1 2017-05-25 01:07:36	0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell, no issue for me here
  2 2017-05-25 01:07:45	0|phantomcircuit|96c850c20913b191cff9f66fedbb68812b1a41ea
  3 2017-05-25 01:07:59	0|sipa|works fine here as well
  4 2017-05-25 01:08:01	0|phantomcircuit|wait this is probably not actual master
  5 2017-05-25 01:08:02	0|phantomcircuit|hmm
  6 2017-05-25 01:08:05	0|sipa|but i think gmaxwell's using qt4
  7 2017-05-25 01:35:36	0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell, yeah it's broken
  8 2017-05-25 01:35:42	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, yeah i have qt4 also
  9 2017-05-25 01:39:21	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: Gentoo's 0.14.1-r1 seems to work with any configuration I try; can you be more specific on how to get a failure? Do you have the overlay?
 10 2017-05-25 01:44:15	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: the issue is that it puts  BITCOIND_OPTS="-disablewallet"  in /etc/conf.d even when the wallet useflag is set.
 11 2017-05-25 01:44:25	0|gmaxwell|both the overlay and not.
 12 2017-05-25 01:47:20	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: aha, interesting. I wonder if we should tolerate/ignore that in such cases
 13 2017-05-25 01:47:27	0|luke-jr|I'll hack the ebuild to get rid of it for now
 14 2017-05-25 01:47:46	0|luke-jr|wait, "even when the wallet useflag is set"? that's to be expected?
 15 2017-05-25 01:48:22	0|gmaxwell|You are saying that when the wallet useflag is set, it should disable the wallet?
 16 2017-05-25 01:48:22	0|luke-jr|(okay, looks like -disablewallet should safely be ignored already too)
 17 2017-05-25 01:48:43	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: it builds with wallet support, but the init script in typical usage wouldn't enable the wallet because it's a system bitcoind
 18 2017-05-25 01:49:19	0|luke-jr|at least, that seems to be the typical assumption users have had before; and it can be changed where people want something else
 19 2017-05-25 01:49:34	0|gmaxwell|This is insanely confusing and imposible to support, I wasted about a half an hour trying to help someone today with this.
 20 2017-05-25 01:49:34	0|luke-jr|ie, when people want bitcoind-with-wallet, they usually run that as a normal user
 21 2017-05-25 01:49:39	0|luke-jr|hmm
 22 2017-05-25 01:49:55	0|luke-jr|I suppose an unused wallet is harmless
 23 2017-05-25 01:50:00	0|gmaxwell|if you don't want to use a wallet you.. exactly!
 24 2017-05-25 01:51:24	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: it's contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf in Core itself; do you want to open the PR, or should I?
 25 2017-05-25 01:52:20	0|gmaxwell|I'd rather you do so since I'm not in a position to test it myself.
 26 2017-05-25 01:54:34	0|luke-jr|k
 27 2017-05-25 01:57:40	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15luke-jr opened pull request #10451: contrib/init/bitcoind.openrcconf: Don't disable wallet by default (06master...06openrc_wallet) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10451
 28 2017-05-25 01:59:20	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: ^
 29 2017-05-25 02:56:13	0|phantomcircuit|#10420 breaks qt4
 30 2017-05-25 02:56:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10420 | Add Qt tests for wallet spends & bumpfee by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10420 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 31 2017-05-25 03:01:30	0|phantomcircuit|actually maybe not?
 32 2017-05-25 08:51:46	0|phantomcircuit|btw
 33 2017-05-25 08:51:52	0|phantomcircuit|git bisect run is pretty neat
 34 2017-05-25 08:51:58	0|phantomcircuit|(it was 10420)
 35 2017-05-25 08:55:41	0|gmaxwell|phantomcircuit: thanks for bisecting.
 36 2017-05-25 08:56:07	0|gmaxwell|ryanofsky: 10420 appears to have broken the build for QT4. See above.
 37 2017-05-25 08:57:18	0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell, tbh i really just wanted to try git bisect run
 38 2017-05-25 08:57:31	0|phantomcircuit|it's neat
 39 2017-05-25 12:01:21	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #10454: Fix broken q4 test build (06master...06pr/qt4ctx) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10454
 40 2017-05-25 14:20:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #10455: Simplify feebumper minimum fee code slightly (06master...06pr/bumpmin) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10455
 41 2017-05-25 15:00:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15earonesty closed pull request #10442: add a -bip148 option (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10442
 42 2017-05-25 18:15:58	0|jonasschnelli|Grml... qt4.
 43 2017-05-25 18:16:16	0|wumpus|don't be angry, let the people that care about fix it
 44 2017-05-25 18:16:31	0|jonasschnelli|Yeah... ideally it would be in our CI
 45 2017-05-25 18:16:40	0|jonasschnelli|otherwise this pops up here and there
 46 2017-05-25 18:16:52	0|jonasschnelli|but right, I don't care about qt4. If people do, then they must fix it.
 47 2017-05-25 18:18:16	0|wumpus|yes, same there, let the people that care about it add it to CI :)
 48 2017-05-25 18:19:19	0|sipa|is Qt4 still intended to be supported?
 49 2017-05-25 18:19:38	0|wumpus|yes
 50 2017-05-25 18:20:03	0|wumpus|but no one of us actually uses it anymore, for a long time
 51 2017-05-25 18:20:58	0|sipa|i believe that gmaxwell's setup had both qt4 and qt5, and configure automatically picked qt4?
 52 2017-05-25 18:21:42	0|jonasschnelli|even worse, I think BlueMatt's PPA builds against qt4?!
 53 2017-05-25 18:21:58	0|wumpus|there's an issue for qt4 eol, but apparently some people are still relying on it, so if they want to spend work on supporting it it's 100% fine by me, just don't expect me to: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8263
 54 2017-05-25 18:22:21	0|wumpus|if both qt4 and qt5 is installed and detected it should pick qt5
 55 2017-05-25 18:22:51	0|jonasschnelli|during runtime? Do they compatible ABIs?
 56 2017-05-25 18:23:05	0|wumpus|nono at configure time
 57 2017-05-25 18:23:19	0|jonasschnelli|But the PPA is pre-built?
 58 2017-05-25 18:23:36	0|wumpus|sipa was asking about configure, my answer was to that
 59 2017-05-25 18:23:42	0|jonasschnelli|ah. sry
 60 2017-05-25 18:24:01	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. It prefers qt5 since a while.
 61 2017-05-25 18:24:01	0|wumpus|yes, because of an issue with ubuntu unity tray icon handling apparently qt4 works better on some ubuntu versions
 62 2017-05-25 18:25:02	0|wumpus|it's pretty sad, but nothing really to be done about it, except wait for unity to be history
 63 2017-05-25 18:25:34	0|wumpus|this is not a problem with our code, or even qt upstream, but with ubuntu specific plugins
 64 2017-05-25 18:28:34	0|sipa|how about we just remove the tray icon support...?
 65 2017-05-25 18:28:48	0|wumpus|it's possible, but it works fine for other OSes and other linux distros
 66 2017-05-25 18:29:05	0|wumpus|I wouldn't mind removing tray icon support, but this in itself is a lousy reason
 67 2017-05-25 18:29:59	0|wumpus|sure - disabling it specifically for the ppa would work, including a custom patch
 68 2017-05-25 18:30:04	0|sipa|i was about to say that one distro with lousy trayicon support is a bad reason to stick with qt4... except we only stick to qt4 on ubuntu
 69 2017-05-25 18:30:11	0|wumpus|that's up to BlueMatt
 70 2017-05-25 18:30:15	0|wumpus|exactly!
 71 2017-05-25 18:30:35	0|gmaxwell|I don't care about QT4 but I thought we still supported it.
 72 2017-05-25 18:30:56	0|gmaxwell|And as sipa mentioned, I have both installed and it's building against 4.
 73 2017-05-25 18:31:08	0|gmaxwell|(on debian testing)
 74 2017-05-25 18:31:19	0|wumpus|(last time I tried tray icon support on ubuntu 16.04, with self-compiled bitcoin-qt on qt5 it seemed to work fine for me, btw, maybe they've fixed it, at least on some versions... or it's somehow dependent on a combination of circumstances)
 75 2017-05-25 18:31:20	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: hmm... bitcoin.m4 should prefere qt5 though... strange
 76 2017-05-25 18:31:32	0|gmaxwell|I suppose it's possible something is screwed up, but it seems to be useful that it is since I keep catching build failures.
 77 2017-05-25 18:31:40	0|sipa|gmaxwell: perhaps you have some tiny dependency missing for qt5?
 78 2017-05-25 18:31:44	0|jonasschnelli|Maybe one of the qt5 libs is missin?
 79 2017-05-25 18:31:50	0|jonasschnelli|+g
 80 2017-05-25 18:32:07	0|jonasschnelli|config.log should probably tell you why...
 81 2017-05-25 18:32:11	0|wumpus|my guess is that the qt5 detection is either broken on your distro, or a required component is missing
 82 2017-05-25 18:32:19	0|wumpus|yeah that'd help
 83 2017-05-25 18:32:41	0|sipa|well there are two independent issues here... building for qt4 should work if it's intended to be supported
 84 2017-05-25 18:32:47	0|sipa|and qt5 should be detected properly for gmaxwell
 85 2017-05-25 18:33:43	0|luke-jr|wumpus: I already tried to add it to CI, and then it was supposed to be part of the daily CI..
 86 2017-05-25 18:34:03	0|wumpus|luke-jr: ok, but it isn't?
 87 2017-05-25 18:34:32	0|luke-jr|I guess someone removed it? Daily CI thing seems to be closed/dead?
 88 2017-05-25 18:34:40	0|wumpus|it's run from a crontab now
 89 2017-05-25 18:34:51	0|wumpus|(a new travis CI feature)
 90 2017-05-25 18:35:05	0|luke-jr|so what happened to the qt4 part?
 91 2017-05-25 18:35:08	0|wumpus|I don't know
 92 2017-05-25 18:35:30	0|jonasschnelli|But I guess cron is not sufficient for qt4 support. We want to know before a merge
 93 2017-05-25 18:35:42	0|luke-jr|I wonder if .. yeah, maybe it should be a primary QA
 94 2017-05-25 18:36:42	0|wumpus|I think the problem back then was that we don't really want to add a new configuration/build for it,and it couldn't be fit into one of the current ones
 95 2017-05-25 18:36:47	0|wumpus|but I might misremember
 96 2017-05-25 18:37:31	0|luke-jr|well, if you want to reopen https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7142 , I can rebase..
