1 2018-01-11 00:14:31	0|cols|hi
  2 2018-01-11 02:44:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15azuchi opened pull request #12143: [Doc] Fix link for BIP-159 pull request (06master...06fix-bip159-link) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12143
  3 2018-01-11 06:31:37	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1491769d6 15azuchi: [Doc] Fix link for bip 159 pull request
  4 2018-01-11 06:31:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/45173fa6fca9...b0d626d10f78
  5 2018-01-11 06:31:38	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b0d626d 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #12143: [Doc] Fix link for BIP-159 pull request...
  6 2018-01-11 06:32:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #12143: [Doc] Fix link for BIP-159 pull request (06master...06fix-bip159-link) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12143
  7 2018-01-11 06:56:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 13 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b0d626d10f78...d889c036cd6f
  8 2018-01-11 06:56:08	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140c8ea63 15Pieter Wuille: Abstract out IsSolvable from Witnessifier
  9 2018-01-11 06:56:08	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cbe1974 15Pieter Wuille: [refactor] GetAccount{PubKey,Address} -> GetAccountDestination
 10 2018-01-11 06:56:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14985c795 15Pieter Wuille: Improve witness destination types and use them more
 11 2018-01-11 06:56:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #11403: SegWit wallet support (06master...06201709_segwitwallet2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11403
 12 2018-01-11 06:57:22	0|meshcollider|\o/ awesome
 13 2018-01-11 07:00:59	0|achow101|\O/
 14 2018-01-11 07:01:14	0|sturles|git pull
 15 2018-01-11 07:01:31	0|achow101|well time to rebase everything
 16 2018-01-11 07:09:14	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Restart your rebase engines please. :)
 17 2018-01-11 07:09:54	0|jouke|\o/
 18 2018-01-11 07:11:32	0|rabidus|:)
 19 2018-01-11 07:23:39	0|meshcollider|When does wumpus get back again?
 20 2018-01-11 07:55:37	0|jonasschnelli|meshcollider: I though this week. But maybe its next.
 21 2018-01-11 07:55:44	0|jonasschnelli|thought
 22 2018-01-11 08:01:33	0|provoostenator|Rebase party time! Congrats sipa on that merge.
 23 2018-01-11 08:13:30	0|jb55|will said party be... interactive?
 24 2018-01-11 08:19:25	0|luke-jr|uh, not seeing the logic for wallet versioning there.. How do I configure my wallet to NOT upgrade?
 25 2018-01-11 08:20:52	0|sipa|luke-jr: you mean due to bech32 addresses in your label map?
 26 2018-01-11 08:23:06	0|luke-jr|well, I would have expected ImplicitlyLearnRelatedKeyScripts to be conditional on the wallet being an upgraded version
 27 2018-01-11 08:23:14	0|luke-jr|I don't even see a flag for the wallet version bump
 28 2018-01-11 08:23:37	0|sipa|luke-jr: that doesn't affect the wallet file
 29 2018-01-11 08:24:19	0|sipa|you can downgrade down to any segwit capable version
 30 2018-01-11 08:24:50	0|luke-jr|But how do I upgrade without accepting Segwit payments?
 31 2018-01-11 08:25:36	0|sipa|ah, you can't
 32 2018-01-11 08:26:11	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: why would you want that? Can you elaborate the use case?
 33 2018-01-11 08:26:13	0|luke-jr|when and why was that changed?
 34 2018-01-11 08:26:18	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: to prevent block size increases
 35 2018-01-11 08:26:25	0|sipa|sigh
 36 2018-01-11 08:27:07	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: why would "not accepting" sw payment change that?
 37 2018-01-11 08:27:17	0|jonasschnelli|(not talking about "not handing our SW addresses")
 38 2018-01-11 08:27:25	0|jonasschnelli|*out
 39 2018-01-11 08:28:03	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: someone can take a normal address from this, and modify it to a Segwit one, and the user won't even know it?
 40 2018-01-11 08:28:35	0|sipa|luke-jr: that's a problem, but it's inherent to the wallet design
 41 2018-01-11 08:28:55	0|jonasschnelli|I see
 42 2018-01-11 08:29:00	0|sipa|they can also convert p2pkh  into p2pk etc
 43 2018-01-11 08:29:46	0|luke-jr|sipa: not without this change
 44 2018-01-11 08:29:54	0|sipa|?
 45 2018-01-11 08:30:06	0|sipa|we have always accepted payments to p2pk
 46 2018-01-11 08:30:08	0|luke-jr|without this change, it isn't possible to trick the user into accepting a segwit output
 47 2018-01-11 08:30:59	0|sipa|yes, i don't see why that is any more of a problem than accepting p2pk instead of p2pkh (which grows the utxo set morez for example)
 48 2018-01-11 08:31:15	0|luke-jr|sipa: only segwit outputs enable block size increases
 49 2018-01-11 08:31:43	0|sipa|i think utxo growth is a far worse problem
 50 2018-01-11 08:31:44	0|luke-jr|also, without a wallet version bump, old wallets won't receive properly for segwit addresses generated by newer software, I think?
 51 2018-01-11 08:31:45	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: if you think this is an important feature (I don't), you may want to write a PR?
 52 2018-01-11 08:31:54	0|sipa|luke-jr: they will
 53 2018-01-11 08:32:03	0|sipa|(down to 0.13.1)
 54 2018-01-11 08:32:21	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: okay, although this was what I expected already from the discussions months ago planning it
 55 2018-01-11 08:32:49	0|luke-jr|sipa: I thought the wallet didn't get the data added permanently?
 56 2018-01-11 08:32:53	0|sipa|it does
 57 2018-01-11 08:33:01	0|sipa|read the PR description
 58 2018-01-11 08:33:07	0|luke-jr|did that change at some point?
 59 2018-01-11 08:33:26	0|sipa|yes, and there is even a design doc to explain it
 60 2018-01-11 08:33:49	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: you didn't mentioned that point in 11403
 61 2018-01-11 08:34:07	0|meshcollider|this one I think sipa is referring to https://gist.github.com/sipa/125cfa1615946d0c3f3eec2ad7f250a2
 62 2018-01-11 08:44:48	0|luke-jr|wouldn't the implicit in-memory redeemscript adding for old keys be sufficient if only applied to the keypool/new keys?
 63 2018-01-11 08:46:49	0|sipa|read the design doc, it goes through all the scenarios it is intended to work in, and how they necessitate the implemented behaviour
 64 2018-01-11 08:51:56	0|luke-jr|sipa: I read it, but it's not clear to me why 1a requires it effect ALL keys, rather than just keypool (ie, unused at the time of the backup) and future
 65 2018-01-11 08:52:25	0|luke-jr|labelled keys already have a non-segwit address assigned, and should never be seen in segwit form
 66 2018-01-11 08:53:38	0|sipa|you can't know that you aren't using a restored backup which had a lost future in which the same key was used in a different address type
 67 2018-01-11 08:55:39	0|luke-jr|hm, so 1) user backs up, 2) user makes a new address, 3) user restores backup, 4) user upgrades, 5) user makes a new segwit address overlapping the one in 2, 6) user downgrades, 7) user restores backup again
 68 2018-01-11 08:55:40	0|luke-jr|?
