some other ideas that might be worth considering
136 2017-05-18 19:04:56	0|jonasschnelli|Filter for BDF, read gmaxwell's reply: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012637.html
137 2017-05-18 19:05:01	0|CodeShark|roasbeef has worked on an idea based on golomb coded sets
138 2017-05-18 19:05:27	0|jonasschnelli|«he most efficient data structure is similar to a bloom filter, but you use more bits and only one hash function. The result will be mostly zero bits. Then you entropy code it using RLE+Rice coding or an optimal binomial packer (e.g. https://people.xiph.org/~greg/binomial_codec.c).»
139 2017-05-18 19:05:56	0|CodeShark|gcs sacrifices CPU for space
140 2017-05-18 19:05:56	0|sipa|yes?
141 2017-05-18 19:06:14	0|jonasschnelli|I think what we would need is data about the filter size for the last 100000 blocks...
142 2017-05-18 19:06:17	0|CodeShark|filters are smaller, but queries are more computationally expensive
143 2017-05-18 19:06:19	0|gmaxwell|CodeShark: CPU for who when is always the question.
144 2017-05-18 19:06:24	0|roasbeef|jonasschnelli: I have that
145 2017-05-18 19:06:32	0|jonasschnelli|roasbeef: Oo... share?
146 2017-05-18 19:06:34	0|CodeShark|hey, roasbeef! :)
147 2017-05-18 19:07:01	0|gmaxwell|what BIP37 does is very cpu expensive for the serving party, which is why it leads to dos attacks.
148 2017-05-18 19:07:18	0|gmaxwell|with any of the map based proposals that goes away and the cost to construct is not very relevant.
149 2017-05-18 19:07:25	0|CodeShark|constructing a gcs isn't very computationally expensive
150 2017-05-18 19:07:38	0|sipa|more so than bip37
151 2017-05-18 19:07:44	0|gmaxwell|Similarly, cost to lookup is not very relevant, the reciever will decode one per block.
152 2017-05-18 19:07:49	0|CodeShark|the queries are a little more computationally expensive than bloom filters, but that is done on client
153 2017-05-18 19:07:51	0|roasbeef|jonasschnelli: i have a csv file of stats for the entire chain, can easily get the last 100k out of it, the csv file itself is 14MB
154 2017-05-18 19:07:58	0|gmaxwell|sipa: maybe the lots of hash functions make it more expensive than you might guess.
155 2017-05-18 19:08:07	0|jonasschnelli|roasbeef: I take the complete one,. thanks. :)
156 2017-05-18 19:08:14	0|CodeShark|but gcs only needs to be computed once per block
157 2017-05-18 19:08:29	0|sipa|CodeShark: do you suggest this as something that blocks commit to?
158 2017-05-18 19:08:37	0|sipa|or something that a full node would precompute and store?
159 2017-05-18 19:08:42	0|roasbeef|with bloom filters, there are several hash functions, with the gcs based approach, there's a single hash function. but the set itself is compressed, so you need to decompress as you query
160 2017-05-18 19:08:43	0|CodeShark|the latter for starters
161 2017-05-18 19:08:44	0|sipa|i suppose the last
162 2017-05-18 19:08:47	0|jonasschnelli|precomp and store
163 2017-05-18 19:08:51	0|roasbeef|sipe: something a node would precompute and store, to start
164 2017-05-18 19:08:58	0|sipa|okay
165 2017-05-18 19:09:19	0|sipa|what would be stored in the set?
166 2017-05-18 19:09:23	0|gmaxwell|I'm dubious that we'd get state of the art performance from golomb coding, but interested to see.
167 2017-05-18 19:09:26	0|jonasschnelli|Can be done after the block has been connected
168 2017-05-18 19:10:05	0|gmaxwell|sipa: I believe the discussion is the 'bloom map' proposal.
169 2017-05-18 19:10:13	0|CodeShark|roasbeef was suggesting two filters - one for super lightweight clients, another for clients that require more sophisticated queries
170 2017-05-18 19:10:40	0|jonasschnelli|What are the differences? The tx template types?
171 2017-05-18 19:10:46	0|CodeShark|the former would only encode UTXOs, the latter would also encode witness data
172 2017-05-18 19:10:57	0|gmaxwell|encode witness data?!
173 2017-05-18 19:11:17	0|CodeShark|well, if you want to query for whether a particular execution path has been taken - necessary for things like lightning
174 2017-05-18 19:11:32	0|roasbeef|basic has: outpoints, script data pushes. extended has: witness stack, sig script data pushes, txids
175 2017-05-18 19:11:46	0|sipa|but do you need to _search_ based on witness data?
176 2017-05-18 19:11:51	0|sipa|i understand you may want to see it
177 2017-05-18 19:12:01	0|sipa|but you know what UTXOs to query for, no?
178 2017-05-18 19:12:36	0|CodeShark|I'm guessing revocation enforcement might be outsourced to nodes that cannot know the exact transaction format - only some key
179 2017-05-18 19:12:51	0|CodeShark|roasbeef, wanna comment?
180 2017-05-18 19:12:54	0|gmaxwell|Yes, requesting it is fine, searching on it?  Be careful: it has serious long term implications if you expect that data will even be readily available.  I am doubtful five years from now most nodes will have any witness data from more than a year back.