 97 2017-05-25 18:39:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj reopened pull request #7142: [WIP] Travis: Test build against system Qt4 (06master...06travis_qt4) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7142
 98 2017-05-25 18:41:50	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: thanks. I think we need it in build CI or we need to drop support for it.
 99 2017-05-25 18:42:12	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: I'm fine with either
100 2017-05-25 18:43:17	0|wumpus|I really don't have an opinion on qt4, just refuse to spend time in it myself
101 2017-05-25 18:45:30	0|wumpus|but I guess it's the same in linux, I doubt e.g. Linus cares personally about all the drivers for ancient devices still in there, but as long as someone is willing to put in the time to keep it working it's better to keep including it instead of nuke it just because, after all it's a community effort
102 2017-05-25 18:47:26	0|gmaxwell|I don't know if I should care about QT4 or not. (don't know what the deployment rate of QT5 is)
103 2017-05-25 18:50:20	0|wumpus|I don't know either, this is the last thing qt.io ever posted on qt4: https://blog.qt.io/blog/2014/11/27/qt-4-8-x-support-to-be-extended-for-another-year/
104 2017-05-25 18:51:44	0|wumpus|never was able to find a real EOL announcement, but it's been dead in the water for a long time
105 2017-05-25 18:54:58	0|wumpus|not that it says much, I know for fact that some industrial systems are still using qt4, even qt3 probably (was the case a few years ago)
106 2017-05-25 18:55:45	0|luke-jr|FWIW, I looked into adding Qt3 support briefly and decided it would be a pain :p
107 2017-05-25 18:56:46	0|wumpus|qt5 is much better for multimedia/modern app kind of interfaces, but for simple boring widget interfaces there's only a small difference between qt3 and qt4 and the difference between qt4 and qt5 is negible
108 2017-05-25 18:59:10	0|gmaxwell|If QT5 is shipping by default on the common linux distributions, perhaps we should stop QT4 support. Even though the difference is small, the effort to keep supporting it is non-trivial.
109 2017-05-25 18:59:16	0|wumpus|luke-jr: yes the API is quite different, I mean the user experience isn't that different
110 2017-05-25 19:00:26	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: yup qt5 has been the default on linux distros for a few years (don't know exactly how long / since which versions of particular distros though)
111 2017-05-25 19:00:40	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: Qt5 doesn't have native look/feel on Qt4-based DEs.. but even that seems dead now
112 2017-05-25 19:00:46	0|instagibbs|meeting time?
113 2017-05-25 19:00:47	0|wumpus|but at least in ubuntu 14.04 it already was
114 2017-05-25 19:00:52	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu May 25 19:00:52 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
115 2017-05-25 19:00:52	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
116 2017-05-25 19:00:52	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
117 2017-05-25 19:00:57	0|BlueMatt|sipa: last i heard we were gonna try to just remove the trayicon
118 2017-05-25 19:01:08	0|jonasschnelli|proposed topic multiwallet-concept
119 2017-05-25 19:01:21	0|BlueMatt|(since it doesnt seem to be "the thing to do" anymore)
120 2017-05-25 19:01:28	0|sipa|woah, meeting!
121 2017-05-25 19:01:36	0|sipa|i totally forgot
122 2017-05-25 19:01:39	0|wumpus|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure blue matt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 instagibbs
123 2017-05-25 19:01:56	0|cfields|hi
124 2017-05-25 19:02:00	0|wumpus|#topic multiwallet-concept
125 2017-05-25 19:03:12	0|luke-jr|..
126 2017-05-25 19:03:17	0|jonasschnelli|We should think about if we want run-time wallet creation/loading/unloading or per startup -wallet argument.
127 2017-05-25 19:03:31	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: IMO both eventually, but the latter is a good first stpe
128 2017-05-25 19:03:32	0|jonasschnelli|Also,.. what should we do with rescan/zapwallet/salvage/upgrade
129 2017-05-25 19:03:44	0|wumpus|yes, in the long term we want both
130 2017-05-25 19:03:56	0|wumpus|in the short term just do what is realistic for the (not too long!) timespan until 0.15
131 2017-05-25 19:03:59	0|sipa|i would disable rescan if you have more than one wallet configured
132 2017-05-25 19:04:03	0|jonasschnelli|the -wallet= approach seems very confusing. You either -usehd on all wallte, -rescan all wallets, etc.
133 2017-05-25 19:04:04	0|sipa|and use the RPC instead
134 2017-05-25 19:04:39	0|sipa|or better, remove it
135 2017-05-25 19:04:49	0|jonasschnelli|We can start with the all or nothing -wallet configuration. But ideally we move it to runtime over RPC
136 2017-05-25 19:05:04	0|jonasschnelli|also,... creation-flags can then be passed in.
137 2017-05-25 19:05:10	0|wumpus|yes
138 2017-05-25 19:05:12	0|sipa|right, all those options that affect the creation of new wallets ideally go into a new-wallet-creation RPC
139 2017-05-25 19:05:21	0|jonasschnelli|yes
140 2017-05-25 19:05:22	0|luke-jr|/GUI
141 2017-05-25 19:05:25	0|sipa|and rescan and upgrade become wallet-specific RPCs
142 2017-05-25 19:05:25	0|wumpus|so the command line options only work for the default wallet
143 2017-05-25 19:05:30	0|jonasschnelli|The GUI can be done later
144 2017-05-25 19:05:30	0|wumpus|that's fine
145 2017-05-25 19:05:33	0|wumpus|yes
146 2017-05-25 19:05:36	0|luke-jr|sipa: they already are?
147 2017-05-25 19:05:46	0|sipa|luke-jr: they're not RPCs
148 2017-05-25 19:05:48	0|sipa|?
149 2017-05-25 19:05:59	0|luke-jr|sipa: rescan is, although maybe not merged in Core yet?
150 2017-05-25 19:06:03	0|jonasschnelli|I ack luke-jr current PR but deploying that may cause confusion (because of lack of a concept)=
151 2017-05-25 19:06:15	0|sipa|luke-jr: #7061
152 2017-05-25 19:06:17	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7061 | [Wallet] Replace -rescan with a new RPC call "rescanblockchain" by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7061 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
153 2017-05-25 19:06:50	0|luke-jr|actually, -rescan might be better with multiwallet
154 2017-05-25 19:06:53	0|jonasschnelli|Heh. Its just to handy to remove rescan
155 2017-05-25 19:07:00	0|luke-jr|since you'd want to rescan all the wallets concurrently
156 2017-05-25 19:07:15	0|sipa|fair point
157 2017-05-25 19:07:38	0|luke-jr|the overhead for rescanning N wallets vs 1 is minimal IMO
158 2017-05-25 19:07:41	0|jonasschnelli|Another point is that we should consider wallet flags combined with the new wallet db format we have introduced with the HD chain split.
159 2017-05-25 19:08:01	0|jonasschnelli|wallet flags would probably better allow to store "creation flags"
160 2017-05-25 19:08:08	0|sipa|what do you mean by wallet flags?
161 2017-05-25 19:08:28	0|jtimon|labels?
162 2017-05-25 19:08:38	0|jonasschnelli|I have first implemented wallet flags here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9662
163 2017-05-25 19:08:53	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9662/files#diff-b2bb174788c7409b671c46ccc86034bdR1357
164 2017-05-25 19:09:36	0|jonasschnelli|But maybe it's not required for the current feature set. But think like: "is the wallet using HD", "is it using chain split", .. "are pkeys diables"?
165 2017-05-25 19:09:43	0|sipa|yup
166 2017-05-25 19:09:49	0|luke-jr|eh, the wallet already supports that?
167 2017-05-25 19:10:01	0|sipa|but i think that's orthogonal to the new database format
168 2017-05-25 19:10:20	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. But we already do a new wallet-format type in 0.15. Ideally we push in everything that usefull for 0.15+
169 2017-05-25 19:10:32	0|sipa|a new wallet format in 0.15?
170 2017-05-25 19:10:34	0|sipa|what?
171 2017-05-25 19:10:42	0|jtimon|sounds too optimistic
172 2017-05-25 19:10:49	0|jonasschnelli|the HD chain-split is not backward compatible
173 2017-05-25 19:10:52	0|jonasschnelli|Not a new database format.
174 2017-05-25 19:10:52	0|sipa|oh!
175 2017-05-25 19:10:53	0|sipa|ok
176 2017-05-25 19:10:53	0|wumpus|let's not make multiwallet dependent on a new wallet format
177 2017-05-25 19:10:57	0|sipa|nvm
178 2017-05-25 19:11:02	0|wumpus|okay, makes sense
179 2017-05-25 19:11:03	0|sipa|i thought you were talking about logdb
180 2017-05-25 19:11:09	0|jonasschnelli|nono...
181 2017-05-25 19:11:32	0|jonasschnelli|Just saying that the 0.15er wallet.dat files will not be backward comp.
182 2017-05-25 19:11:43	0|sipa|yeah, sure
183 2017-05-25 19:11:46	0|jonasschnelli|ideally we push in as much as we can... to avoid the same non -back com. in 0.16
184 2017-05-25 19:11:50	0|luke-jr|0.15-created*?
185 2017-05-25 19:12:05	0|jonasschnelli|0.15 created.. yes
186 2017-05-25 19:12:12	0|sipa|i think breaking backward compatibility in major releases is fine
187 2017-05-25 19:12:35	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. But if we can avoid it with little effort we may want to do it.
188 2017-05-25 19:12:41	0|jonasschnelli|But lets park this problem for now.
189 2017-05-25 19:12:42	0|jtimon|but his point is the more we get in now the less we have to break the next time
190 2017-05-25 19:12:47	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: if you what to preserve rescan you need to make it faster.  I think rescan is already functionally dead for many users: It takes something like 8 hours on my laptop.
191 2017-05-25 19:12:57	0|jonasschnelli|Way more important is what we do with -zap/-salvage/-upgrade in multiwallet
192 2017-05-25 19:13:19	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: forbid them with >1 -wallet?
193 2017-05-25 19:13:30	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: yes. why not.
194 2017-05-25 19:13:45	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: I replied to your comment on that PR: I think zap and salvage should ultimately go away or move to another tool. Upgrade, I dunno.
195 2017-05-25 19:13:45	0|jonasschnelli|How would you run a non-hd and a hd-wallet (seems to be a reasonable use case)
196 2017-05-25 19:13:53	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: agree with you
197 2017-05-25 19:13:58	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: it just works right now..