 69 2018-01-11 08:56:13	0|sipa|the only way we can actually remove the ability to accept payment to a different address type than the one we know about is afaik by having separate keychains for each address type
 70 2018-01-11 08:56:52	0|sipa|luke-jr: i don't think 6 and 7 are needed in that scenario
 71 2018-01-11 08:57:16	0|sipa|and swap the segwit and legacy
 72 2018-01-11 08:57:18	0|meshcollider|sipa: they are needed because the first address was legacy and the second was segwit i believe
 73 2018-01-11 08:57:19	0|meshcollider|yeah
 74 2018-01-11 08:58:26	0|luke-jr|sipa: I don't understand.. step 2 can't make a segwit address since it's pre-upgrade
 75 2018-01-11 08:58:56	0|sipa|someone first creates a backup, then creates a segwit address, then restores the backup, creates a legacy address with the same key, restarts
 76 2018-01-11 08:59:02	0|sipa|no old versions involved even
 77 2018-01-11 08:59:34	0|luke-jr|upon restoring the backup, that key would be in the keypool, so it would get the implied script
 78 2018-01-11 08:59:37	0|sipa|the result is a file with no explicit segwit script, and a label for a legacy address for a certain key
 79 2018-01-11 09:00:09	0|luke-jr|oh, add a restart and the implicit script disappears!
 80 2018-01-11 09:00:16	0|meshcollider|yeah the legacy address has to be created on the old version so it doesnt hit the implicit addition of segwit scripts
 81 2018-01-11 09:00:22	0|meshcollider|oh
 82 2018-01-11 09:00:28	0|sipa|no it doesn't
 83 2018-01-11 09:00:41	0|meshcollider|yeah I got it now, right
 84 2018-01-11 09:00:53	0|luke-jr|I thought I got it until "no it doesn't" :x
 85 2018-01-11 09:01:12	0|luke-jr|unless that was a reply to meshcollider
 86 2018-01-11 09:01:16	0|sipa|the "no it doesn't" is a response to meshcollider saying it needs an old version
 87 2018-01-11 09:01:20	0|meshcollider|yeah that was a reply to me
 88 2018-01-11 09:01:21	0|luke-jr|ah ok
 89 2018-01-11 09:02:01	0|sipa|i'm not sure this scenario is actually covered in thendocument though
 90 2018-01-11 09:02:38	0|meshcollider|sipa: it is, just not so explicitly written out
 91 2018-01-11 09:03:07	0|sipa|may be worth spelling kt out
 92 2018-01-11 09:03:10	0|sipa|*it
 93 2018-01-11 09:03:11	0|meshcollider|it just stops at restoring the backup, it doesn't mention creating a new legacy address and restarting
 94 2018-01-11 09:03:13	0|meshcollider|yeah
 95 2018-01-11 09:08:12	0|provoostenator|The step 1-7 scenario luke-jr describes above is somethign I'd like to try on top of #12134
 96 2018-01-11 09:08:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12134 | [WIP] Build previous releases and run functional tests by Sjors · Pull Request #12134 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 97 2018-01-11 09:11:30	0|meshcollider|provoostenator: I've only looked briefly at that but won't adding cross version testing to travis be too slow
 98 2018-01-11 09:12:23	0|provoostenator|meshcollider: the releases are cached, so it's a one-off 30 minute thing (and only for one machine).
 99 2018-01-11 09:12:53	0|meshcollider|provoostenator: oh ok, that's all good then :)
100 2018-01-11 09:18:12	0|luke-jr|sipa: PM
101 2018-01-11 09:28:31	0|meshcollider|Does collaborators only mean members of the organization with write access to the repo? I'd previously assumed we'd be able to comment on PRs/issues even if they were locked because we were members but that doesn't appear to be the case
102 2018-01-11 10:23:10	0|provoostenator|Travis is in a bad mood today?
103 2018-01-11 10:24:11	0|zelest|must be Ultron
104 2018-01-11 10:26:19	0|meshcollider|provoostenator: are you referring to 11991? I restarted it for you
105 2018-01-11 10:26:33	0|meshcollider|sipa: if you're online maybe you could add Sjors to the org so he can restart travis too
106 2018-01-11 10:30:16	0|sipa|i'm just on my phone now, will do later
107 2018-01-11 10:30:55	0|provoostenator|meshcollider: 11991 and 12119
108 2018-01-11 10:31:44	0|meshcollider|provoostenator: 12119 failed 4 checks, are you sure that its travis fault not something wrong with your PR?
109 2018-01-11 10:32:32	0|provoostenator|I'm not ruling that out, but the errors seemed to be timeouts.
110 2018-01-11 10:33:08	0|meshcollider|ok we'll try it again and see :)
111 2018-01-11 10:33:20	0|provoostenator|I'll also run the full suite locally
112 2018-01-11 10:49:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15luke-jr opened pull request #12146: Wallet: Support disabling implicit Segwit operation (06master...06opt_wallet_segwit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12146
113 2018-01-11 10:54:00	0|meshcollider|provoostenator: seems they're all failing again, so yeah must be something to do with the PR not travis
114 2018-01-11 11:13:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15anvilcoin opened pull request #12148: Update README.md (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12148
115 2018-01-11 11:14:07	0|sturles|vi +
116 2018-01-11 11:14:15	0|sturles|Sorry..
117 2018-01-11 11:15:42	0|meshcollider|what do these people hope to achieve with PRs like that, do they honestly ever think it will get merged?
118 2018-01-11 11:16:58	0|sipa|meshcollider: i believe they don't understand what 'pull' means in this context
119 2018-01-11 11:18:21	0|sipa|i believe many of them are just trying to make a clone or try making a simple change in their own cooy
120 2018-01-11 11:20:21	0|provoostenator|meshcollider: probably, but they both pass on my machine. 11991 fails with "/wallet/db.h:21:20: fatal error: db_cxx.h: No such file or directory" on one machine. I can try on a linux VM...
121 2018-01-11 11:22:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake closed pull request #12148: Update README.md (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12148
122 2018-01-11 11:51:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kashyap2690 opened pull request #12149: Unlock Wallet Implemented. (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12149
123 2018-01-11 12:00:58	0|wumpus|congrats on merging segwit wallet support jonasschnelli
124 2018-01-11 12:04:57	0|wumpus|and sipa and everyone that reviewed ofcourse
125 2018-01-11 12:09:13	0|provoostenator|luke-jr from the title and description of 12146 it's not immediatley clear what you're tying to do, but I'll study it later. If you mention the "-walletimplicitsegwit" flag explictly in the description, it's probably a bit more clear.
126 2018-01-11 12:10:14	0|provoostenator|It would also help to clarify how it's different from -addresstype=legacy, other than foot-shooting protection.
127 2018-01-11 12:12:28	0|provoostenator|I assume we'll chat during todays meeting about what the earliest possible release date is, so people know how much time is left to get more stuff in?
128 2018-01-11 12:13:11	0|provoostenator|(particularly stuff related to SegWit)
129 2018-01-11 12:13:43	0|provoostenator|I'd say at least two weeks given some of the current discussion.