181 2017-05-18 19:13:22	0|gmaxwell|(witness data also means non-utxo transaction data in that above comment)
182 2017-05-18 19:13:54	0|gmaxwell|aside, I'm glad to hear this discussion has moved past just replicating the BIP37 mechenism.
183 2017-05-18 19:13:58	0|roasbeef|rationale to include witness data was to allow light cleitns to efficielty scan for things like reusable addresses (stealth addresses), i think my model of how folks do that on-chain these days is dated thoughu, i guess they stuff a notification on Op_returns?
184 2017-05-18 19:14:19	0|sipa|i'm not sure that is worth the cost
185 2017-05-18 19:14:30	0|sipa|also, individual scriptPubKey pushes?
186 2017-05-18 19:14:46	0|sipa|if anything, my preference would just be outpoints and full scriptPubKeys
187 2017-05-18 19:14:50	0|roasbeef|they do make the extended filters quite a bit bigger (i have testnet data also)
188 2017-05-18 19:14:55	0|gmaxwell|well no one does those things in practice, and everyone who previously has implemented them that I'm aware of performed all scanning via a centeralized server, even though they could have matched on the OP_RETURN.
189 2017-05-18 19:15:24	0|CodeShark|we can always start with the simplest minimal filter and then add more if we find use cases
190 2017-05-18 19:15:25	0|roasbeef|gmaxwell: well the intention was to allow the new light client mode to actually make using them pratcical without delegating to a central server
191 2017-05-18 19:15:41	0|gmaxwell|roasbeef: that was already possible with BIP37 and the prior design.
192 2017-05-18 19:15:47	0|jonasschnelli|Can we start with adding the same elements that bip37 does?
193 2017-05-18 19:15:48	0|roasbeef|sipa: so including the op-codes?
194 2017-05-18 19:16:02	0|gmaxwell|Usuabilty of SPV clients that scan using BIP37 is really poor though, thus the rise of electrum.
195 2017-05-18 19:16:05	0|sipa|roasbeef: bah, and 1) further encourage op_returns and 2) make them even more expensive for full nodes?
196 2017-05-18 19:16:27	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: the things BIP37 added largely turned out to be a mistake that really degraded BIP37 so I hope a new proposal would do less.
197 2017-05-18 19:16:40	0|sipa|well the degradation problem doesn't exist here
198 2017-05-18 19:16:47	0|sipa|as the filter is not cumulative
199 2017-05-18 19:17:02	0|luke-jr|sipa: is there a way to do it without OP_RETURN?
200 2017-05-18 19:17:06	0|gmaxwell|yes, but you still need a bigger filter for same FP ratio. It's just less awful. :)
201 2017-05-18 19:17:14	0|sipa|luke-jr: sure, payment protocol like systems
202 2017-05-18 19:17:27	0|luke-jr|well, true, but then you don't need the crypto stuff for it
203 2017-05-18 19:17:42	0|sipa|i think that's a separate discussion and probably not one for here
204 2017-05-18 19:17:48	0|luke-jr|k
205 2017-05-18 19:17:58	0|CodeShark|for starters we should look at the most basic use cases
206 2017-05-18 19:18:00	0|gmaxwell|Yea, we should have a subcommittee. :P
207 2017-05-18 19:18:07	0|sipa|jonasschnelli, CodeShark, roasbeef: is there a use case for individual pushes in scriptPubKeys?
208 2017-05-18 19:18:14	0|jonasschnelli|the action is probably define a set of filter and create a spec that leaves room for future filter types
209 2017-05-18 19:18:22	0|CodeShark|jonasschnelli: indeed
210 2017-05-18 19:18:30	0|sipa|especially in a world where everything is P2PKH/P2SH/P2WPKH/P2WSH
211 2017-05-18 19:18:39	0|CodeShark|once we have the framework for adding new filters, it should be easy to do
212 2017-05-18 19:18:43	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: multiple filter types can result in n-fold overhead, which will be a significant pressure against defining many.
213 2017-05-18 19:18:47	0|roasbeef|sipa: sure, the filter is smaller if one doesn't include the op-code as well
214 2017-05-18 19:19:00	0|sipa|roasbeef: eh?
215 2017-05-18 19:19:26	0|sipa|i must be misunderstanding something then
216 2017-05-18 19:19:28	0|roasbeef|oh you mean insert the _entire_ thing
217 2017-05-18 19:19:36	0|sipa|yes, just the whole scriptPubKey
218 2017-05-18 19:19:41	0|sipa|1 element per output
219 2017-05-18 19:19:59	0|sipa|well, and another one for the outpoint
220 2017-05-18 19:20:08	0|roasbeef|mhmm, only advtange to data pushes in that case is in a world where mbare multi-sig is actually used
221 2017-05-18 19:20:16	0|gmaxwell|sipa: wait why?
222 2017-05-18 19:20:24	0|sipa|gmaxwell: why what?
223 2017-05-18 19:20:27	0|gmaxwell|roasbeef: yes, which we don't expect that world to exist.
224 2017-05-18 19:20:51	0|sipa|roasbeef: yes, the reason it's in BIP37 is for bare multisig support... but i don't think that's very interesting now
225 2017-05-18 19:20:53	0|gmaxwell|sipa: I expect one insert per output. The scriptpubkey. Why would you insert anything else (for normal functionality)
226 2017-05-18 19:21:07	0|gmaxwell|s/now/ever/ but hindsight is 20/20
227 2017-05-18 19:21:18	0|gmaxwell|blockchain isn't a message bus. :P
228 2017-05-18 19:21:20	0|sipa|i guess if you want to look for an outpoint, you can always search for its scriptPubKey
229 2017-05-18 19:21:27	0|gmaxwell|sipa: right.