198 2017-05-25 19:14:20	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: Can it work? If you call -usehd on a non-hd wallet is stops during init
199 2017-05-25 19:14:28	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: don't set -usehd
200 2017-05-25 19:14:37	0|jonasschnelli|The its 1 by default
201 2017-05-25 19:14:48	0|luke-jr|no, it's <whatever> by default, for existing wallets
202 2017-05-25 19:14:51	0|jonasschnelli|I guess you can't mix right now
203 2017-05-25 19:15:07	0|luke-jr|I test multiwallet with a combo of HD and non-HD
204 2017-05-25 19:15:13	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. Sorry then.
205 2017-05-25 19:15:14	0|sipa|-usehd should go away and become a parameter of the createnewwallet RPC
206 2017-05-25 19:15:20	0|jonasschnelli|yes
207 2017-05-25 19:15:25	0|gmaxwell|what sipa said.
208 2017-05-25 19:15:50	0|luke-jr|createnewwallet won't make 0.15 IMO
209 2017-05-25 19:15:54	0|sipa|that's fine
210 2017-05-25 19:16:17	0|jonasschnelli|I once stared with a standalone wallet tool but had problems with circular dependencies (cfields may know more): https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8745
211 2017-05-25 19:16:42	0|jonasschnelli|Starting with luke-jr's current PR is fine..
212 2017-05-25 19:16:57	0|kanzure|is there interaction between multiwallet and accounts?
213 2017-05-25 19:17:02	0|sipa|kanzure: no
214 2017-05-25 19:17:06	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: i'm sure we could get that worked out
215 2017-05-25 19:17:23	0|jonasschnelli|cfields: okay. Great
216 2017-05-25 19:17:34	0|sipa|for the time being, i think that -usehd (if specified) should apply to all wallets, if not specified, every wallet can be whatever it already is
217 2017-05-25 19:17:36	0|wumpus|yes, that's fine, let's aim to get at least basic multiwallet support in 0.15 though
218 2017-05-25 19:17:54	0|jonasschnelli|agree
219 2017-05-25 19:18:08	0|wumpus|not let it slip another release because we want too much from it, or make it conditional on other changes which haven't been done yet
220 2017-05-25 19:18:14	0|sipa|short topic suggestion: variable naming style
221 2017-05-25 19:18:28	0|gmaxwell|sha256 hashes for all variables!
222 2017-05-25 19:18:31	0|jonasschnelli|I just think we should have a (the same) concept in the backhead to avoid extra loops
223 2017-05-25 19:18:37	0|jonasschnelli|lol
224 2017-05-25 19:18:40	0|morcos|if this is better offline, fine, but sipa, how would we remove rescan?
225 2017-05-25 19:18:45	0|kanzure|no abbreviated variable names plzkthx. actually i would take sha256 hashes over abbreviations.
226 2017-05-25 19:18:55	0|sipa|morcos: let's discuss after the meeting
227 2017-05-25 19:18:56	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: I was about to suggest xxd on /dev/urandom, but that works for me  too :p
228 2017-05-25 19:18:57	0|morcos|k
229 2017-05-25 19:19:00	0|wumpus|#topic variable naming style
230 2017-05-25 19:19:28	0|luke-jr|pls don't kill
231 2017-05-25 19:19:32	0|sipa|i've recently seen several people write patches with variable names that look like they're hungarian, but aren't
232 2017-05-25 19:19:46	0|sipa|i don't care personally for that particular style, but i like consistency
233 2017-05-25 19:19:53	0|wumpus|the hungerian onvention should die
234 2017-05-25 19:20:04	0|sipa|but what to replace it with?
235 2017-05-25 19:20:05	0|luke-jr|I particularly dislike hungarian-looking names that don't have the hungarian meaning :p
236 2017-05-25 19:21:14	0|gmaxwell|Greek characters.
237 2017-05-25 19:21:16	0|sipa|i guess the first question is, do we want any convention specified (in developer-notes) at all, and enforce it in new code?
238 2017-05-25 19:21:19	0|wumpus|luke-jr: exactly - and that's what happens, because we have abandoned the style a long time ago and don't describe it in the style doc
239 2017-05-25 19:21:22	0|cfields|any convention that ties a variable to a type is broken imo
240 2017-05-25 19:21:22	0|luke-jr|Unicode var names?
241 2017-05-25 19:21:32	0|wumpus|cfields: RIGHT
242 2017-05-25 19:21:36	0|jtimon|is this about gArgs ?
243 2017-05-25 19:21:39	0|luke-jr|no
244 2017-05-25 19:21:43	0|wumpus|people mimic the style but don't know what it means
245 2017-05-25 19:21:49	0|wumpus|they should stop mimicing the style too
246 2017-05-25 19:22:03	0|sipa|wumpus: the only way that's going to happen is by prescribing a style to use in new code
247 2017-05-25 19:22:06	0|cfields|wumpus: well, it's been common practice to mimic the code around your changes
248 2017-05-25 19:22:33	0|gmaxwell|cfields: yes but mimiking the style of hungarin notation and getting it wrong misses the point of it. :P
249 2017-05-25 19:22:37	0|sipa|i've come to dislike the "mimick the code around you" suggestion - it does not lead to consistency
250 2017-05-25 19:22:43	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: haha exactly... something with cargo cults
251 2017-05-25 19:22:51	0|luke-jr|sipa: okay, let's switch to tabs instead of spaces then
252 2017-05-25 19:22:53	0|luke-jr|:P
253 2017-05-25 19:23:32	0|gmaxwell|I'm not aware of any evidence supporting any of these highly structured variable name recommendations as actually providing benefits.
254 2017-05-25 19:23:36	0|jtimon|sipa: right, people do it naturally, but I don't think it should be a convention
255 2017-05-25 19:23:39	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: +1
256 2017-05-25 19:23:54	0|paveljanik|nah, these TAB/spaces wars: delete all indentation and let editor choose the right indentation! ;-)
257 2017-05-25 19:23:55	0|cfields|gmaxwell: m_foo and g_foo are extremely helpful imo
258 2017-05-25 19:24:00	0|cfields|but not much else
259 2017-05-25 19:24:13	0|luke-jr|paveljanik: that's what tabs do
260 2017-05-25 19:24:16	0|gmaxwell|(esp since pretty much no one is sadistic to encode the full type into the name.)
261 2017-05-25 19:24:29	0|paveljanik|nono, tabsonly compress. No TABs/spaces...
262 2017-05-25 19:24:30	0|wumpus|sure, including the scope might be reasonably useful, unlike encoding the type
263 2017-05-25 19:24:38	0|luke-jr|maybe we should use C++ mangled names
264 2017-05-25 19:24:38	0|wumpus|but I'm not looking forward to sweeping code style changes
265 2017-05-25 19:24:47	0|sipa|sigh, nobody is talking about encouraging structured variable name recommendations
266 2017-05-25 19:25:10	0|wumpus|before you know it there are 10 PRs open for renaming variables (again, after the shadow fiasco)
267 2017-05-25 19:25:23	0|jtimon|gmaxwell: I've seen some sadistic java code that was close
268 2017-05-25 19:25:29	0|luke-jr|I like the "style changes only affect new code" policy
269 2017-05-25 19:25:34	0|sipa|luke-jr: me too
270 2017-05-25 19:25:43	0|cfields|sipa: maybe suggest the kind of style policy you have in mind? you mean simple things like camelCase vs under_score?
271 2017-05-25 19:25:43	0|sipa|and even exclude purely moved code
272 2017-05-25 19:25:47	0|wumpus|yes - feel free to write up a style recommendation for new code
273 2017-05-25 19:25:49	0|kanzure|would be nice to have style preference mentioned in docs
274 2017-05-25 19:25:51	0|sipa|cfields: either of those is fine
275 2017-05-25 19:25:56	0|sipa|cfields: but one, not both
276 2017-05-25 19:26:19	0|wumpus|and consistency is good, but please don't be a jerk about it, especially not to new contributors
277 2017-05-25 19:26:21	0|jtimon|ack only one not both
278 2017-05-25 19:26:45	0|jcorgan|my experience is that code is read far more often than it is written, and especially so if it serves as documentation
279 2017-05-25 19:26:52	0|sipa|if i had to choose, i'd say under_score - that's what STL uses
280 2017-05-25 19:27:05	0|jcorgan|when code has disjoint styles, people reading it might wonder if it is different for a reason, or just an accident
281 2017-05-25 19:27:13	0|jtimon|or maybe camelCaseForVariables, UNDER_SCORE_FOR_CONSTANTS
282 2017-05-25 19:27:22	0|sipa|and i'm also fine m_X and g_X if that considered useful
283 2017-05-25 19:27:32	0|morcos|My only real contribution to this discussion is whatever we decide on should be clearly spelled out in developer documentation, so we can just point to it over and over gain.  Otherwise we'll come away with an agreement that means somethign different to each party.
284 2017-05-25 19:27:33	0|jtimon|since I believe that's closer to what we have
285 2017-05-25 19:27:44	0|wumpus|morcos: yes yes yes
286 2017-05-25 19:27:48	0|gmaxwell|I'm not a fan of the camelcase, because then you get things wrong based just on the case. seems weird.
287 2017-05-25 19:27:53	0|jcorgan|morcos: now when did that happen recently?
288 2017-05-25 19:27:54	0|luke-jr|camel case isn't bad, but it creates the hungarian confuson
289 2017-05-25 19:28:02	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: that too
290 2017-05-25 19:28:05	0|sipa|camelcase also is easily confused with hungarian
291 2017-05-25 19:28:07	0|sipa|what luke-jr said
292 2017-05-25 19:28:29	0|wumpus|morcos: most important to get it into a document in the repository, as to make clear reviewrs aren't forcing their personal style preferences
293 2017-05-25 19:28:31	0|jtimon|super ack to morcos suggestion, if it's not documented, it is simply not a convention
294 2017-05-25 19:29:06	0|cfields|morcos: ok, so camelCase today, and hard-fork in a month?
295 2017-05-25 19:29:07	0|cfields|:p
296 2017-05-25 19:29:10	0|jcorgan|my heuristic is, if you can't tell that a body of code was written my multiple authors over time, that's a win
297 2017-05-25 19:29:17	0|luke-jr|let's simply agree for variable names on bit 4. the rest can be subjective.