130 2018-01-11 12:16:46	0|wumpus|yes we should give some time for fixes after this merge and before the release
131 2018-01-11 12:18:31	0|promag|there are some things to do
132 2018-01-11 12:18:37	0|provoostenator|Is there something we changed since v0.15.1 that causes newly created wallets to be incompatible with v0.15.1? If so, what compile / launch flag do I need to use for v0.15.1?
133 2018-01-11 12:18:46	0|promag|maybe sipa is working on those follow ups?
134 2018-01-11 12:19:42	0|provoostenator|(if not, then I'm during something wrong in my regtest setup, quite possible)
135 2018-01-11 12:21:08	0|wumpus|probably the segwit change caused newly created wallets to be incompatible with 0.15.x?
136 2018-01-11 12:26:25	0|sipa|provoostenator: what fails? it should work fine as long as you don't create bech32 addresses
137 2018-01-11 12:27:05	0|sipa|provoostenator: oh, or the default key thing?
138 2018-01-11 12:27:27	0|provoostenator|After I copy the wallet over to a 0.15 node and restart, it throws "Error loading wallet.dat: Wallet requires newer version of Bitcoin Core". I only added a legacy address.
139 2018-01-11 12:27:52	0|provoostenator|default key thing?
140 2018-01-11 12:28:28	0|sipa|yes, i don't think you can use 0.16 wallets in 0.15
141 2018-01-11 12:28:41	0|sipa|but you can create a 0.15 wallet, use it 0.16, and then downgrade
142 2018-01-11 12:29:15	0|provoostenator|Ok, I'll use that approach in my backwards compatilibity test. It's more future proof anyway.
143 2018-01-11 12:31:35	0|wumpus|yes, that's the way to go
144 2018-01-11 12:32:05	0|provoostenator|Anything around --with-incompatible-bdb that's worth testing?
145 2018-01-11 13:07:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #12150: Fix ListCoins test failure due to unset g_address_type, g_change_type (06master...06pr/listg) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12150
146 2018-01-11 13:16:49	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142be2b5d 15Jacky C: Remove the ending slashes from RPC URI format.
147 2018-01-11 13:16:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d889c036cd6f...3c6286873e50
148 2018-01-11 13:16:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143c62868 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12112: Docs: Remove the ending slashes from RPC URI format....
149 2018-01-11 13:17:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12112: Docs: Remove the ending slashes from RPC URI format. (06master...06docs/multi-wallet_RPC_interface_correction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12112
150 2018-01-11 13:19:20	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15promag opened pull request #12151: Remove cs_main lock from blockToJSON and blockheaderToJSON (06master...062018-01-blocktojson) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12151
151 2018-01-11 13:41:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f765bb3 15Russell Yanofsky: Fix ListCoins test failure due to unset g_address_type, g_change_type...
152 2018-01-11 13:41:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3c6286873e50...92a810d04b90
153 2018-01-11 13:41:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1492a810d 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12150: Fix ListCoins test failure due to unset g_address_type, g_change_type...
154 2018-01-11 13:41:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12150: Fix ListCoins test failure due to unset g_address_type, g_change_type (06master...06pr/listg) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12150
155 2018-01-11 13:48:00	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1435c2b1f 15Suhas Daftuar: Fix rare failure in p2p-segwit.py...
156 2018-01-11 13:48:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/92a810d04b90...1d2eaba300bc
157 2018-01-11 13:48:01	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141d2eaba 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12133: [qa] Fix rare failure in p2p-segwit.py...
158 2018-01-11 13:48:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12133: [qa] Fix rare failure in p2p-segwit.py (06master...062018-01-fix-p2p-segwit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12133
159 2018-01-11 14:07:25	0|provoostenator|sipa: what's the expected failure mode of downgrading a wallet with a bech32 address? Is it supposed to be fully recoverable when you upgrade?
160 2018-01-11 14:08:12	0|sipa|provoostenator: the failure mode is that RPCs may report weird addresses
161 2018-01-11 14:08:23	0|provoostenator|Ok, that's what I'm seeing...
162 2018-01-11 14:08:37	0|sipa|in particular one very short address that starts with a 3
163 2018-01-11 14:08:45	0|provoostenator|I'll just bake that into the test, although a more severe warning would be nice, at least after upgrade.
164 2018-01-11 14:08:54	0|sipa|it should be fixed by uograding again
165 2018-01-11 14:09:09	0|provoostenator|Nope, weird address sticks for me. But I'm trying that again now.
166 2018-01-11 14:09:36	0|provoostenator|Actually nvm, my bad.
167 2018-01-11 14:19:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Sjors opened pull request #12152: [WIP] misc. backwards compatibility tests (06master...06previous-release-segwit-wallet-test) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12152
168 2018-01-11 14:19:57	0|provoostenator|It does recover. Any other scenarios I should add ^ ?
169 2018-01-11 14:24:15	0|sipa|provoostenator: have you seen my gist on segwit wallet?
170 2018-01-11 14:24:30	0|sipa|it explicitly lists a number of scenarios that are intended to work
171 2018-01-11 14:24:59	0|provoostenator|I read it in early December. It is still up to date? Back then it had several atlernative plans.
172 2018-01-11 14:25:47	0|provoostenator|So it's 1a and 3a now?
173 2018-01-11 14:25:49	0|sipa|yes, it is up to date
174 2018-01-11 14:25:51	0|sipa|and 5
175 2018-01-11 14:26:10	0|sipa|but the solutions don't matter for you, just the supported scenarios :)
176 2018-01-11 14:26:33	0|provoostenator|Ah yes, alright I'll see if can turn those into tests.
177 2018-01-11 14:26:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15promag opened pull request #12153: Avoid permanent cs_main lock in getblockheader (06master...062018-01-getblockheader) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12153
178 2018-01-11 14:32:56	0|provoostenator|sipa: might be a good idea to move that gist to the docs repo or some other easier to find spot? At least the current-facts part of it.
179 2018-01-11 14:33:56	0|sipa|provoostenator: perhaps, though such documents may get outfated soon
180 2018-01-11 14:33:59	0|sipa|*outdated
181 2018-01-11 14:35:43	0|provoostenator|In case of the wallet format, any proposed change should reference that document and we could consider a PR unfinished until a corresponding doc change PR is there. Hopefully eventually the wallet will be intuitive enough that the doc can be removed.
182 2018-01-11 15:20:25	0|promag|GH down?
183 2018-01-11 15:24:44	0|instagibbs|promag, yes
184 2018-01-11 17:35:45	0|Ephraim|help
185 2018-01-11 17:39:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1418be3ab 15Chris Stewart: Adding test case for SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY hash type in tx_valid.json
186 2018-01-11 17:39:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1d2eaba300bc...0910cbe4ef31
187 2018-01-11 17:39:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140910cbe 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12082: Adding test case for SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY hash type in tx_valid.json...
188 2018-01-11 17:40:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12082: Adding test case for SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY hash type in tx_valid.json (06master...06add_tx_valid_singleanyonecanpay) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12082
189 2018-01-11 17:53:37	0|achow101|what's wrong with travis today?
190 2018-01-11 17:55:39	0|wumpus|what is it doing?