230 2017-05-18 19:21:28	0|gmaxwell|okay.
231 2017-05-18 19:21:59	0|sipa|in BIP37 there was a reason to separate it, as it would be less bandwidth if you wanted a specific coutpoint, despite there being many scriptPubKeys with it
232 2017-05-18 19:22:08	0|sipa|but here, that reason doesn't really matter i think?
233 2017-05-18 19:22:31	0|sipa|roasbeef: what do you think? just a filter with scriptPubKeys?
234 2017-05-18 19:22:33	0|gmaxwell|sipa: the privacy leak from correlated data still exists in map proposals, based on what blocks you choose to scan further, though much less severe than BIP37. Keep that in mind.
235 2017-05-18 19:22:58	0|roasbeef|if it's just spk's, then how does one query the filters to see if an outoint has been spent?
236 2017-05-18 19:23:36	0|sipa|roasbeef: by querying for the scriptPubKey that outpoint created
237 2017-05-18 19:23:42	0|sipa|roasbeef: which you will always know, i think?
238 2017-05-18 19:23:55	0|gmaxwell|roasbeef: by looking for its spk.
239 2017-05-18 19:24:09	0|roasbeef|sipa: which would require adding parts of the witness/sigScript though?
240 2017-05-18 19:24:15	0|sipa|?
241 2017-05-18 19:24:26	0|sipa|i'm confused
242 2017-05-18 19:24:31	0|roasbeef|me too :)
243 2017-05-18 19:24:38	0|CodeShark|txhash:txindex -> scriptPubKey
244 2017-05-18 19:24:38	0|sipa|maybe we should do this outside of the meeting
245 2017-05-18 19:24:40	0|gmaxwell|roasbeef: has nothing to do with the witness. You validate the transaction, you know the content of the outpoint.
246 2017-05-18 19:24:52	0|sipa|it seems we're doing protocol design here now
247 2017-05-18 19:25:03	0|gmaxwell|12:17 < gmaxwell> Yea, we should have a subcommittee. :P
248 2017-05-18 19:25:18	0|CodeShark|anyhow, we don't need to decide the specifics of what goes in the filter right now
249 2017-05-18 19:25:22	0|sipa|agree
250 2017-05-18 19:25:28	0|roasbeef|ok, sure, to summarize: we have working code for the construction, have nearly finished integrating it into lnd, have a BIP draft that should be ready by next week-ish (will also integrate feedback from thjis discussion)
251 2017-05-18 19:25:32	0|CodeShark|I like the idea of creating a framework that allows us to arbitrarily define filters later on
252 2017-05-18 19:25:32	0|sipa|i think it's an interesting thing to research further
253 2017-05-18 19:25:41	0|gmaxwell|well we aren't deciding anything right now... :)
254 2017-05-18 19:25:41	0|sipa|not sure what else needs to be discussed here
255 2017-05-18 19:25:44	0|gmaxwell|CodeShark: I do not.
256 2017-05-18 19:26:01	0|jonasschnelli|BTW: kallewoof has an draft impl. on serving filters over the p2p (though bloom): https://github.com/kallewoof/bitcoin/pull/1/files (in case someone wants to drive this further)
257 2017-05-18 19:26:05	0|gmaxwell|CodeShark: there is an n-fold cost to additional filters. It is unlikely to me that nodes would be willing to carry arbritarily many in the future.
258 2017-05-18 19:26:14	0|gmaxwell|CodeShark: there might be a reasonable case for more than one, sure.
259 2017-05-18 19:26:56	0|gmaxwell|In any case, I think this is good to open up more discussion and participation.
260 2017-05-18 19:27:10	0|gmaxwell|I'm quite happy to hear that there is activity in this area and I'd like to help.
261 2017-05-18 19:27:10	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: I see this point but I don't think it would hurt if the specs would allow new filter types
262 2017-05-18 19:27:13	0|CodeShark|gmaxwell: point is the code complexity to support adding arbitrary filters isn't that great and it avoids the bikeshed in writing up the initial BIP ;)
263 2017-05-18 19:27:31	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: yea sure, whatever, but thats just a type paramter.
264 2017-05-18 19:27:41	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: right.
265 2017-05-18 19:28:13	0|sipa|end of topic?
266 2017-05-18 19:28:31	0|wumpus|I don't think any other have been proposed?
267 2017-05-18 19:28:48	0|gmaxwell|you're gonna regret saying that.. :P
268 2017-05-18 19:29:07	0|gmaxwell|quick: high priority PRs.
269 2017-05-18 19:29:10	0|wumpus|nearly halfway time
270 2017-05-18 19:29:15	0|jonasschnelli|kallewoof had also an approch that peers could serve digests of filters to check the integrity among different peers
271 2017-05-18 19:29:15	0|wumpus|#topic high priority PRs
272 2017-05-18 19:29:33	0|sipa|small topic for later: bytes_serialized
273 2017-05-18 19:29:34	0|gmaxwell|Congrats Morcos on the merge of the new fee estimator stuff.