298 2017-05-25 19:29:25	0|sipa|so, if i would create a PR that added to the dev documentation "For new code, the following style for variables is encouraged: local_variable for local variables, m_variable for members, g_variable for globals"
299 2017-05-25 19:29:40	0|luke-jr|local_* seems annoying
300 2017-05-25 19:29:50	0|sipa|luke-jr: oops, i didn't mean that as a prefix
301 2017-05-25 19:29:54	0|luke-jr|k
302 2017-05-25 19:29:58	0|gmaxwell|I still don't know when to ask someone touching code to fix things per documented style or not.  E.g. 10441 cfields introduces both new braced and unbraced iffs in a function that contains both.
303 2017-05-25 19:30:14	0|sipa|variable, a_variable, j, var, bla, foo, ... all good
304 2017-05-25 19:30:26	0|morcos|gmaxwell: he should fix that
305 2017-05-25 19:30:34	0|gmaxwell|okay. I'll nitpick then.
306 2017-05-25 19:30:34	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: if it's cfields you should certainly make him aware of it, he's supposed to know better :)
307 2017-05-25 19:31:00	0|cfields|heh, yes. I think that was a mix of matching nearby code and copy/paste
308 2017-05-25 19:31:11	0|jtimon|I think moving away from camel case it's the most disruptive option for local variables
309 2017-05-25 19:31:20	0|jtimon|but no strong opinion
310 2017-05-25 19:31:37	0|cfields|i'd certainly never make that mistake again if we added "don't attempt to match nearby code" to the style doc
311 2017-05-25 19:31:38	0|sipa|it's already often used for loop variables etc
312 2017-05-25 19:31:44	0|luke-jr|variables were never camel-case..?
313 2017-05-25 19:31:47	0|jtimon|just saying that it would be nicer if the style was as close as possible to what we have now
314 2017-05-25 19:31:58	0|cfields|without that, i'd never add another unbraced if :)
315 2017-05-25 19:31:59	0|wumpus|abandoning the camels for the snakes
316 2017-05-25 19:32:02	0|sipa|luke-jr: sure some where, CBlockIndex* pindexBlock = ...
317 2017-05-25 19:32:08	0|luke-jr|sipa: that's just hungarian
318 2017-05-25 19:32:24	0|sipa|luke-jr: hungarian is just a more constrained camelcase
319 2017-05-25 19:32:35	0|luke-jr|camelcase is where you use it as a word separater..
320 2017-05-25 19:32:41	0|sipa|cfields: ack on adding "Do not attempt to match nearby code, unless you're creating a move-only commit"
321 2017-05-25 19:32:53	0|morcos|sipa: +!
322 2017-05-25 19:32:54	0|jtimon|luke-jr: well if camel case it's less common than underscore for variables then my argument goes away
323 2017-05-25 19:32:54	0|morcos|1
324 2017-05-25 19:33:16	0|jtimon|I really don't know for sure, was just guessing
325 2017-05-25 19:33:20	0|sipa|luke-jr: and hungarian is using case as word separator, plus the requirement that the first word is the type :)
326 2017-05-25 19:33:55	0|morcos|i'll defer to group, but i prefer camel to underscores, but do like at least identifying global variables with g_ or :: or something
327 2017-05-25 19:34:14	0|luke-jr|gCamel/mCamel wouldn't be terrible
328 2017-05-25 19:34:20	0|gmaxwell|I would ACK doing something consistent for globals.
329 2017-05-25 19:34:36	0|sipa|anyway, any comments on those suggestions? encouraging lowercase + underscore for local variables, and m_ for members, g_ for globals, and a mention to not mimick surrounding code?
330 2017-05-25 19:34:39	0|wumpus|I prefer snakecase like sipa
331 2017-05-25 19:34:49	0|gmaxwell|One thing I don't like about C++ is that when there is a variable that isn't local I dunno if its coming from the class or if it's a global... without going and digging in other files.
332 2017-05-25 19:35:24	0|cfields|gmaxwell: hence m_ :)
333 2017-05-25 19:35:27	0|gmaxwell|so if naming helps disambiguate that I would not be unhappy.
334 2017-05-25 19:35:40	0|wumpus|for variable names, for method names we should obviously keep sticking to camelcase
335 2017-05-25 19:35:48	0|morcos|are we ok with combining small words without the udnerscore like feerate or blocksize or something?
336 2017-05-25 19:35:52	0|sipa|wumpus: agree, and class names as well
337 2017-05-25 19:35:56	0|sdaftuar|bit_coin right?
338 2017-05-25 19:35:56	0|wumpus|sipa: yes
339 2017-05-25 19:35:57	0|sipa|morcos: ack from me
340 2017-05-25 19:36:09	0|wumpus|sdaftuar: it's better than BitCoin
341 2017-05-25 19:36:10	0|sipa|one lowercase word is totally fine for local variables
342 2017-05-25 19:36:15	0|wumpus|yes
343 2017-05-25 19:36:18	0|cfields|sipa: ack all of the above
344 2017-05-25 19:36:18	0|luke-jr|I prefer camelcase, except for the annoying conflict w/ hungarian
345 2017-05-25 19:36:35	0|luke-jr|I don't care strongly tho
346 2017-05-25 19:36:57	0|sipa|oh, what to do with the cs_* variables we have now?
347 2017-05-25 19:37:02	0|sipa|do we want an exception for that?
348 2017-05-25 19:37:08	0|morcos|oh ok, so we're keeping camel for class and method names and snake for variables..  ok someone write it up
349 2017-05-25 19:37:13	0|gmaxwell|I would be fine with an exception for cs_.
350 2017-05-25 19:37:26	0|wumpus|cs_ for locks? it's fine with me
351 2017-05-25 19:37:33	0|sipa|so... g_blockindex g_cs_blockindex?
352 2017-05-25 19:37:37	0|wumpus|though I still thing the scope is more useful
353 2017-05-25 19:37:45	0|morcos|but no exception for pblockindex ?
354 2017-05-25 19:38:01	0|sipa|that's hungarian - dia
355 2017-05-25 19:38:03	0|sipa|die
356 2017-05-25 19:38:06	0|sipa|;)
357 2017-05-25 19:38:15	0|wumpus|pblockindex could just be block_index
358 2017-05-25 19:38:22	0|sipa|indeed
359 2017-05-25 19:38:23	0|wumpus|though we aren't actrually going to rename variables en-messe
360 2017-05-25 19:38:24	0|cfields|[11:17:50] -*- cfields would kill for m_ == member
361 2017-05-25 19:38:24	0|cfields|[11:18:13] <luke-jr> pls don't kill
362 2017-05-25 19:38:28	0|sipa|wumpus: indeed
363 2017-05-25 19:38:41	0|gmaxwell|cfields: thou shall not kill
364 2017-05-25 19:38:48	0|sipa|i'll write up a PR, and we discuss there further?
365 2017-05-25 19:38:51	0|gmaxwell|is all I think luke was saying.
366 2017-05-25 19:38:58	0|luke-jr|yes
367 2017-05-25 19:38:58	0|morcos|sounds good
368 2017-05-25 19:39:02	0|sipa|ok, topic closed
369 2017-05-25 19:39:06	0|gmaxwell|sipa to do all the work, agreed.
370 2017-05-25 19:39:09	0|wumpus|I don't want to see any more variable renaming PRs, the Wshadow war made me so tired of that
371 2017-05-25 19:39:13	0|wumpus|other topics?
372 2017-05-25 19:39:19	0|luke-jr|BIP148
373 2017-05-25 19:39:46	0|morcos|next topic
374 2017-05-25 19:39:59	0|wumpus|I have nothing to say about that, at least
375 2017-05-25 19:40:25	0|wumpus|but i f you insist
376 2017-05-25 19:40:26	0|wumpus|#topic BIP148
377 2017-05-25 19:40:28	0|jonasschnelli|I guess we have already enough comments on the PRs..
378 2017-05-25 19:40:32	0|sipa|my opinion is that it would go against our principles to merge BIP148 into core
379 2017-05-25 19:40:41	0|luke-jr|sipa: how so?
380 2017-05-25 19:40:59	0|BlueMatt|sipa: +100
381 2017-05-25 19:41:08	0|sipa|i've given my opinion more than enough on existing PRs
382 2017-05-25 19:41:25	0|sipa|i strongly disagree with the "less safe" argument
383 2017-05-25 19:41:27	0|wumpus|right, I think everyone already had their say on this
384 2017-05-25 19:41:37	0|sipa|and we shouldn't encourage forks in the network
385 2017-05-25 19:41:43	0|luke-jr|so we should put users at risk by refusing to enforce the new rule?
386 2017-05-25 19:41:43	0|sipa|nor is it out place to push for consensus changes
387 2017-05-25 19:41:44	0|wumpus|let's merge BIP149 instead
388 2017-05-25 19:41:52	0|luke-jr|sipa: refusing to merge is what encourages the fork in this case
389 2017-05-25 19:41:56	0|sipa|luke-jr: i strongly disagree that it puts users more at risk
390 2017-05-25 19:42:27	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: I brought up 149's timeout on the list, but its author hasn't replied, I think it is needlessly long.
391 2017-05-25 19:42:33	0|morcos|My opinion closely matches sdaftuars from : https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014377.html
392 2017-05-25 19:42:34	0|luke-jr|not only does not-merging it encourage a chain split, it also puts users on the side vulnerable to reorg wipeout
393 2017-05-25 19:42:48	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: I think it's too early
394 2017-05-25 19:43:01	0|morcos|I'd be in favor of 149, but I think we should start by being a bit more public about the idea and building consensus for it before actually merging
395 2017-05-25 19:43:06	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: ack, your proposal of 6 months seemed reasonable to me
396 2017-05-25 19:43:08	0|morcos|And eys I agree we could tweak it a bit
397 2017-05-25 19:43:11	0|BlueMatt|morcos: +1
398 2017-05-25 19:43:17	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: yes we need to agree on the timeout at lesat
399 2017-05-25 19:43:20	0|sipa|luke-jr: the only condition under which it helps users avoid a huge reorg is one under which those who didn't upgrade already experienced a (temporary, but long) fork
400 2017-05-25 19:43:53	0|jtimon|as said on the mailing list I think bip148 is rushed and that makes it risky, bip8 on the other hand...(although I'm writing suggestions for changing bip8)
401 2017-05-25 19:44:02	0|luke-jr|sipa: this seems tautological?
402 2017-05-25 19:44:38	0|jtimon|we can merge bip8 without merging bip149 yet, although the sooner it is released the more secure it will be
403 2017-05-25 19:44:39	0|sipa|luke-jr: then how is merging it less risky?
404 2017-05-25 19:44:50	0|sipa|luke-jr: it only helps in case a fork already happened!