191 2018-01-11 18:14:09	0|achow101|nvm. I was just confused as to how 8 of the most recent PRs were failing travis. thought it was a problem travis but its actually a problem with those 8 PRs :/
192 2018-01-11 18:36:25	0|wumpus|indeed, master is passing according to my mails
193 2018-01-11 18:59:41	0|wumpus|meeting?
194 2018-01-11 18:59:45	0|jtimon|hi
195 2018-01-11 18:59:51	0|jonasschnelli|yes
196 2018-01-11 19:00:16	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Jan 11 19:00:15 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
197 2018-01-11 19:00:16	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
198 2018-01-11 19:00:16	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
199 2018-01-11 19:00:21	0|wumpus|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag
200 2018-01-11 19:00:39	0|meshcollider|hi
201 2018-01-11 19:00:40	0|wumpus|congrats everyone on merging segwit wallet!
202 2018-01-11 19:00:47	0|meshcollider|\o/
203 2018-01-11 19:00:49	0|achow101|hi
204 2018-01-11 19:01:04	0|wumpus|I think we should focus this meeting on what there is to do still for 0.16
205 2018-01-11 19:01:21	0|provoostenator|hi
206 2018-01-11 19:01:22	0|wumpus|I've just updated https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/30 removing everything that isn't either a bugfix or has to do with segwit
207 2018-01-11 19:01:25	0|instagibbs|hi
208 2018-01-11 19:01:31	0|instagibbs|\o/ so great to see
209 2018-01-11 19:01:33	0|wumpus|(well, moving it forward to 0.17)
210 2018-01-11 19:02:19	0|provoostenator|I'd like to get either #11991 or #11937 in so non-tech-savy people can actually use bech32.
211 2018-01-11 19:02:21	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11991 | [qt] Receive: checkbox for bech32 address by Sjors · Pull Request #11991 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
212 2018-01-11 19:02:23	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11937 | Qt: Setting for deciding address type (legacy, p2sh or bech32) by hsjoberg · Pull Request #11937 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
213 2018-01-11 19:02:23	0|wumpus|so that is the "high priority" list for now, if there's anything that should be added let me know
214 2018-01-11 19:02:27	0|BlueMatt|#11281 needs rebase and resolution of current discussion
215 2018-01-11 19:02:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11281 | Avoid permanent cs_main/cs_wallet lock during RescanFromTime by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #11281 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
216 2018-01-11 19:02:41	0|jonasschnelli|Will do soon
217 2018-01-11 19:02:47	0|wumpus|provoostenator: agreed
218 2018-01-11 19:02:59	0|provoostenator|I'll try to keep them fresh based on feedback.
219 2018-01-11 19:03:05	0|instagibbs|-qt support for address types i think is a big ? still
220 2018-01-11 19:03:08	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. I also think 11991 11937 should go into 0.16
221 2018-01-11 19:03:14	0|BlueMatt|I believe there's still pending segwit wallet stuff in some rpcs that are still TODO
222 2018-01-11 19:03:15	0|achow101|If 11281 goes in, I would like to also have #11200
223 2018-01-11 19:03:15	0|BlueMatt|sipa?
224 2018-01-11 19:03:17	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11200 | Allow for aborting rescans and canceling showProgress dialogs by achow101 · Pull Request #11200 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
225 2018-01-11 19:03:37	0|cfields|hi, here
226 2018-01-11 19:04:05	0|achow101|also #12101 and #12104 are bugfix-ish
227 2018-01-11 19:04:07	0|provoostenator|bech32 change behavior is nice to have; #11991 is mostly for my own OCD and I can just run that myself
228 2018-01-11 19:04:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12101 | Clamp walletpassphrase timeout to 2^31 seconds and check its bounds by achow101 · Pull Request #12101 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
229 2018-01-11 19:04:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12104 | HTTP Error 404: Not Found
230 2018-01-11 19:04:10	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11991 | [qt] Receive: checkbox for bech32 address by Sjors · Pull Request #11991 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
231 2018-01-11 19:04:33	0|achow101|s/12024/12104
232 2018-01-11 19:04:33	0|BlueMatt|do we want to fix the non-regression rpc too-many-sockets thing given its an upstream bug? cfields?
233 2018-01-11 19:04:37	0|provoostenator|(sorry, I meant #12119)
234 2018-01-11 19:04:39	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12119 | [wallet] use bech32 change address if any destination is bech32 by Sjors · Pull Request #12119 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
235 2018-01-11 19:05:06	0|cfields|BlueMatt: yes, I'll clean that up and PR it today. What's not clear, though, is if we should attempt to max out available fds.
236 2018-01-11 19:05:08	0|wumpus|11200 seems more like a feature and isn't necessarily segwit related
237 2018-01-11 19:05:26	0|wumpus|more for 0.17
238 2018-01-11 19:06:21	0|provoostenator|wumpus: when you move something to 0.17 does that mean it be merged before 0.16 is branched off, or does it not have that meaning?
239 2018-01-11 19:06:30	0|provoostenator|*it won't
240 2018-01-11 19:06:45	0|wumpus|provoostenator: yes
241 2018-01-11 19:07:28	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: tend to agree re: 11200, though I'd still very much like to see #11281
242 2018-01-11 19:07:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11281 | Avoid permanent cs_main/cs_wallet lock during RescanFromTime by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #11281 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
243 2018-01-11 19:07:35	0|meshcollider|Will we have the signing certificates ready for the release? jonasschnelli cfields
244 2018-01-11 19:07:50	0|cfields|wumpus: consider the maxing fd's question a topic suggestion. I'm unsure what to do there.
245 2018-01-11 19:07:58	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: isn't that one already on there?
246 2018-01-11 19:08:17	0|jonasschnelli|meshcollider: at least there is a static non distributed RSA cert now available... (OSX).
247 2018-01-11 19:08:32	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: it is, was just re-enforcing :)
248 2018-01-11 19:08:35	0|meshcollider|jonasschnelli: ok
249 2018-01-11 19:08:47	0|jonasschnelli|(but no clue about Windows) topic?
250 2018-01-11 19:08:52	0|cfields|meshcollider: yes, we didn't get the threshold key setup in time, so we have a temporary key now. Presumably for 0.16 only.
251 2018-01-11 19:09:18	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: but yes I agree keeping that, it's more of a fix I guess (but also not really)
252 2018-01-11 19:09:38	0|promag|o/
253 2018-01-11 19:10:09	0|cfields|meshcollider: I've written up a few little things worth committing, I'll PR those today as well.
254 2018-01-11 19:10:09	0|wumpus|great news regarding the signing key
255 2018-01-11 19:10:15	0|wumpus|cfields: ok, topic noted
256 2018-01-11 19:11:22	0|cfields|oh, on to me then?
257 2018-01-11 19:11:45	0|cfields|#11785 is what I'm unsure about
258 2018-01-11 19:11:47	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11785 | Raise the open fd limit to the maximum allowed by vii · Pull Request #11785 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
259 2018-01-11 19:11:49	0|wumpus|#topic maxing out fds
260 2018-01-11 19:12:15	0|wumpus|oops, accidentelly tagged #12101 0.17 while it should be 0.16
261 2018-01-11 19:12:17	0|provoostenator|As discussed earlier today: what's the minimum time before we branch of 0.16? So there's some time to test stuff and fix PR's.