274 2017-05-18 19:29:43	0|jonasschnelli|\o/
275 2017-05-18 19:29:45	0|sipa|it will need cleanups, but that's fine
276 2017-05-18 19:29:56	0|morcos|thanks, quick PSA..  if you run master now it'll blow away your old fee estimates, you might want to make a copy
277 2017-05-18 19:30:01	0|wumpus|quite a few high priority PRs were merged this week, so there's place for new ones, please speak up if there's any that block further work for you
278 2017-05-18 19:30:05	0|gmaxwell|"micros" not withstanding.
279 2017-05-18 19:30:17	0|morcos|i'm hoping to get an improvment which makes the transition more seamless before 0.15
280 2017-05-18 19:30:47	0|sdaftuar|sipa: i'm basically done reviewing per-txout (#10195), looks awesome! running some benchmarks now.
281 2017-05-18 19:30:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
282 2017-05-18 19:30:58	0|sipa|sdaftuar: thank you so much
283 2017-05-18 19:31:16	0|gmaxwell|I've been testing per-txout. Survived a few crashes so far.
284 2017-05-18 19:31:32	0|wumpus|I've been testing #10195 for a while, haven't run into any problems
285 2017-05-18 19:31:35	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
286 2017-05-18 19:31:36	0|instagibbs|morcos, dont look now but it's being used in anger on multiple large wallet services :)
287 2017-05-18 19:31:47	0|sipa|instagibbs: "in anger" ?
288 2017-05-18 19:31:55	0|instagibbs|"doing it live"
289 2017-05-18 19:32:03	0|gmaxwell|"hold my beer"
290 2017-05-18 19:32:31	0|morcos|heh.. fools, the whole reason to merge it into master was to get it some more testing
291 2017-05-18 19:32:35	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: have you done the multiwallet rebasing?
292 2017-05-18 19:32:44	0|jtimon|there's not many explicit acks on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10339
293 2017-05-18 19:32:48	0|luke-jr|I didn't realise jtimon's PR was merged?
294 2017-05-18 19:32:49	0|instagibbs|morcos, well, other services were doing crazy things.. (ok enough off-topic)
295 2017-05-18 19:33:04	0|jtimon|luke-jr: which one?
296 2017-05-18 19:33:05	0|wumpus|so, ok, any new ones?
297 2017-05-18 19:33:17	0|luke-jr|jtimon: args refactor
298 2017-05-18 19:33:18	0|ryanofsky|i'd like more review on #10295, it is blocking my ipc prs
299 2017-05-18 19:33:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10295 | [qt] Move some WalletModel functions into CWallet by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10295 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
300 2017-05-18 19:33:27	0|sipa|ryanofsky: ack, i started reviewing that
301 2017-05-18 19:33:32	0|jonasschnelli|I have added #10240 today
302 2017-05-18 19:33:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10240 | Add HD wallet auto-restore functionality by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10240 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
303 2017-05-18 19:33:39	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: sgtm
304 2017-05-18 19:33:44	0|jtimon|luke-jr: I see #9494
305 2017-05-18 19:33:46	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9494 | Introduce an ArgsManager class encapsulating cs_args, mapArgs and mapMultiArgs by jtimon · Pull Request #9494 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
306 2017-05-18 19:33:50	0|luke-jr|ok, looks like 4 days ago it was; I'll rebase multiwallet then
307 2017-05-18 19:33:56	0|sipa|luke-jr: thank you
308 2017-05-18 19:34:02	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: great. I promise to test
309 2017-05-18 19:34:06	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: thank you!
310 2017-05-18 19:35:02	0|jonasschnelli|ryanofsky: will do the 10295 review. Thanks for the info
311 2017-05-18 19:35:07	0|sipa|short point: wrt the pruned-node-serving, see http://bitcoin.sipa.be/depths.png
312 2017-05-18 19:35:11	0|wumpus|added 10295  and 10339
313 2017-05-18 19:35:22	0|wumpus|#topic pruned-node serving
314 2017-05-18 19:35:31	0|sipa|see that graph, the title is wrong
315 2017-05-18 19:35:33	0|jonasschnelli|Currently overhauling the BIP
316 2017-05-18 19:35:48	0|sipa|it shows the relative depth of each block downloaded from my node _excluding_ compact blocks
317 2017-05-18 19:36:10	0|sipa|gmaxwell did some statistical analysis on it
318 2017-05-18 19:36:38	0|gmaxwell|Sipa's data is interesting. 144 is to small for sure.  1008 is fine.  I'm of the view that we don't need more than a dozen or so blocks of headroom.  I think the BIP should be written based on what you should keep.  How you decide where to fetch depends on exactly what you're doing.
319 2017-05-18 19:37:05	0|stickcuck|hm
320 2017-05-18 19:37:27	0|gmaxwell|I found no really evidence of a real preference for N weeks in sipas data, but rather, advantages for doing 1-day 2-day 3-day ...  etc. But 'day' is a lot more than 144 blocks, because of hashrate increases.
321 2017-05-18 19:38:04	0|gmaxwell|You can process the data to roughly remove IBDing peers and the fall off is pretty stark.
322 2017-05-18 19:38:18	0|gmaxwell|note sipas graph ignores depth 0.
323 2017-05-18 19:38:33	0|sipa|it'd be a hockeystick if it included 0
324 2017-05-18 19:38:44	0|jonasschnelli|What would you recommend for "day" instead 144, calc in the historical hashrate increase?