405 2017-05-25 19:45:06	0|sipa|while at the same time encouraging said fork
406 2017-05-25 19:45:18	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I haven't seen the kind of support required to justify your position on that; afaict so far no exchange or payment processor of note has said they would stick with 148.  I think you'd have an argument if there was any of that, but right now I think it's hard to distinguish a subsanstive level of support. (And I've seen some clearly malicious parties pumping support for it too.)
407 2017-05-25 19:45:18	0|luke-jr|sipa: if a fork happens, it puts them on the side that isn't vulnerable to a reorg, and it helps avoid the fork in the first place
408 2017-05-25 19:45:24	0|sipa|not encouraging it seems far safer than slightly reducing the risk in case it does
409 2017-05-25 19:45:36	0|sipa|luke-jr: under the assumption a hashrate majority adopts it
410 2017-05-25 19:45:40	0|sipa|luke-jr: which i think is crazy
411 2017-05-25 19:45:55	0|gmaxwell|My discussions on reddit with people promoting BIP148 seemed to be because they earniestly believed it was the only choice.
412 2017-05-25 19:45:58	0|luke-jr|sipa: BIP148 only needs about 25% hashrate to be successful
413 2017-05-25 19:45:58	0|morcos|At the end of the day I think most of us have no interest in greatly increasing the risk of a devastating currency split.  I think 148 does that..  But 149 has a decent chance of not doing that if there have been no other consensus rule changes in the interim.  But will require consensus building.
414 2017-05-25 19:46:11	0|gmaxwell|E.g. someone managed to convince them that the project would never adopt something like BIP149.
415 2017-05-25 19:46:13	0|sipa|morcos: +1
416 2017-05-25 19:46:19	0|sipa|it will require consensus building
417 2017-05-25 19:46:21	0|sipa|not discussions here
418 2017-05-25 19:46:38	0|BlueMatt|yup
419 2017-05-25 19:46:47	0|gmaxwell|which seemed really weird to me, because I thought it was pretty obvious that a 149-like thing would be done.
420 2017-05-25 19:46:47	0|jtimon|gmaxwell: ack on making the period shorter
421 2017-05-25 19:47:08	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: it's only obvious if people say that
422 2017-05-25 19:48:24	0|morcos|And to be clear, I think we'd all like to activate segwit via UASF before we could do so with BIP149 (and it would be feasible I think to build support in a shorter time frame), but we just don't have the technical bandwidth to code that up safely in time.
423 2017-05-25 19:48:34	0|wumpus|I think that wasn't obvioius, no
424 2017-05-25 19:48:36	0|luke-jr|if businesses get to decide protocol changes, then I guess bit 4 SW it is
425 2017-05-25 19:49:36	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: there is a big difference between saying 'businesses get to decide' and saying that the fact that virtually no industry participant is resolute with 148 is a strong sign the support isn't significant enough. If 148 and six months or a year on its clock that would be another matter.
426 2017-05-25 19:49:39	0|morcos|luke-jr: no one even knows what bit 4 SW is?  we might like it, what if its compatible with BIP141 segwit...  lets not make decisions based on a single line in a medium post.
427 2017-05-25 19:49:39	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i don't think it's obvious that BIP149 will happen at all
428 2017-05-25 19:49:41	0|luke-jr|in the meantime, a sizable portion of the community will be enforcing BIP148, and with success eventually replacing the non-compliant chain
429 2017-05-25 19:50:02	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: it's only virtually none if you exclude the ones who have supported it
430 2017-05-25 19:50:24	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: that's speculation
431 2017-05-25 19:50:29	0|petertodd|luke-jr: while technically the result of bip148 may be a reorg, in practice if there is a non-trivial split the result will be two currencies, as someone will launch a currency based on a checkpoint
432 2017-05-25 19:50:30	0|jonasschnelli|You can't measure "community"
433 2017-05-25 19:50:33	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: maybe I'm just not aware then.
434 2017-05-25 19:50:34	0|sipa|luke-jr: i hope you're right, but my expectation is that every economically relevant full node will revert away from bip148 code hours after the hashrate fails to adopts it
435 2017-05-25 19:50:50	0|morcos|luke-jr: I would hope that BIP148 and BIP149 supporters are able to agree at least that they should all support the same thing.
436 2017-05-25 19:51:04	0|luke-jr|sipa: Bitfury has already agreed to enforce BIP148 if the bit-4 thing doesn't activate Segwit by August
437 2017-05-25 19:51:09	0|petertodd|sipa: depends on how much hash rate... lots of incentive for exchanges to support it and let the two coins trade against each other
438 2017-05-25 19:51:24	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: I guess they have also agree (among others) to run Classic
439 2017-05-25 19:51:32	0|jonasschnelli|(meant luke-jr)
440 2017-05-25 19:51:34	0|sipa|luke-jr: well, i hope you're right
441 2017-05-25 19:51:47	0|sipa|but i'm very skeptical about that
442 2017-05-25 19:52:35	0|sipa|topic suggestion: high-priority PRs?
443 2017-05-25 19:52:38	0|luke-jr|if we're divided in opinion on this, we should at *least* give users the choice, even if they want to stick to Core releases
444 2017-05-25 19:52:44	0|gmaxwell|If 148 managed to get the kind of support needed to result in avoiding a chain split, I'm fine with that. But I think it's a very poor and needlessly risky approach.
445 2017-05-25 19:52:52	0|sipa|luke-jr: users already have a choice to not run Core
446 2017-05-25 19:52:56	0|morcos|luke-jr: you already have a release process, release Knots with the option.
447 2017-05-25 19:53:01	0|luke-jr|sipa: many don't want to choose that
448 2017-05-25 19:53:13	0|jonasschnelli|maybe for a reason?
449 2017-05-25 19:53:14	0|sipa|luke-jr: for good reasons, because we don't do reckless things
450 2017-05-25 19:53:18	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: then perhaps because the realize that we've usually had good judgement...
451 2017-05-25 19:53:24	0|kanzure|what was the default in the bip148 paramflag pull request?
452 2017-05-25 19:53:29	0|petertodd|kanzure: false
453 2017-05-25 19:53:33	0|jcorgan|off
454 2017-05-25 19:53:34	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: and in this case, we disagree on that judgement.
455 2017-05-25 19:53:39	0|petertodd|kanzure: I wouldn't have concept acked it otherwise...
456 2017-05-25 19:53:55	0|BlueMatt|alright, next topic
457 2017-05-25 19:53:57	0|jtimon|alright, sent suggestions to change bip8 to the mailing list...
458 2017-05-25 19:54:07	0|sdfkjs23|deciding what choices users do or do not get seems overly political to me, if core developers want to make a political statement that's fine, but pretending to be neutral and not allowing an optional switch for bip148 seems disingenuous
459 2017-05-25 19:54:15	0|kanzure|with context of "default off" some of the above comments make less sense
460 2017-05-25 19:54:40	0|cfields|oh, quick topic suggestion: 0.14.2
461 2017-05-25 19:54:41	0|jonasschnelli|sdfkjs23? You can offer it yourself by forking and deploying or patching?
462 2017-05-25 19:54:50	0|gmaxwell|jtimon: I don't think we should change BIP8 generally: the reason we can do a shorter termination with SW is because we've already done one deployment-- so we know what the uptake looks like and how fast it went the first time.
463 2017-05-25 19:54:52	0|petertodd|sdfkjs23: there's a multiple of optional switches that we could add to be neutral - we're not going to add them all, thus we have to make some kind of (hopefully conservative) political statement
464 2017-05-25 19:54:59	0|cfields|(sorry, forgot all about it. we can pick it up after the meeting)
465 2017-05-25 19:55:03	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: too many people (and especially companies) refuse to run anything unless Core releases it
466 2017-05-25 19:55:06	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: it sucks, but it's reality
467 2017-05-25 19:55:23	0|gmaxwell|sdfkjs23: Offering users settings we believe will harm third parties and the user is not 'neutral'.
468 2017-05-25 19:55:23	0|kanzure|luke-jr: they want default-off merged and that's what will get them interested in bip148?
469 2017-05-25 19:55:28	0|wumpus|#topic 0.14.2
470 2017-05-25 19:55:32	0|jtimon|gmaxwell: the changes are just for providing warnngs in unkown deployments, like bip9 did
471 2017-05-25 19:55:37	0|gmaxwell|sdfkjs23: if users want 'neutral' they have a copy of GCC, they can write their own node.
472 2017-05-25 19:55:37	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: But core is consensus among devs for a reason. And I guess we mostly (never?) merged controversial consensus changes
473 2017-05-25 19:55:44	0|petertodd|gmaxwell: +1
474 2017-05-25 19:55:46	0|wumpus|let's do a 0.14.2 soon, even if just for the UPNP CVE
475 2017-05-25 19:55:48	0|gmaxwell|(want neutral in that sense)
476 2017-05-25 19:55:53	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: we don't all believe that in this case. some of us admit that it's riskier to NOT enforce BIP148
477 2017-05-25 19:55:58	0|wumpus|(of course we want to include some other fixes as well)
478 2017-05-25 19:56:05	0|gmaxwell|sdfkjs23: sofware worth running is always opinionated in many ways, even if you don't realize it.
479 2017-05-25 19:56:08	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: it's controversial to fail to enforce the softfork now
480 2017-05-25 19:56:26	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: ack on 0.14.2 I think there are a couple other fairly modest fixes that could be backported.
481 2017-05-25 19:56:32	0|cfields|I'd like to suggest a quick 0.14.2 for the upnp and recent peer visibility fix from marcos, along with whatever else has piled up in the meantime
482 2017-05-25 19:56:40	0|cfields|heh, far too slow
483 2017-05-25 19:56:41	0|sipa|sounds good to me
484 2017-05-25 19:56:53	0|jonasschnelli|ack 0.14.2 ... there is also an important GUI fix
485 2017-05-25 19:56:55	0|sdfkjs23|if that's what the main core developers want to say sure, but it's pretty clear that core is then the implementation as defined by this small group here, it is their vision and not open really to general community.
486 2017-05-25 19:56:58	0|morcos|yes i think we could use more public notice on the peer visibility fix
487 2017-05-25 19:57:14	0|wumpus|ok, please mark anything that should be backported to 0,14,2 as such
488 2017-05-25 19:57:19	0|wumpus|(or ask us to do it)
489 2017-05-25 19:57:41	0|cfields|thanks, will do
490 2017-05-25 19:57:43	0|morcos|even people who have connections, but are behind NAT are going to want to upgrade b/c eventually they wont' have connections (maybe.. i can't remember now)
491 2017-05-25 19:57:57	0|sdaftuar|incoming connections*
492 2017-05-25 19:58:02	0|morcos|yes sorry
493 2017-05-25 19:58:20	0|gmaxwell|morcos: yes, so for backport the visiblity fix, cfields open PR with the connection stuff..