262 2018-01-11 19:12:18	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12101 | Clamp walletpassphrase timeout to 2^31 seconds and check its bounds by achow101 · Pull Request #12101 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
263 2018-01-11 19:12:28	0|cfields|tl;dr: there was an issue where fd's could be maxed out causing crashes and weird behavior. Let's assume that we get that issue under control. Should we still attempt to bump up our fd limit?
264 2018-01-11 19:13:13	0|wumpus|cfields: I'm not sure that should be default behavior, how much is it frowned upon if daemons do that, don't know how other software handles it?
265 2018-01-11 19:13:34	0|wumpus|cfields: I think the usual way is to leave ulimit setting to the user/sysadmin
266 2018-01-11 19:13:49	0|ryanofsky|provoostenator, i think normally there is a feature freeze on master before creating the release branch
267 2018-01-11 19:14:17	0|wumpus|yes, normally there's a feature freeze
268 2018-01-11 19:14:35	0|cfields|wumpus: I tend to agree with that. IMO if we're bumping into fd issues, we want to see them rather than mask them
269 2018-01-11 19:14:35	0|wumpus|I also need to open translations for 0.16
270 2018-01-11 19:14:59	0|cfields|but iirc gmaxwell was generally in favor of a general bump
271 2018-01-11 19:15:03	0|wumpus|cfields: indeed, we should try to be robust against them, or at least exit with a clear error if that it's not possible
272 2018-01-11 19:15:33	0|cfields|wumpus: ok, mind commenting there? I'll poke gmaxwell again about it too
273 2018-01-11 19:15:45	0|cfields|</topic>
274 2018-01-11 19:15:51	0|wumpus|cfields: sure
275 2018-01-11 19:15:59	0|cfields|thanks :)
276 2018-01-11 19:16:02	0|wumpus|other topics?
277 2018-01-11 19:16:05	0|jonasschnelli|I have a short disussion request for 11281
278 2018-01-11 19:16:08	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11281/commits/b2cc7020956cfd36925e4957493cd28d1d6f672e
279 2018-01-11 19:16:16	0|jonasschnelli|Is that a concern (see commit above)=
280 2018-01-11 19:16:17	0|jonasschnelli|?
281 2018-01-11 19:16:36	0|jtimon|wumpus what are these "fds" to max out?
282 2018-01-11 19:16:41	0|wumpus|#topic "Avoid permanent cs_main/cs_wallet lock during RescanFromTime" discussion (jonasschnelli)
283 2018-01-11 19:16:45	0|jonasschnelli|sipa brought up the point, but I think it's okay if we just mention that in the rpc help
284 2018-01-11 19:16:45	0|wumpus|jtimon: "file descriptors"
285 2018-01-11 19:16:49	0|jtimon|thanks
286 2018-01-11 19:17:23	0|jonasschnelli|background: you may import a key and can see it's there but the related transactions are (still) missing
287 2018-01-11 19:17:34	0|achow101|I think it's fine to mention that in the help
288 2018-01-11 19:17:34	0|jonasschnelli|since the lock is released now
289 2018-01-11 19:17:52	0|BlueMatt|but sipa is the one who brought it up and apparently is mia today
290 2018-01-11 19:18:06	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. Lets wait on his feedback
291 2018-01-11 19:18:08	0|achow101|the alternative would be to block those calls during a rescan, right?
292 2018-01-11 19:18:09	0|jonasschnelli|</topic>
293 2018-01-11 19:18:17	0|wumpus|other topics?
294 2018-01-11 19:18:20	0|promag|what happens today if you import and then it crashes?
295 2018-01-11 19:18:25	0|jnewbery|Other PRs that would be nice for 0.16 are the RPC changes in #7965 (#10583, #11415, #10579)
296 2018-01-11 19:18:26	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7965 | Remaining instances of ENABLE_WALLET in `libbitcoin_server.a` · Issue #7965 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
297 2018-01-11 19:18:29	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10583 | [RPC] Split part of validateaddress into getaddressinfo by achow101 · Pull Request #10583 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
298 2018-01-11 19:18:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11415 | [RPC] Disallow using addresses in createmultisig by achow101 · Pull Request #11415 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
299 2018-01-11 19:18:33	0|jonasschnelli|promag: I guess the same problem
300 2018-01-11 19:18:35	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10579 | [RPC] Split signrawtransaction into wallet and non-wallet RPC command by achow101 · Pull Request #10579 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
301 2018-01-11 19:18:47	0|kanzure|hi.
302 2018-01-11 19:18:48	0|wumpus|jnewbery: those have nothing to do with segwit, so I moved them to 0.17
303 2018-01-11 19:19:02	0|jonasschnelli|Agree
304 2018-01-11 19:19:20	0|jnewbery|Shame. They deprecate the RPCs but don't remove them, so we're stuck with those wallet dependencies until v0.18
305 2018-01-11 19:19:47	0|wumpus|if we do a "theme release" at all we need to focus, sorry
306 2018-01-11 19:19:48	0|promag|jonasschnelli: should we "mark" those addresses until the rescan finishes?
307 2018-01-11 19:19:51	0|ryanofsky|11415 maybe could be merged now
308 2018-01-11 19:19:58	0|jtimon|do #8994 and #10757 have a chance to get merged for 0.16 if I fix the nits?
309 2018-01-11 19:20:00	0|promag|jonasschnelli: future work I guess
310 2018-01-11 19:20:02	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
311 2018-01-11 19:20:05	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10757 | RPC: Introduce getblockstats to plot things by jtimon · Pull Request #10757 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
312 2018-01-11 19:20:13	0|jonasschnelli|promag: Yes... probably... need to think about that first
313 2018-01-11 19:20:19	0|wumpus|no, we're not adding non-segwit features for 0.16
314 2018-01-11 19:20:30	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: oooo, "theme release", can we start themeing based on cocktails like openwrt?
315 2018-01-11 19:20:41	0|achow101|presumably 0.17 will be sooner than the usual 6 months?
316 2018-01-11 19:20:49	0|ryanofsky|ok so feature freeze has already started?
317 2018-01-11 19:20:52	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: lol!
318 2018-01-11 19:21:02	0|instagibbs|ryanofsky, non-segwit ff i believe so
319 2018-01-11 19:21:04	0|jonasschnelli|I think since merging SW wallet freeze is active
320 2018-01-11 19:21:06	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: for non-segwit things, yes, for segwit things it's open for sicussion
321 2018-01-11 19:21:07	0|cfields|BlueMatt: by that you mean "white russian" (or something) for ~5 years, iirc?
322 2018-01-11 19:21:07	0|instagibbs|qt stuff might still be required
323 2018-01-11 19:21:08	0|BlueMatt|yes, didnt we say feature freeze when segwit wallet got merged
324 2018-01-11 19:21:11	0|achow101|ryanofsky: I'm guessing feature freeze started last night as soon as 11403 merged
325 2018-01-11 19:21:22	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: yes
326 2018-01-11 19:21:23	0|BlueMatt|cfields: yea......