325 2017-05-18 19:38:53	0|gmaxwell|also 0 data is inaccurate because it excludes compact blocks
326 2017-05-18 19:39:19	0|sipa|gmaxwell: didn't you suggest 288?
327 2017-05-18 19:39:21	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: I think we should make the first threshold 288. It's more than enough to cover a 'day' in practice.
328 2017-05-18 19:39:39	0|jonasschnelli|288 and 1008...
329 2017-05-18 19:39:59	0|jonasschnelli|But then the current minimum (prune=550) would not allow to signal the LOW mode?
330 2017-05-18 19:40:08	0|morcos|the current minimum is 288
331 2017-05-18 19:40:11	0|gmaxwell|and then peers should estimate what they need (based on time, or headers if they have them) and choose where to connect. The estimate should be conservative but it doesn't need to be a 100 block headroom, a dozen blocks should be fine. If you get headers and find that you need more, you'll disconnect and go elsewhere.
332 2017-05-18 19:40:14	0|jonasschnelli|Or is 288 including headroom?
333 2017-05-18 19:40:25	0|morcos|the 550 is just so you don't set a prune limit which you have no hope of respecting
334 2017-05-18 19:40:26	0|gmaxwell|the minimum is 288 blocks.
335 2017-05-18 19:40:30	0|morcos|its out of date with segwit
336 2017-05-18 19:40:44	0|gmaxwell|and we'll blow over the prune setting to preserve 288 blocks.
337 2017-05-18 19:40:56	0|morcos|i think the calculation is presented in the code comments
338 2017-05-18 19:41:03	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. 288 is the minimum. So we should remove the BIP headroom/buffer from the BIP
339 2017-05-18 19:41:22	0|gmaxwell|I think eventually we should be changing the prune setting to be enum-like but thats another matter.
340 2017-05-18 19:41:58	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: I think the BIP shouldn't have any buffer.  "You store X from your tip" "You store Y from your tip"  it can then make advice to users on how to choose connections. but the requirement is just what you promise to store.
341 2017-05-18 19:42:14	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: ack
342 2017-05-18 19:43:12	0|gmaxwell|The advice can say to use the best info you have available (time or headers if you have them) to figure out what you need, and then give enough headroom maybe 6 or 12 blocks that you can fetch parents.  The cost of connecting to someone that doesn't have what you need is not that great. You'll request headers from them, learn you need blocks they don't have and you'll disconnect them and connect
343 2017-05-18 19:43:18	0|gmaxwell|to someone else.
344 2017-05-18 19:44:01	0|jonasschnelli|For the 1008 I guess the BIP can no longer state blocks for 1 week. Now the question is to use 2016 or say it 3.5 days..
345 2017-05-18 19:44:17	0|sipa|?
346 2017-05-18 19:44:36	0|sipa|i think it should just say 1008 or 2016 blocks or so, and not make any connection with time
347 2017-05-18 19:44:45	0|jonasschnelli|From what I understood is that 144 is to little for a day regarding the increasing hash-rate
348 2017-05-18 19:44:54	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: I'll catch up with you later today, I don't have my processed results in front of me. But I think I found that after elimiating IBDs there were very few fetches in sipas data past 1000 blocks deep.    And indeed, it shouldn't mention time.
349 2017-05-18 19:45:37	0|jonasschnelli|But light client implementations are really looking for "days" rather the blocks.. but, sure, they can do their homework... but would have been nice to mention day values in the BIP.
350 2017-05-18 19:45:43	0|jonasschnelli|But maybe they are to inaccurate
351 2017-05-18 19:45:47	0|gmaxwell|The bit(s) should just be defined as "I claim I will keep at least X blocks deep from my tip, maybe I keep more, maybe not."
352 2017-05-18 19:45:54	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: light clients know how many blocks they are behind after header sync
353 2017-05-18 19:45:59	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: anyone using these bits will fetch headers.
354 2017-05-18 19:46:16	0|jonasschnelli|Indeed.... okay. Got it.
355 2017-05-18 19:46:47	0|gmaxwell|now, before you connect you won't have headers and you'll need to make a time based guess. If you guess wrong you'll need to disconnect and go elsewhere. Not the end of the world.
356 2017-05-18 19:47:16	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. I agree on that. Re-connecting should be hard.
357 2017-05-18 19:47:38	0|jonasschnelli|Maybe even an additional dns query may be involved (in case you filter)
358 2017-05-18 19:48:10	0|sipa|even if it happens, it'll happen just once
359 2017-05-18 19:48:31	0|jonasschnelli|Yeah,... shouldn't be a problem for clients
360 2017-05-18 19:48:34	0|sipa|because even if you connect to a peer that does not have enough blocks, they'll have the headers to teach you how many blocks you are behind
361 2017-05-18 19:48:39	0|sipa|so i don't think it's such a big issue
362 2017-05-18 19:49:03	0|sipa|done topic?
363 2017-05-18 19:49:08	0|gmaxwell|I think I mentioned it on the list, but it should be clear that these bits should still mean that you can serve headers for the whole chain.