494 2017-05-25 19:58:49	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10231 (closed 0.14.2 milestone... needs backport)
495 2017-05-25 19:58:55	0|jonasschnelli|(should apply IMO)
496 2017-05-25 19:59:29	0|cfields|jonasschnelli: ah, good one if it backports cleanly
497 2017-05-25 19:59:35	0|sipa|sdfkjs23: it's open source, anyone can repackage the software in any way they like, and i encourage everyone to do so (as long as they don't misrepresent the choices made)... but Bitcoin Core as a project has established some practices, and those include not accepting consensus rule changes without broad support and weighing the risks - it seems most people in this room now believe that bar isn't
498 2017-05-25 19:59:35	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: that one is correctly marked, will port those in one go at some point (at lesat the ones that cleanly apply or need only small changes)
499 2017-05-25 19:59:38	0|luke-jr|sdfkjs23: in this case, it seems it's a minority of pessimistic devs holding back a softfork that the community largely wants and most of the devs are okay with merging, putting users who trust us collectively at a risk they shouldn't be :<
500 2017-05-25 19:59:41	0|kanzure|sdfkjs23: open-source does not mean the project must "merge anything", it means you can compile whatever patches you want.
501 2017-05-25 19:59:41	0|sipa|met for BIP148
502 2017-05-25 20:00:20	0|wumpus|it's time
503 2017-05-25 20:00:21	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
504 2017-05-25 20:00:22	0|jonasschnelli|sdfkjs23: with your argument we could not reject optional hard-fork proposals? Right?
505 2017-05-25 20:00:22	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-25-19.00.log.html
506 2017-05-25 20:00:22	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu May 25 20:00:21 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
507 2017-05-25 20:00:22	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-25-19.00.html
508 2017-05-25 20:00:22	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-25-19.00.txt
509 2017-05-25 20:00:34	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I think you're pusing the same kind of irresponsiblity as classic did, just this time it happens to be in favor of changes I want.  But I still reject it just the same, the purpose of the system is to come to consensus. Intentionally splitting it is in no ones interest except that of opponents to bitcoin.  If you had an order of magnitude more support than I've seen (and perhaps I've mi
510 2017-05-25 20:00:40	0|gmaxwell|ssed some of it) OR months more to gain it-- I'd have a different view.
511 2017-05-25 20:00:52	0|jtimon|luke-jr: sdfkjs23 not merging bip148 is not taking a position against segwit or uasf, it's just being conservative
512 2017-05-25 20:00:53	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: the split is LESS likely by merging BIP148; it isn't a hardfork
513 2017-05-25 20:01:09	0|luke-jr|jtimon: it's not conservative when it increases the risk
514 2017-05-25 20:01:11	0|sipa|luke-jr: i think you're insane
515 2017-05-25 20:01:22	0|sdfkjs23|i've been following development for some time, i was under the false impression that core was intended to be the 'reference' client, just a generalized client that is neutral towards any consensus changes
516 2017-05-25 20:01:24	0|jtimon|luke-jr: but we don't accept your premise
517 2017-05-25 20:01:26	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: wut
518 2017-05-25 20:01:27	0|sipa|a split is less likely by merging a consensus change a few months agead of time?
519 2017-05-25 20:01:28	0|kanzure|gmaxwell: i think luke-jr is arguing that there is support for bip148 if default-off bip148 is merged. but only on condition of that sort of endorsement from core.  seems like a chicken-egg scenario, so perhaps caution is warranted.
520 2017-05-25 20:01:28	0|paveljanik|luke-jr, in reality, it can even be much worse. People could signal UASF but not enforce it.
521 2017-05-25 20:01:32	0|luke-jr|great, now we get ad hominems as argument
522 2017-05-25 20:01:40	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I don't think it's that precise to say that it isn't a hardfork.  In the sense that there is a nearly guarenteed hardfork (a miner violating it) which will happen.
523 2017-05-25 20:01:53	0|sipa|luke-jr: apologies for the ad hominem... but i believe your argument it nonsense
524 2017-05-25 20:02:13	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: with softforks we have historically staged things to minimize the risk of block orphaning, so no hardforked blocks.
525 2017-05-25 20:02:33	0|luke-jr|paveljanik: the signal is irrelevant
526 2017-05-25 20:02:41	0|gmaxwell|kanzure: I haven't seen that.
527 2017-05-25 20:02:58	0|kanzure|haven't seen evidence of community requiring endorsement from core by merging?
528 2017-05-25 20:03:05	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: if it were true that a vast, vast majority of users, businesses, and miners were not only supporting 148 but actually honestly committing to running it irrespective of what their peers do, maybe, but that is blatanly obviously not the case
529 2017-05-25 20:03:23	0|paveljanik|luke-jr, yes. I also do not think where people get "large support" in the community for BIP148 etc.
530 2017-05-25 20:03:24	0|jtimon|gmaxwell: I disagree, I see it as a controversial softfork
531 2017-05-25 20:03:30	0|sipa|sdfkjs23: bitcoin core implements bitcoin's consensus rules... we need to make a judgement about what those rules are, as they can change and are not under our control
532 2017-05-25 20:03:32	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: it seems to be the case, perhaps minus businesses
533 2017-05-25 20:03:43	0|gmaxwell|sdfkjs23: nonsense. we are not netural. E.g. We support Bitcoin and are not ambivilant towards things that would damage it.   Would you suggest the project also merge a switch that if set allows mtgox to make 600k bitcoin out of thin air to replace the losses, 'neutral' right?
534 2017-05-25 20:03:44	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: maybe it's not obviously the case, but it certainly isn't obviously NOT the case
535 2017-05-25 20:04:00	0|gmaxwell|jtimon: you have a lot of weird opinions.
536 2017-05-25 20:04:00	0|morcos|luke-jr: even you think only 10% of nodes are running bip148 right?
537 2017-05-25 20:04:04	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: would you like me to buy you a plane ticket so you can talk to people?
538 2017-05-25 20:04:05	0|luke-jr|jtimon: Segwit itself is a controversial softfork; that's only a barrier for hardforks
539 2017-05-25 20:04:07	0|BlueMatt|I'd be happy to
540 2017-05-25 20:04:22	0|BlueMatt|you spend too much time on reddit and not talking to real people, I think
541 2017-05-25 20:04:23	0|kanzure|BlueMatt: you can also talk with people over the internet. travel is not required.
542 2017-05-25 20:04:23	0|sdfkjs23|gmaxwell, you have a bad habit of using outrageous counter examples, they aren't analogous, please stick to the actual issues at hand
543 2017-05-25 20:04:27	0|luke-jr|morcos: so far, and that's in a short timeframe since binaries were released
544 2017-05-25 20:04:39	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: go talk to CodeShark, who reports a lot of support in NYC
545 2017-05-25 20:04:53	0|gmaxwell|sdfkjs23: welcome to /ignore -- don't enter my channels and then lecture me on how I should debate.
546 2017-05-25 20:05:00	0|kanzure|sdfkjs23: it's only outrageus for your position from your argument-- that was the point.
547 2017-05-25 20:05:02	0|jtimon|gmaxwell: fair enough, but I think they aren't so weird, they are actually quite simple: what causes chain splits (apart from mistakes) are controversial rule changes, not whether they are hf or sf
548 2017-05-25 20:05:03	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: I live in NY, and strongly beg to differ
549 2017-05-25 20:05:15	0|sdfkjs23|i'm being civil, and this isn't *your* channel this channel is for core development discussion
550 2017-05-25 20:05:33	0|sipa|sdfkjs23: and we've now far strayed from that topic, imho
551 2017-05-25 20:05:39	0|sipa|none of this discussion belongs here
552 2017-05-25 20:05:43	0|jcorgan|gentlemen, please
553 2017-05-25 20:05:51	0|luke-jr|jtimon: what causes chain splits are negligent or malicious miners who fail to enforce the rules
554 2017-05-25 20:05:51	0|morcos|luke-jr: I think a lot of people support the concept of a UASF, but I actually made it a point to ask people wearing UASF hats what that meant to them..   And many actively preferred BIP149 or something else to BIP148
555 2017-05-25 20:05:51	0|petertodd|sipa: quite correct
556 2017-05-25 20:05:56	0|sipa|if it's clear that BIP148 is accepted by the ecosystem, then obviously it will be implemented
557 2017-05-25 20:06:05	0|sipa|usually we don't discuss consensus changes here at all
558 2017-05-25 20:06:07	0|petertodd|morcos: indeed, I prefer bip149
559 2017-05-25 20:06:25	0|luke-jr|morcos: preference isn't the question, though. BIP148 is happening, so the question is how many will support and go along with it
560 2017-05-25 20:06:26	0|petertodd|luke-jr: we have to design systems that are robust to negligent and malicious miners
561 2017-05-25 20:06:36	0|sdfkjs23|bip148 was brought up as the topic -- it appears the current argument against it (it is hard to follow because this changes very rapidly) is that there isn't enough 'community' support even though no one can argee on how to even measure it
562 2017-05-25 20:06:46	0|luke-jr|petertodd: and BIP148 does, so long as people enforce it
563 2017-05-25 20:06:49	0|jtimon|luke-jr: let's say halfthe users want to increase the monetary limit to 22 M but the other half doesn't: both chains will be mined and used
564 2017-05-25 20:07:01	0|luke-jr|jtimon: that's not a softfork
565 2017-05-25 20:07:05	0|sipa|sdfkjs23: a consensus change merged a few months before it happens is madness
566 2017-05-25 20:07:16	0|sipa|we hardly have time to create a release in that time
567 2017-05-25 20:07:17	0|luke-jr|sipa: yet you want to delay the merge longer?