327 2018-01-11 19:21:32	0|jtimon|achow101: really? I thought 0.16 was the exception and we're getting close to its regular planned non ahead of time date
328 2018-01-11 19:21:40	0|jonasschnelli|no
329 2018-01-11 19:21:42	0|promag|btw, 17 theme is?
330 2018-01-11 19:21:53	0|wumpus|achow101: we could do 0.17 sooner, but one thing at a time please, this is for discussion once 0.16 is out of the door :)
331 2018-01-11 19:21:57	0|BlueMatt|promag: white russian, apparently
332 2018-01-11 19:22:13	0|wumpus|no theme for 0.17, no themes again please, back to simply time based releases
333 2018-01-11 19:22:24	0|meshcollider|wumpus: you mean 17.0 ;)
334 2018-01-11 19:22:34	0|provoostenator|Given that the world demands SegWit from the Core wallet, I tend to agree about feature freeze for non-SegWit stuff.
335 2018-01-11 19:22:44	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: it seems tohe feature freeze is being done sooner than that
336 2018-01-11 19:22:49	0|provoostenator|And I guess it's about hte regular time to release anyway?
337 2018-01-11 19:22:52	0|wumpus|segwit was an exception because that was 'promised' for 0.15.1, I don't think this should become routine
338 2018-01-11 19:23:28	0|achow101|provoostenator: I think there's still 2 months left for the usual timing
339 2018-01-11 19:23:52	0|wumpus|yes, we're intentionally trying to do the release sooner than the usual planning
340 2018-01-11 19:24:12	0|wumpus|(e.g. the one in #11449 is worst-case)
341 2018-01-11 19:24:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11449 | Release schedule for 0.16.0 · Issue #11449 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
342 2018-01-11 19:24:30	0|MarcoFalke|Is #10387 a blocker for 0.16?
343 2018-01-11 19:24:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10387 | Eventually connect to NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED peers by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10387 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
344 2018-01-11 19:24:51	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: no... can go into 0.17 IMO
345 2018-01-11 19:24:53	0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: I don't know, let's discuss
346 2018-01-11 19:24:54	0|jonasschnelli|Or why would it be?
347 2018-01-11 19:25:00	0|jtimon|I thought the only blocker for 0.16 was #11403 ?
348 2018-01-11 19:25:03	0|BlueMatt|its pending on gmaxwell, just need his ack, I think
349 2018-01-11 19:25:05	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11403 | SegWit wallet support by sipa · Pull Request #11403 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
350 2018-01-11 19:25:34	0|BlueMatt|but, its def a "feature"
351 2018-01-11 19:25:39	0|jonasschnelli|10387 is independent from the BIP159 signalling.... connecting would be nice though, but includes some risks.. so no hurry with that
352 2018-01-11 19:25:40	0|BlueMatt|we're doing the bit announce on master already
353 2018-01-11 19:25:47	0|wumpus|ok moving it to 0.17
354 2018-01-11 19:25:49	0|BlueMatt|so thats ok for it to go 17
355 2018-01-11 19:26:14	0|jonasschnelli|Ah,.. did 10387 still had the 0.16 tag?, Yes. Needs a 0.17 then
356 2018-01-11 19:26:35	0|wumpus|that leaves 13 open things in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/30
357 2018-01-11 19:26:51	0|wumpus|(including the release notes and the release schedule itself)
358 2018-01-11 19:27:25	0|sipa|oops, i'm here
359 2018-01-11 19:27:33	0|BlueMatt|lol
360 2018-01-11 19:27:35	0|sipa|timezone confusion
361 2018-01-11 19:28:02	0|BlueMatt|sipa: plx comment on 11281
362 2018-01-11 19:28:03	0|jonasschnelli|we need a core meeting alarm/notification service
363 2018-01-11 19:28:12	0|BlueMatt|also pending segwit wallet work
364 2018-01-11 19:28:17	0|BlueMatt|whats still missing?
365 2018-01-11 19:28:19	0|meshcollider|Does anything actually need to be done for #11048
366 2018-01-11 19:28:20	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11048 | Weird gettransaction details on testnet with segwit · Issue #11048 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
367 2018-01-11 19:28:20	0|jonasschnelli|sipa, Bluemat refers to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11281/commits/b2cc7020956cfd36925e4957493cd28d1d6f672e
368 2018-01-11 19:28:41	0|provoostenator|How do I add myself to the fancy meeting username mention ping?
369 2018-01-11 19:28:55	0|instagibbs|gotta tip wumpus some bch
370 2018-01-11 19:29:24	0|achow101|lol
371 2018-01-11 19:29:24	0|meshcollider|instagibbs: lol
372 2018-01-11 19:29:25	0|sipa|yeah will do, on my phone in a bar now
373 2018-01-11 19:29:36	0|instagibbs|RWC?
374 2018-01-11 19:29:40	0|wumpus|instagibbs: please no, no need to threaten me, will add him :)
375 2018-01-11 19:29:52	0|sipa|instagibbs: yes
376 2018-01-11 19:30:19	0|BlueMatt|sipa: woke up in a bar?
377 2018-01-11 19:30:42	0|sipa|BlueMatt: just charged my phone  and saw your signal msg
378 2018-01-11 19:30:43	0|jonasschnelli|heh
379 2018-01-11 19:31:22	0|cfields|so apparrently BlueMatt is the core meeting alarm service
380 2018-01-11 19:31:26	0|instagibbs|provoostenator, what's the status of -qt PR for 0.16? I'm kind of out of it but am willing to test with my branch
381 2018-01-11 19:32:06	0|wumpus|any other topics?
382 2018-01-11 19:32:19	0|luke-jr|hi
383 2018-01-11 19:32:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kekimusmaximus opened pull request #12158: Avoid unnecessary copy of objects. (06master...06avoid_copies) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12158
384 2018-01-11 19:32:27	0|provoostenator|instagibbs: #11991
385 2018-01-11 19:32:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11991 | [qt] Receive: checkbox for bech32 address by Sjors · Pull Request #11991 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
386 2018-01-11 19:32:38	0|BlueMatt|lol, ok, everyone's here, start over now?
387 2018-01-11 19:32:39	0|luke-jr|#12146 should be tagged 0.16 too
388 2018-01-11 19:32:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12146 | Wallet: Support disabling implicit Segwit operation by luke-jr · Pull Request #12146 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
389 2018-01-11 19:32:57	0|provoostenator|Bit of discussion about the UI... but otherwise ready to go.
390 2018-01-11 19:33:04	0|gmaxwell|^ 11991 seems like an obvious and easy win.
391 2018-01-11 19:33:17	0|sipa|#11991
392 2018-01-11 19:33:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11991 | [qt] Receive: checkbox for bech32 address by Sjors · Pull Request #11991 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
393 2018-01-11 19:33:45	0|luke-jr|indeed, I'd also suggest the bech32 change thing
394 2018-01-11 19:34:21	0|gmaxwell|yes, the "use native change if destinations are native"?  I think that makes a lot of sense.
395 2018-01-11 19:34:24	0|luke-jr|#12119
396 2018-01-11 19:34:26	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12119 | [wallet] use bech32 change address if any destination is bech32 by Sjors · Pull Request #12119 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
397 2018-01-11 19:34:41	0|provoostenator|bech32 change thing needs a small refactor which I'll try to do tomorrow. But also has some discussion about which circumstances should trigger bech32 use. Please weigh in...