364 2017-05-18 19:49:34	0|wumpus|#topic bytes_serialized (sipa)
365 2017-05-18 19:49:39	0|sipa|thanks
366 2017-05-18 19:49:43	0|gmaxwell|Kill with fire (sorry wumpus)
367 2017-05-18 19:49:43	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: seems obvious.. but I'll mention it
368 2017-05-18 19:49:44	0|gmaxwell|:P
369 2017-05-18 19:49:54	0|sipa|so currently gettxoutsetinfo has a field called bytes_serialized
370 2017-05-18 19:50:04	0|sipa|which is based on some theoretical serialization of the utxo set data
371 2017-05-18 19:50:10	0|wumpus|I think there's something to be said for a neutral way of representing the utxo size, that doesn't represent on estimates of a specific database format
372 2017-05-18 19:50:17	0|sipa|wumpus: agree with that
373 2017-05-18 19:50:21	0|gmaxwell|what I said to sipa the other day was that if we list the total bytes in values and the txout counts, that lets you come up with whatever kind of seralized size estimate you want.
374 2017-05-18 19:50:45	0|sipa|but would you be fine with it just being the size of keys+values in a neutral format, _not_ accounting for the leveldb prefix compression?
375 2017-05-18 19:50:52	0|gmaxwell|If you want you could multiply that count by 36 and add the values and that gives you the size for the dumbest seralization that hopefully no one would use.
376 2017-05-18 19:50:52	0|wumpus|sipa: yes
377 2017-05-18 19:50:53	0|luke-jr|values counted as 8 bytes, or compressed?
378 2017-05-18 19:51:09	0|wumpus|sipa: that's be fine really, and the format change provides oppertunity to change the definition
379 2017-05-18 19:51:14	0|sipa|wumpus: agree
380 2017-05-18 19:51:22	0|gmaxwell|okay if wumpus and sipa agree I'll shutup.
381 2017-05-18 19:51:32	0|sipa|luke-jr: no strong opinion. do you?
382 2017-05-18 19:51:42	0|luke-jr|sipa: I don't think the compression should be exposed, ideally.
383 2017-05-18 19:51:49	0|sipa|luke-jr: seems fair
384 2017-05-18 19:51:50	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: the only concern I had with a really neutral figure is that it's misleading.
385 2017-05-18 19:51:51	0|luke-jr|not a strong opinion though
386 2017-05-18 19:51:52	0|wumpus|luke-jr: just a fixed size seems ok to me
387 2017-05-18 19:52:01	0|wumpus|luke-jr: that's more future proof likely
388 2017-05-18 19:52:07	0|wumpus|luke-jr: so we can have a statistic to compare over time
389 2017-05-18 19:52:11	0|morcos|can't we output more than one thing?
390 2017-05-18 19:52:27	0|luke-jr|wumpus: indeed
391 2017-05-18 19:52:43	0|gmaxwell|e.g. a naieve seralization would have 32 bytes for txid, but the reality is probably under 16 due to sharing.  But as long as it doesn't require scanning that data I guess I don't care.
392 2017-05-18 19:52:47	0|sipa|morcos: so #10396 reports the actual disk usage
393 2017-05-18 19:52:49	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10396 | Report LevelDB estimate for chainstate size in gettxoutsetinfo by sipa · Pull Request #10396 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
394 2017-05-18 19:52:53	0|sipa|morcos: and the total number of utxos is also reported
395 2017-05-18 19:53:16	0|wumpus|we should definitely report the actual disk usage too!
396 2017-05-18 19:53:23	0|morcos|yeah i'm sorry if i'm behind, but i think actual disk usage is useful, even if we want this .. ok, that's all i was saying
397 2017-05-18 19:53:31	0|luke-jr|agreed
398 2017-05-18 19:53:31	0|sipa|yes yes, absolutely
399 2017-05-18 19:53:44	0|sipa|the point is that the current bytes_serialized tries to mimick disk usage, but fails
400 2017-05-18 19:53:45	0|gmaxwell|the leveldb usage is a noisy thing that goes up and down based on the mood of the table compacting gods.
401 2017-05-18 19:53:47	0|luke-jr|(although I guess users can just du the directory?)
402 2017-05-18 19:53:51	0|sipa|and will fail even more post per-txout
403 2017-05-18 19:54:17	0|sipa|so if we drop the requirement that bytes_serialized has anything to do with disk usage, all is good
404 2017-05-18 19:54:25	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: yep, it's less useful for reporting as statistics
405 2017-05-18 19:54:34	0|wumpus|sipa: indeed; I never assumed it did really
406 2017-05-18 19:54:58	0|wumpus|to me it was just 'serialization size of utxo in an arbitrary, but constant, format'
407 2017-05-18 19:55:00	0|phantomcircuit|huh what im here
408 2017-05-18 19:55:20	0|wumpus|sipa: would make sense to rename the field too
409 2017-05-18 19:55:21	0|sipa|wumpus: ok, so 10195 removes bytes_serialized - i'll create a separate PR afterwards to add a (new) bytes_serialized again
410 2017-05-18 19:55:26	0|sipa|wumpus: agree
411 2017-05-18 19:55:32	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: it will be odd if the serialized size is larger than the database but not that odd.
412 2017-05-18 19:55:47	0|sipa|gmaxwell: at least it will be obvious that it has nothing to do with it then!
413 2017-05-18 19:55:49	0|wumpus|(after all we don't want people to report weird jumps in statistics, renaming the field is ag ood hint)
414 2017-05-18 19:56:08	0|luke-jr|sipa: maybe it should be renamed?