568 2017-05-25 20:07:18	0|jonasschnelli|sdfkjs23: this channel is specific for bitcoin-core (the client) development. General bitcoin protocol and consensus discussion shall happen in #bitcoin-dev
569 2017-05-25 20:07:18	0|jtimon|that is a controversial hardfork, let me think of a controversial softfork example
570 2017-05-25 20:07:34	0|sipa|luke-jr: my expectation is that bip148 will not have any effect, but i hope i'm wrong
571 2017-05-25 20:07:36	0|sdfkjs23|a switch which woudl easily allow the community to opt in is now being rejected by 3 or 4 core developers because they find it dangerous
572 2017-05-25 20:07:39	0|luke-jr|jtimon: in this case, it's not controversial anyway
573 2017-05-25 20:07:46	0|jtimon|let's say half the users want to some aml softfork feature
574 2017-05-25 20:07:50	0|sipa|sdfkjs23: then don't run Core; i beg you
575 2017-05-25 20:08:02	0|luke-jr|at least not more controversial than Segwit itself
576 2017-05-25 20:08:13	0|jtimon|luke-jr: to me it is controversial on grounds of the deployment plan alone
577 2017-05-25 20:08:13	0|sipa|the maintainers of this software shouldn't determine what the network's consensus rules are
578 2017-05-25 20:08:21	0|jtimon|like bip109 was
579 2017-05-25 20:09:09	0|jtimon|I mean, that was controversial for other reasons too, but I think you get my point
580 2017-05-25 20:09:13	0|luke-jr|I don't.
581 2017-05-25 20:09:16	0|Lauda|which is why Core should add opt-in consensus proposals, not opt-out
582 2017-05-25 20:09:45	0|morcos|luke-jr: sdfkjs23: Lets be clear, the resistance here isn't against UASF, or even a UASF for segwit.  It's against the particular activation methodology and schedule for BIP148.  It would behoove us all to try to build support from current BIP148 activists for 149 or another more cautious path
583 2017-05-25 20:10:13	0|jonasschnelli|morcos: +1
584 2017-05-25 20:10:20	0|jtimon|+1
585 2017-05-25 20:10:52	0|kanzure|luke-jr: have you considered something like bip148 except with best chain tip selection weighted by segwit-signalling? instead of blanket rjeection of all blocks, you'd get competing long reorgs, which is arguably better than rejecting all blocks.
586 2017-05-25 20:11:08	0|kanzure|wait, no, not better.
587 2017-05-25 20:11:12	0|luke-jr|What "activation methodology" besides UASF are you referring to?
588 2017-05-25 20:11:19	0|jcorgan|this is #bitcoin-dev or even #bitcoin territory, can we please get back to business
589 2017-05-25 20:11:19	0|kanzure|it's better so long as your confirmation threshold is longer than the reorg length :P
590 2017-05-25 20:11:38	0|morcos|luke-jr: you could help, if you wanted to avoid a split, by making the argument that at this point BIP148 doesn't HAVE to happen.   Since you are such an advocate for 148, maybe others would take some advice from you if you felt another path safer
591 2017-05-25 20:11:42	0|luke-jr|kanzure: I couldn't change BIP148 if I tried.
592 2017-05-25 20:11:50	0|jonasschnelli|What jcorgan said...
593 2017-05-25 20:11:55	0|kanzure|luke-jr: i said "something like bip148"
594 2017-05-25 20:11:58	0|luke-jr|morcos: the ONLY way to avoid the split is to make sure BIP148 succeeds. It WILL happen. Nobody can change that.
595 2017-05-25 20:12:13	0|morcos|ok. yeah i'm done discussing in this channel.  agreed.
596 2017-05-25 20:12:27	0|jtimon|if I proposed something like bip148 but actiavting next week instead of august, would you ack that if some users support it?
597 2017-05-25 20:12:29	0|luke-jr|and BIP149 is NOT safer anyway.
598 2017-05-25 20:12:51	0|jtimon|of course it is, but yeah, let's go #bitcoin or something
599 2017-05-25 20:12:58	0|luke-jr|jtimon: it's not "some users", it's a LOT of users, perhaps even a majority already
600 2017-05-25 20:13:41	0|petertodd|luke-jr: chances are the majority of bitcoin users aren't on any social media at all you know...
601 2017-05-25 20:13:45	0|jtimon|well, if "a LOT of users" supported my like-bip148-but-next-week proposal
602 2017-05-25 20:13:48	0|petertodd|luke-jr: they may not even speak english
603 2017-05-25 20:18:31	0|paveljanik|luke-jr, from where you get "a lot of"?
604 2017-05-25 20:22:11	0|instagibbs|discussion has been moved to #bitcoin, fwiw...
605 2017-05-25 20:28:48	0|paveljanik|great. I can't follow such intense communication though :-)
606 2017-05-25 20:46:27	0|morcos|sipa: are you interested in briefly describing how we'd do away with rescan?
607 2017-05-25 20:47:44	0|sipa|morcos: requiring birthdays on all imports
608 2017-05-25 20:48:50	0|sipa|and rescanning on demand, rather than explicitly
609 2017-05-25 20:51:55	0|morcos|sipa: i've found that sometimes there is a need to import multiple keys in a short period.  forcing that to happen in a single importmulti call is a bit cumbersome
610 2017-05-25 20:52:43	0|morcos|it can be easier to do a batch of all the imports with rescan false, and then later do 1 explicit rescan
611 2017-05-25 20:52:59	0|morcos|anyway, thats just my opinion
612 2017-05-25 20:57:08	0|sipa|morcos: rescanning could also move to a background job
613 2017-05-25 20:57:17	0|sipa|which just restarts if needed
614 2017-05-25 20:57:34	0|jtimon|that sounds simpler
615 2017-05-25 20:59:34	0|jtimon|maybe a rescanning progress bar in the gui, seems very usable, and maybe in the rpc if you ask for imported stuff that needs rescaning and rescan is in progress, throw an error
616 2017-05-25 20:59:37	0|morcos|i don't know about simpler, but yeah a better design
617 2017-05-25 20:59:53	0|jtimon|yeah, I guess I meant simpler to use
618 2017-05-25 20:59:58	0|da2ce7|On a slightly related topic, what contingency planning is there for the case that BIP148 has a non-zero hash-power?
619 2017-05-25 21:00:26	0|da2ce7|That would force all the non-bip148 nodes to checkpoint for continued safe operation.
620 2017-05-25 21:00:38	0|da2ce7|Is there a way to distribute such a checkpoint in a safe manner?
621 2017-05-25 21:01:15	0|da2ce7|Or dose Bitcoin Core not want to merge in such code?
622 2017-05-25 21:01:24	0|jtimon|if bip148 gets the hashrate majority we don't need to do anything
623 2017-05-25 21:01:47	0|jtimon|we will reorg to their chain
624 2017-05-25 21:02:05	0|da2ce7|jtimon, what happens if it has 10%.  Then all non-BIP148 nodes are zombie until they checkpoint.
625 2017-05-25 21:02:15	0|sipa|??
626 2017-05-25 21:02:34	0|jtimon|no, no zombie, we go on with the majority chain which is also valid to us
627 2017-05-25 21:02:58	0|da2ce7|This is fine, except the risk is asymmetrical.
628 2017-05-25 21:03:11	0|sipa|da2ce7: i don't understand what risk you're even talking about
629 2017-05-25 21:03:34	0|da2ce7|Because if at any date in the future the BIP148 chain overtakes, the non-BIP148 chain will be wiped out.
630 2017-05-25 21:03:47	0|sipa|yes?
631 2017-05-25 21:04:33	0|jtimon|that's what I said, if it gets the hashrate majority non-bip148 nodes will follow their chain, no problem
632 2017-05-25 21:04:57	0|jtimon|I mean, apart from maybe a big reorg
633 2017-05-25 21:05:21	0|da2ce7|If I disagreed with BIP148, I would checkpoint so my transactions wound't face the wipeout risk.  The same if for example if BIP148 as replaced with "evil softfork".
634 2017-05-25 21:05:39	0|jtimon|I will wait and see with my node
635 2017-05-25 21:06:05	0|sdfkjs23|a large reorg will cause issues for everyone not paying attention -- or anyone who goes along with cores deployment at this time. essentially core development team is handling the risk for the end client instead of allowing the client to manage the risk with a optional switch.
636 2017-05-25 21:06:23	0|da2ce7|If Bitcoin XT was a soft-fork, I would checkpoint so that my node would NEVER reorg onto their chain, even if they gain a majority hashrate.
637 2017-05-25 21:06:30	0|sipa|you can use invalidateblock
638 2017-05-25 21:06:38	0|sipa|to force your node onto another chain
639 2017-05-25 21:07:50	0|jtimon|oh, I didn't know that option
640 2017-05-25 21:10:48	0|da2ce7|My personal view is that the risks involved in BIP148 (a partial fix) are less than the risks covert CVE-2017-9230 continuing for a minimum of another 6mth.  So I have decided to run BIP148 on my nodes.
641 2017-05-25 21:12:52	0|da2ce7|However it is always a trade-off of risks between mitigating a security vulnerability and the risks of the deployment of the security mitigation.
642 2017-05-25 21:12:53	0|sdfkjs23|core should probably note in the release notes that running their software after august 1st could result in a large reorg
643 2017-05-25 21:16:42	0|da2ce7|It is my view that the miners who don't use covert asicboost have a very strong incentive to support the swiftest deployment of any mitigation of CVE-2017-9230, including BIP148.  Hence, I expect the mining power for BIP148 to be similar to the mining power that signals for SegWit now.
644 2017-05-25 21:17:15	0|da2ce7|At this hash-rate the changes of BIP148 failing are very small.
645 2017-05-25 21:18:40	0|da2ce7|*chances.
646 2017-05-25 21:24:25	0|da2ce7|I'm assuming that the miners who support SegWit are don't just support it out of the "good of their heart" but because it partly-mitigates a unfair competitive advantage against them.
647 2017-05-25 21:39:59	0|jtimon|I really feel I'm missing something here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/15ac75f65e6712339f13dd55b401d1b13a94ab41#commitcomment-22285343 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c10271e46f9bba621c4a9943e53d87a792836be5
648 2017-05-25 21:41:02	0|jtimon|I don't know much about the p2p part, but I really don't get it
649 2017-05-25 21:43:29	0|da2ce7|I have been taken back by the core developers from the lack-of-response to my posts on AsicBoost, now CVE-2017-9230. I would have expected that there would be some sort of announcement about the risks and possible mitigation of an accepted Security Vulnerability.  - I have not received any negative feedback; In my mailing list post I received three positive responses.  - Yet, here I'm met with silence.
650 2017-05-25 21:44:06	0|jtimon|oh, I didn't read this part in the bip: "This deployment is incompatible with the BIP9-segwit deployment and should not be run concurrently with it.", but I really don't understand why, please, help undesrtanding very welcomed
651 2017-05-25 21:47:06	0|sipa|da2ce7: i don't know what you think we can do?