398 2018-01-11 19:34:48	0|wumpus|both 11991 and 12119 are already in the 0.16 milestone
399 2018-01-11 19:34:54	0|gmaxwell|The whole reason we didn't _always_ use native change was privacy, but if the outputs are native, then that same argument says we should use native.
400 2018-01-11 19:35:09	0|provoostenator|What about inputs?
401 2018-01-11 19:35:17	0|sipa|arguably you could just uniformly ranomly pick the address type of 1 of the inputs, and make the change that
402 2018-01-11 19:35:27	0|gmaxwell|provoostenator: I think they're irrelevant.
403 2018-01-11 19:35:41	0|wumpus|sipa: sounds like a plan
404 2018-01-11 19:35:47	0|gmaxwell|sipa: I don't think that makes any sense.
405 2018-01-11 19:35:53	0|provoostenator|As in: if any input or any output is bech32, use bech32, unless changeaddress param says otherwise. .... ok, why intput irrelevant?
406 2018-01-11 19:35:55	0|luke-jr|wumpus: 12146 isn't yet.
407 2018-01-11 19:36:10	0|gmaxwell|Why would it possibly be relevant in any way?
408 2018-01-11 19:36:10	0|wumpus|luke-jr: seems like that needs some more discussion
409 2018-01-11 19:36:14	0|instagibbs|we want to frustrate chain analysis, mimicking the payment as much as possible is ++
410 2018-01-11 19:36:19	0|promag|gmaxwell: what if someone wants 0.16 to behave like 0.15?
411 2018-01-11 19:36:39	0|luke-jr|wumpus: releasing Segwit wallet without it is a problem for people who don't want to use Segwit.
412 2018-01-11 19:36:43	0|provoostenator|We also want to reduce fees.
413 2018-01-11 19:36:50	0|gmaxwell|The only reason to not always use native, assuming you are using segwit to begin with in your wallet, is that it would make it easier to tell which of the outputs are change.
414 2018-01-11 19:36:56	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: define don't use?
415 2018-01-11 19:37:17	0|wumpus|luke-jr: just don't use the segwit address types then?
416 2018-01-11 19:37:18	0|gmaxwell|But that doesn't apply if the outputs (any of them, arguably) are native.
417 2018-01-11 19:37:20	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: never have a Segwit UTXO despite what anyone else may do
418 2018-01-11 19:37:25	0|provoostenator|So in other words, if you're spending from a bech32 address, there's no reason _not_ to use a native address as change?
419 2018-01-11 19:37:39	0|luke-jr|wumpus: without 12146, people can malleate your address and you'll never know
420 2018-01-11 19:37:40	0|gmaxwell|provoostenator: no!
421 2018-01-11 19:37:42	0|instagibbs|provoostenator, ??
422 2018-01-11 19:37:53	0|wumpus|is address malleation a thing now?
423 2018-01-11 19:37:59	0|provoostenator|It saves fees and there's no privacy downside, what am I missing?
424 2018-01-11 19:38:07	0|sipa|luke-jr: they can already
425 2018-01-11 19:38:12	0|gmaxwell|Again, inputs are irrelevant-- I can't figure out why you think inputs are at all relevant.
426 2018-01-11 19:38:12	0|jonasschnelli|provoostenator: he's worried about block size increase
427 2018-01-11 19:38:17	0|sipa|and have forever
428 2018-01-11 19:38:25	0|jonasschnelli|as sipa said,.. it was also possible by p2pk -> p2pkh
429 2018-01-11 19:38:27	0|luke-jr|sipa: with 12146, you would at least notice / not accept it
430 2018-01-11 19:38:37	0|sipa|luke-jr: why not? it's cheaper!
431 2018-01-11 19:38:38	0|jonasschnelli|s/was/is
432 2018-01-11 19:38:48	0|luke-jr|sipa: what?
433 2018-01-11 19:39:03	0|wumpus|would anyone use that at all, why would it be worth maintaining?
434 2018-01-11 19:39:12	0|sipa|you're lucky if someone sends you a witness output instead anyone of p2pkh
435 2018-01-11 19:39:14	0|jonasschnelli|I think luke-jr argument are more political/philosophical then technical/economical
436 2018-01-11 19:39:21	0|wumpus|it just complicates all kinds of logic
437 2018-01-11 19:39:29	0|gmaxwell|provoostenator: the privacy downside arises when your pay to a non-segwit destination.  If you pay a non-segwit destination but make a native output as change, then which of the outputs is change is far more easily identified.
438 2018-01-11 19:39:31	0|luke-jr|wumpus: because using Segwit enables miners to increase block size, and has no benefits for the current wallet.
439 2018-01-11 19:39:37	0|instagibbs|i think this is going to be another "no one else agrees" type argument, sorry luke-jr
440 2018-01-11 19:39:39	0|sipa|(i think it's really bad that we accept outputs to addresses we didn'√ give out)
441 2018-01-11 19:39:41	0|BlueMatt|provoostenator: its still a privacy leak, you're (probably) much, much more likely to use non-bech32 outputs as non-change, so irrespective of the inputs you'd be pretty clearly tagging your change output
442 2018-01-11 19:40:07	0|sipa|but it's not specific to segwit, and needs fixing independently
443 2018-01-11 19:40:08	0|instagibbs|simply not handing out those addresses should be enough... sender doesn't care if you want to spend more later
444 2018-01-11 19:40:10	0|BlueMatt|provoostenator: in fact, even worse, you're tagging it *because* your inputs are bech32 you're making clear that you support segwit in your wallet, so the bech32 output is *most likely* the change
445 2018-01-11 19:40:27	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: the sender can trick you into accepting Segwit without 12146
446 2018-01-11 19:40:28	0|wumpus|instagibbs: indeed
447 2018-01-11 19:40:36	0|instagibbs|luke-jr, worse, the sender *wont know* you don't implictly convert, leading to a orphaned utxo!
448 2018-01-11 19:40:37	0|wumpus|'trick you into accepting segwit'
449 2018-01-11 19:40:48	0|instagibbs|whatever jerk is doing that
450 2018-01-11 19:40:49	0|gmaxwell|But if the other outputs are native, then this issue doesn't exist.
451 2018-01-11 19:41:00	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: orphaned UTXO is exactly the expected outcome
452 2018-01-11 19:41:04	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: and that's his fault
453 2018-01-11 19:41:06	0|Chris_St1|so the debate is whether we are creating the change output as the same script type as the payment output in a two output scenario?
454 2018-01-11 19:41:07	0|instagibbs|.....
455 2018-01-11 19:41:11	0|wumpus|man, that sounds like it should be prosecuted as a war crime
456 2018-01-11 19:41:33	0|provoostenator|Alright, so rule should be: ignore inputs, if any output is bech32, use bech32 for change, unless setting overrides?