415 2017-05-18 19:56:13	0|sipa|luke-jr: yes, it should be
416 2017-05-18 19:56:17	0|wumpus|"bogosize"
417 2017-05-18 19:56:22	0|gmaxwell|bogosize++
418 2017-05-18 19:56:22	0|sipa|hash_serialized is renamed too
419 2017-05-18 19:56:29	0|sipa|hahaha bogosize
420 2017-05-18 19:56:34	0|sipa|ok, deal
421 2017-05-18 19:56:40	0|gmaxwell|should be in nibbles.
422 2017-05-18 19:56:42	0|gmaxwell|:P
423 2017-05-18 19:56:43	0|luke-jr|lol
424 2017-05-18 19:56:44	0|wumpus|:D
425 2017-05-18 19:56:46	0|sipa|in nepers
426 2017-05-18 19:56:49	0|instagibbs|buy one get one size?
427 2017-05-18 19:56:56	0|gmaxwell|ehats the base e entropy unit?
428 2017-05-18 19:56:59	0|sipa|gmaxwell: yes
429 2017-05-18 19:57:28	0|luke-jr|can I add an OP_CHECKBOGOSIZE? *hides*
430 2017-05-18 19:57:29	0|gmaxwell|Good. (that was supposted to be a "Whats?" but seems you were a step ahead of me)
431 2017-05-18 19:57:40	0|sipa|ah, no, nats
432 2017-05-18 19:57:47	0|sipa|nepers are just for ratios, like db
433 2017-05-18 19:57:53	0|sipa|</offtopic>
434 2017-05-18 19:58:02	0|wumpus|time to close the meeting I think
435 2017-05-18 19:58:03	0|instagibbs|2 minutes
436 2017-05-18 19:58:04	0|instagibbs|review begging?
437 2017-05-18 19:58:10	0|instagibbs|:P
438 2017-05-18 19:58:11	0|wumpus|we already did that one
439 2017-05-18 19:58:13	0|instagibbs|ah k
440 2017-05-18 19:58:17	0|luke-jr|defer BIP148 to next week?
441 2017-05-18 19:58:23	0|wumpus|(though if you have any proposals just say so)
442 2017-05-18 19:58:24	0|instagibbs|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10333 <-- my beg
443 2017-05-18 19:58:34	0|wumpus|luke-jr: oh forgot about that one
444 2017-05-18 19:58:44	0|luke-jr|it's okay, a week might be good anyway
445 2017-05-18 19:58:51	0|gmaxwell|I'm sure you can discuss it in one minute.
446 2017-05-18 19:59:01	0|gmaxwell|:P
447 2017-05-18 19:59:03	0|kanzure|we need a meeting extension block
448 2017-05-18 19:59:09	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
449 2017-05-18 19:59:10	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-18-19.01.log.html
450 2017-05-18 19:59:10	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu May 18 19:59:09 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
451 2017-05-18 19:59:10	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-18-19.01.html
452 2017-05-18 19:59:10	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-18-19.01.txt
453 2017-05-18 19:59:15	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: well, to be fair, we've never had a formal time limit for meetings..
454 2017-05-18 19:59:27	0|luke-jr|:p
455 2017-05-18 19:59:35	0|instagibbs|it's a standardness rule...
456 2017-05-18 19:59:40	0|kanzure|it was to prevent spam
457 2017-05-18 19:59:46	0|gmaxwell|I like that they're limited. even though I always spend another half hour in resulting discussions.
458 2017-05-18 19:59:55	0|gmaxwell|kanzure: that limit was temporary!
459 2017-05-18 20:00:00	0|instagibbs|I think it's good to focus and respect people's time
460 2017-05-18 20:00:06	0|wumpus|agree
461 2017-05-18 20:00:15	0|sipa|we should revert to the original limit of 24 hours
462 2017-05-18 20:00:21	0|luke-jr|>_<
463 2017-05-18 20:00:24	0|gmaxwell|esp considering timezones don't put this meeting at good times of day for many.
464 2017-05-18 20:00:39	0|wumpus|so make sure that you have topics ready at the beginning, that makes it easier to schedule time for topics
465 2017-05-18 20:00:41	0|sipa|it's especially annoying for people in asia
466 2017-05-18 20:00:49	0|luke-jr|sipa: IMO the original limit was 5 hours
467 2017-05-18 20:00:56	0|sipa|i wonder if we should have the meeting alternate between two times
468 2017-05-18 20:00:57	0|luke-jr|sipa: since that's how long until the day changes in UTC
469 2017-05-18 20:01:12	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: That isn't consistent with Craig Wright^W^WSatoshi's vision!
470 2017-05-18 20:01:25	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: it's consistent with tonal though
471 2017-05-18 20:01:33	0|cfields|sipa: nah, let's just use an accounting trick and have meetings on a plane zooming through timezones.
472 2017-05-18 20:01:50	0|luke-jr|anyway, my parents showed up, so going to say hi and then get back to multiwallet
473 2017-05-18 20:01:51	0|kanzure|yes if you navigate the plane correctly, you can actually not spend any time at all in the meeting if you hop between timezones just right.
474 2017-05-18 20:01:58	0|cfields|I'm pretty sure we can cram 2 days into 1 that way :p
475 2017-05-18 20:02:08	0|luke-jr|cfields: rofl
476 2017-05-18 20:02:10	0|gmaxwell|too bad they stopped flying the concord.