652 2017-05-25 21:48:09	0|da2ce7|Well, at least say: "No you are stupid! The risk of another 6 to 9 mth of Covert ASICBOOST are far-less than the risks of being seen to support BIP148".
653 2017-05-25 21:48:40	0|jtimon|I think we could deploy the proposed fix to covert asicboost with bip8 pretty fast, but maybe still not august
654 2017-05-25 21:48:51	0|sipa|that's something the whole ecosystem needs to decide on
655 2017-05-25 21:49:14	0|jtimon|I mean, miners could accelerate it, I mean the max deployment time
656 2017-05-25 21:50:43	0|jtimon|but for segwit there's already an ongoing activation coordination deployed in many nodes
657 2017-05-25 21:52:35	0|sipa|da2ce7: my personal opinion is that bip148 is reckless even if it succeeds...
658 2017-05-25 21:53:26	0|sipa|it being a solution for some forms of asicboost is not nearly a reason to abandon safe practices
659 2017-05-25 21:53:45	0|sipa|but that's my personal opinion, and others may have another
660 2017-05-25 21:53:47	0|deego|newbie q: how can it just succeed. It has to first be committed, right? right now, it's just a B I "proposal", right?
661 2017-05-25 21:54:04	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: Would you support BIP148 that *only* solves covert ASICBOOST? No segwit stuff involved
662 2017-05-25 21:54:25	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: my problem with bip148 is its deployment, not its rule changes
663 2017-05-25 21:54:38	0|jtimon|right, if that's the urgency let's do just that faster without taking unnecessary risks
664 2017-05-25 21:54:41	0|sipa|it being about asicboost or segwit is orthogonal
665 2017-05-25 21:55:20	0|sipa|deego: it's open source; bitcoin core is a software project, we don't decide or try to tell people what code they should run
666 2017-05-25 21:55:38	0|Chris_Stewart_5|gotcha. I'm interested in solving covert asicboost first because I doubt we are going to get support from the mining majority to solve that, but I'm fairly confident the economic majority would support it
667 2017-05-25 21:55:41	0|jtimon|I wouldn't be sure how to write the code, but it is said that the pre-segwit fix of covert asicboost is simple to implement
668 2017-05-25 21:55:46	0|sipa|and it's not just a proposal... there is software out there that implements bip148
669 2017-05-25 21:55:54	0|Chris_Stewart_5|if we are going to do some sort of UASF..
670 2017-05-25 21:56:21	0|deego|sipa: i see, thanks
671 2017-05-25 21:56:46	0|jtimon|Chris_Stewart_5: I'm all for adding a bip8 deployment for the covert asicboost fix, and its final activation can be earlier than nov 2017 I think
672 2017-05-25 21:57:26	0|Chris_Stewart_5|jtimon: I like that idea. When is the next release scheduled for core?
673 2017-05-25 21:57:36	0|da2ce7|For me, BIP148 is a reasonable for an emergency soft-fork. Are we fixing an emergency security vulnerability?  The more I study CVE-2017-9230, the more I'm inclined to say Yes.
674 2017-05-25 21:57:45	0|jtimon|I mean, I say this because I expect a patch with very little changes, perhaps I'm being too optimistic
675 2017-05-25 21:58:31	0|da2ce7|There is no faster potentially viable rollout of this partial mitigation.
676 2017-05-25 21:58:32	0|jtimon|I believe 14.2 when it's ready, but you could even put it in a 14.3 if this is not ready by the time 14.2 is released
677 2017-05-25 21:58:49	0|da2ce7|With core support it goes to about 100% viable.
678 2017-05-25 21:59:04	0|sipa|da2ce7: i don't understand the need for emergency
679 2017-05-25 21:59:45	0|da2ce7|Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin if there is only one miner.  AsicBoost has a exponentially growing advantage for miners who adopt it.
680 2017-05-25 21:59:55	0|sipa|please
681 2017-05-25 22:00:13	0|da2ce7|So it's effect starts off small, but as miners re-invest profit, the effect gets larger.
682 2017-05-25 22:00:15	0|jtimon|I generally disregard claimed needs for emergency, but the simpler it is, the less conservative you need to be with deployment schedules I think
683 2017-05-25 22:00:16	0|Chris_Stewart_5|da2ce7: I think it would be wise to separate the concerns of segwit and covert asicboost
684 2017-05-25 22:00:16	0|sipa|don't use the word exponential where you just mean big
685 2017-05-25 22:00:43	0|sipa|yes, the effect of asicboost may be terrible - or may not exist at all
686 2017-05-25 22:00:53	0|sipa|and i would very much like to fix it
687 2017-05-25 22:01:13	0|sipa|but not with a hasty patch that encourages forking the chain
688 2017-05-25 22:01:14	0|jtimon|Chris_Stewart_5: I agree on separating concerns, I believe that was precisely what gmaxwell's proposal was about
689 2017-05-25 22:01:37	0|sipa|we're better than that
690 2017-05-25 22:01:38	0|da2ce7|I mean, if you have a constant factor advantage in mining, over time that advantage is exponential against your competition that doesn't have this constant factor advantage.  -  Unless my understanding of the gamer-theory is wrong.
691 2017-05-25 22:03:29	0|jtimon|sipa: let's say (as an example, not an actual proposal) the asicboost fix is included in 14.3 with bip8, minimum activation by miners august, final activation dec 2017, would you say that is conservative enough?
692 2017-05-25 22:03:58	0|sipa|jtimon: with clear community acceptance
693 2017-05-25 22:04:02	0|Chris_Stewart_5|da2ce7: Are you talking about generically using the deployment mechanism specified in BIP148, or BIP148 itself? BIP148 only pertains to segwit IIRC
694 2017-05-25 22:04:18	0|sipa|jtimon: it's not a boolean
695 2017-05-25 22:04:34	0|sipa|jtimon: but the riskier a change is, the higher the bar for acceptance
696 2017-05-25 22:04:43	0|da2ce7|Chris_Stewart_5: SegWit is the only well-tested partial-mitigation of CVE-2017-9230 I know of.
697 2017-05-25 22:04:56	0|da2ce7|So I mean BIP148, activating SegWit.
698 2017-05-25 22:05:00	0|sipa|and i think bip148 is both high risk, and with very unclear support
699 2017-05-25 22:05:36	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: Would worst case be similar to what happened a few years back with BIP66 (or 62)?
700 2017-05-25 22:05:49	0|jtimon|sipa: fair enough, yeah, I'm all for community acceptance, maybe I'm over optimistic about the community wanting the covert asicboost fix
701 2017-05-25 22:07:16	0|Chris_Stewart_5|da2ce7: Yeah, but I think we need to deal with realities of the baggage that comes along with segwit
702 2017-05-25 22:07:21	0|jtimon|but from my conversations with users, it seems pretty clear to everyone that nobody would oppose to such a change unless is benefitting directly from covert asicboost, which nobody seem to claim
703 2017-05-25 22:07:36	0|da2ce7|jtimon, I have no idea how the time to validate the asicboost fix faster than deploying SegWit.  The logical soft-fork afterwards with BIP 8 would be to make Witness Commitments non-voluntary.
704 2017-05-25 22:07:38	0|Chris_Stewart_5|I think we all agree segwit is awesome, but we can't stall progress of the system anymore based on the deployment of segwit
705 2017-05-25 22:07:44	0|sipa|i think segwit is much more widely accepted than asicboost being a problem
706 2017-05-25 22:08:29	0|jtimon|da2ce7: I think gmaxwell described it in his proposal, but sadly I don't know how to translate his specification into code
707 2017-05-25 22:09:18	0|jtimon|by it, I mean activate  asicboost fix before sw
708 2017-05-25 22:09:29	0|Chris_Stewart_5|I don't think there has been any consensus rule changes since segwit has been deployed, I think fixing covert asicboost would be a good way to get that ball rolling again
709 2017-05-25 22:10:01	0|da2ce7|Since SegWit is not controversial, we can deploy it as a partial mitigation of asicboost.
710 2017-05-25 22:10:22	0|jtimon|Chris_Stewart_5: me too, but yeah, as sipa points out, assuming community support and reasonable dates
711 2017-05-25 22:12:04	0|sipa|da2ce7: totally agree, i just don't think bip148 is a good or likely succesful way of doing that
712 2017-05-25 22:14:02	0|da2ce7|sipa, do you think that my assumption that the miners who signal for SegWit now are likely doing it because they want the partial-fix to AsicBoost Deployed?  If so, would they reasonably support a BIP148 soft-fork?
713 2017-05-25 22:22:20	0|sipa|da2ce7: i honestly don't know
714 2017-05-25 22:23:40	0|da2ce7|this we can agree on. :)
715 2017-05-25 22:24:39	0|da2ce7|I'm going to try and refine this assumption with more evidence.  With 33% mining support, I think that doing BIP148 is remarkably safe in the face of an active exploit.
716 2017-05-25 22:25:39	0|sipa|33% of mining support, excluding miners who already signal segwit?
717 2017-05-25 22:27:15	0|da2ce7|I mean, 33% total.  For upgraded node, the remaining 67% doesn't exist.  - The network effects for a 33% soft-fork are huge. Because of the asymmetrical wipeout risk.
718 2017-05-25 22:27:54	0|da2ce7|The only risk is that the 67% explicitly attacks the smaller chain. However this is grounds for an immediate change of PoW.
719 2017-05-25 22:29:38	0|Chris_Stewart_5|da2ce7: I don't think so. An immediate change of PoW for the majority of miners following the old rules? Seems rash to me
720 2017-05-25 22:30:35	0|da2ce7|Chris_Stewart_5, no they are not following the old rules, they implement the soft-fork, except at the same time attack the smaller chain maybe by producing 0tx blocks.
721 2017-05-25 22:31:15	0|da2ce7|This is what I mean by an 'explicit attack'.
722 2017-05-25 22:33:30	0|Chris_Stewart_5|da2ce7: So you would encourage an extended chain split, which could last forever? I don't think I would support that. We need to remain on one chain
723 2017-05-25 22:34:47	0|da2ce7|Chris_Stewart_5 for any other exploit I would encourage a chain split to fix the exploit, In this case is no different.  If the miners could make 2btc extra each block, then I would soft-fork with less than 50% to fix this bug.
724 2017-05-25 22:35:43	0|da2ce7|Even if the miners +2btc chain could last for a longer time.
725 2017-05-25 22:42:08	0|da2ce7|I'm going to sleep now.  Goodnight all.