477 2017-05-18 20:02:24	0|sipa|you just need a plane circeling the arctic
478 2017-05-18 20:02:36	0|kanzure|sounds like bip148 discussion is slightly blocked by luke-jr parental units
479 2017-05-18 20:03:17	0|wumpus|sipa: if there's interest from people from asia joining we should certainly do that; in practice I never had any concerete complains about the current meeting time though
480 2017-05-18 20:03:46	0|sipa|wumpus: we did, a long time ago
481 2017-05-18 20:04:05	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: jl2012 has lamented, and I believe kallewoof too.
482 2017-05-18 20:04:08	0|cfields|iirc it's prohibitive for jl2012, at least
483 2017-05-18 20:04:17	0|instagibbs|oh yeah, kalle too
484 2017-05-18 20:04:36	0|wumpus|ok good to know
485 2017-05-18 20:04:56	0|wumpus|maybe fanquake too (australia)
486 2017-05-18 20:05:03	0|instagibbs|he's a kiwi I thought
487 2017-05-18 20:05:05	0|jtimon|luke-jr: aug2017 seems to soon to me, I have no problems with bip149 on the other hand
488 2017-05-18 20:05:19	0|gmaxwell|we could also just look at the log data, determine a time when when most of us are already here that the asian people can meet, and maybe just setup a hour to talk to them when they know people will be around.
489 2017-05-18 20:05:25	0|sipa|7am europe, 10pm westcoast, 1pm hongkong, 2pm japan?
490 2017-05-18 20:05:40	0|sipa|maybe too early in europe
491 2017-05-18 20:05:43	0|instagibbs|1am East coast US, hmmm
492 2017-05-18 20:05:49	0|sipa|instagibbs: oops
493 2017-05-18 20:05:58	0|wumpus|I'm usualy up very early so that'd be ok with me
494 2017-05-18 20:06:00	0|gmaxwell|I think there is no time everyone can meet. But thats okay.
495 2017-05-18 20:06:01	0|gmaxwell|wumpus is up that early.
496 2017-05-18 20:06:04	0|gmaxwell|oh oops.
497 2017-05-18 20:06:05	0|wumpus|better than late at night
498 2017-05-18 20:06:18	0|instagibbs|I'll survive once a week if that works
499 2017-05-18 20:06:43	0|instagibbs|oh right Chaincode...
500 2017-05-18 20:06:47	0|instagibbs|:)
501 2017-05-18 20:07:11	0|sipa|damn timezones
502 2017-05-18 20:07:15	0|achow101|I'd rather not be up at 1 am
503 2017-05-18 20:07:28	0|sipa|achow101: you'll be on the west coast soon :)
504 2017-05-18 20:07:33	0|instagibbs|Maybe figuring a way to reliably rotate or something. I dunno.
505 2017-05-18 20:08:02	0|achow101|sipa: thinking ahead a bit past the summer :)
506 2017-05-18 20:08:23	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: well Above I just suggested we have a second meeting at another time.  It may be the case that the activity level in the meetings with asia are low enough that rotating wouldn't make sense.
507 2017-05-18 20:08:40	0|sipa|otherwise 4pm europe, 7am westcoast, 10am eastcoast, 10pm hongkong, 11pm japan?
508 2017-05-18 20:08:43	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: if we pick at time when 'enough' people are here anyways, then it's not like setting aside the slot has a huge cost.
509 2017-05-18 20:08:45	0|instagibbs|hm yeah that makes more sense
510 2017-05-18 20:08:59	0|luke-jr|jtimon: well, it's already happening Aug 1 with BIP148..
511 2017-05-18 20:09:44	0|jtimon|luke-jr: right, I mean that seems too soon
512 2017-05-18 20:10:00	0|jtimon|so I don't think I will run bip148 myself
513 2017-05-18 20:10:07	0|gmaxwell|sipa: so there is like 3 hours between japan and auckland, so that might actually fail to get everyone in that part of the globe.
514 2017-05-18 20:10:24	0|luke-jr|jtimon: oh well. :<
515 2017-05-18 20:11:39	0|sipa|gmaxwell: yes, we need a slower earth rotation
516 2017-05-18 20:11:53	0|instagibbs|don't give kanzure any ideas
517 2017-05-18 20:14:10	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: kanzure wants to destroy the moon I thought, that would reduce the slowing a lot.
518 2017-05-18 20:14:18	0|gmaxwell|sipa: thats already happening, just wait a while.
519 2017-05-18 20:15:13	0|sipa|gmaxwell: 2ms per century isn't very much
520 2017-05-18 20:15:45	0|kanzure|yeah i have some plans but it's sort of off-topic
521 2017-05-18 20:25:30	0|stickcuck|ok
522 2017-05-18 20:41:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #10423: [tests] skipped tests should clean up after themselves (06master...06cleanup_skipped) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10423
523 2017-05-18 21:04:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15morcos opened pull request #10424: Populate services in GetLocalAddress (06master...06notnodenone) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10424
524 2017-05-18 21:56:20	0|jtimon|travis tests seem to be stuck for https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9176
525 2017-05-18 22:27:37	0|kallewoof|Being able to participate in a meeting occasionally would be spiffy for sure.
526 2017-05-18 22:55:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15earonesty opened pull request #10425: 0.14 (060.14...060.14) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10425
527 2017-05-18 23:44:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #10426: Replace bytes_serialized with bogosize (06master...06bogosize) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10426
528 2017-05-18 23:49:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #10241: Allow tests to pass even when stderr got populated (06master...062017/04/test_stderr) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10241