457 2018-01-11 19:41:37	0|luke-jr|Chris_St1: there's two parallel conversations going on here now :/
458 2018-01-11 19:41:49	0|provoostenator|luke-jr: yes, IRC needs threads
459 2018-01-11 19:42:10	0|wumpus|#topic when to use bech32 for change
460 2018-01-11 19:42:12	0|wumpus|^^
461 2018-01-11 19:42:13	0|meshcollider|provoostenator: yes that's most sensible
462 2018-01-11 19:42:16	0|BlueMatt|provoostenator: thats not a bad idea, imo
463 2018-01-11 19:42:17	0|Chris_St1|what about when there are more than two outputs? Or are we just worried about GUI?
464 2018-01-11 19:42:32	0|instagibbs|Chris_St1, privacy mostly
465 2018-01-11 19:42:38	0|gmaxwell|provoostenator: thats my belief.
466 2018-01-11 19:42:42	0|meshcollider|Was sipa suggestion of random choice serious or a joke
467 2018-01-11 19:42:44	0|provoostenator|Chris_St1: _any_ output, not _all_
468 2018-01-11 19:42:49	0|instagibbs|meshcollider, serious to me, makes sense
469 2018-01-11 19:43:01	0|gmaxwell|provoostenator: I think someone could reasonable argue that it should be "if a majority" rather than any.
470 2018-01-11 19:43:01	0|luke-jr|IMO any output makes sense.
471 2018-01-11 19:43:03	0|cfields|don't you lose the change privacy if there's a mix of segwit output types, though?
472 2018-01-11 19:43:04	0|meshcollider|Yeah was unsure if there's any downside
473 2018-01-11 19:43:10	0|wumpus|meshcollider: I think he was serious, it makes sense, less deterministic the change choice the better
474 2018-01-11 19:43:33	0|Chris_St1|instagibbs: yes, but what if you a 3 segwit payment outputs and 2 p2pkh payment outputs, what is the change type?
475 2018-01-11 19:43:37	0|cfields|if there's a p2wsh output and change goes to p2wpkh, that's obvious
476 2018-01-11 19:43:37	0|gmaxwell|I think "all" is obviously too strong.
477 2018-01-11 19:43:54	0|instagibbs|Chris_St1, arguments to be had. Could flip weighted coin, could just pick the cheapest to mimic
478 2018-01-11 19:44:01	0|instagibbs|(native)
479 2018-01-11 19:44:04	0|gmaxwell|cfields: "segwit" here means native.
480 2018-01-11 19:44:05	0|morcos|I don't think its worth going overboard with complication.   If you are super privacy conscious you can manually do what you want, otherwise we should make the default what makes sense for the network.
481 2018-01-11 19:44:12	0|morcos|So I like provoostenator's idea
482 2018-01-11 19:44:24	0|provoostenator|Chris_St1: bech32 in my proposal s well as the majority proposol (which I think it's a bit complicated...)
483 2018-01-11 19:44:29	0|Chris_St1|morcos: But that erodes the privacy of *everyone*. see zcash?
484 2018-01-11 19:44:59	0|morcos|Chris_St1: i don't think that analogy applies
485 2018-01-11 19:45:04	0|gmaxwell|Any is what I proposed on the PR, though I noted that "majority" would also be defensible.  Requiring all, or worse, not using native even if all are native is bad for privacy.
486 2018-01-11 19:45:07	0|BlueMatt|yea, majority-are-native or signle-is-native are both fine with me
487 2018-01-11 19:45:13	0|luke-jr|weighed random?
488 2018-01-11 19:45:31	0|gmaxwell|I think it's okay to bias some here towards the more cost effective form.
489 2018-01-11 19:45:37	0|morcos|well maybe, but thats why we're preservign some level of privacy...  in that we only use bech32 for change if we're paying at least one bech32 address
490 2018-01-11 19:45:38	0|instagibbs|hiding with other segwit wallets imo is your best bet anyways...
491 2018-01-11 19:45:38	0|wumpus|yes
492 2018-01-11 19:45:49	0|gmaxwell|also the difference between these things only matters for sendmany...
493 2018-01-11 19:45:52	0|provoostenator|luke-jr: I that would be a great way for me to demonstrate my C++ incompetence :-)
494 2018-01-11 19:46:26	0|jnewbery|any-output-is-native seems reasonable to me
495 2018-01-11 19:46:42	0|achow101|same
496 2018-01-11 19:46:43	0|gmaxwell|sipa: I think my suggestion was "unless configured that change should be legacy, change is native if any output is native".
497 2018-01-11 19:46:57	0|morcos|i think non-determinism in what kind of change address you have is just ick..  especially since the p2sh-wrapped kind is temporary
498 2018-01-11 19:47:00	0|provoostenator|As for luke-jr's point: having some flag to completely opt-out of SegWit seems reasonable to me.
499 2018-01-11 19:47:04	0|gmaxwell|(or if anyone felt that was too strong, change is native unless the majority is non-native; but it seems no one does)
500 2018-01-11 19:47:06	0|sipa|gmaxwell: and p2sh-p2wsh otherwise?
501 2018-01-11 19:47:14	0|gmaxwell|sipa: yes.
502 2018-01-11 19:47:20	0|sipa|makes snese
503 2018-01-11 19:47:36	0|Chris_Stewart_5|gmaxwell: by native you mean p2wpkh?
504 2018-01-11 19:47:42	0|gmaxwell|sipa: so if you set yourself to be legacy, you'll stay legacy regardless, in order to respect any weird requirement to avoid creating segwit outputs.
505 2018-01-11 19:48:09	0|instagibbs|morcos, if it has native change is native is entirely determinstic, luckily
506 2018-01-11 19:48:22	0|instagibbs|sorry, has native, comma, change is native
507 2018-01-11 19:48:53	0|gmaxwell|morcos: I think you were responding to things like "weighed random change types"
508 2018-01-11 19:49:03	0|morcos|correct
509 2018-01-11 19:49:07	0|BlueMatt|more topics?
510 2018-01-11 19:49:24	0|luke-jr|back to 12146?
511 2018-01-11 19:49:26	0|gmaxwell|yea, I could go for weighed-random change types if the choice were otherwise neutral, but it's not.
512 2018-01-11 19:49:33	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12118 | Sort mempool by min(feerate, ancestor_feerate) by sdaftuar · Pull Request #12118 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
513 2018-01-11 19:49:46	0|instagibbs|luke-jr, Creating utxo bloat to *slightly* reduce blocksize is weird weird feature to add imo
514 2018-01-11 19:49:51	0|instagibbs|(if we've transitioned)
515 2018-01-11 19:49:57	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: it's not UTXO bloat.
516 2018-01-11 19:50:10	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: nack, just use 0.15.1 and focus on the real fix of splitting hd chain
517 2018-01-11 19:50:11	0|instagibbs|the scenario here is that some joker pays you, and you don't want to spend it, right?
518 2018-01-11 19:50:25	0|morcos|+1 BlueMatt
519 2018-01-11 19:50:30	0|BlueMatt|alternatively, this could be accomplished by using labels/accounts
520 2018-01-11 19:50:40	0|BlueMatt|label addresses and then payments will show up without the labels
521 2018-01-11 19:50:44	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: more or less
522 2018-01-11 19:50:57	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: NACK, to myself and many others, mandatory Segwit wallet is a regression
523 2018-01-11 19:51:06	0|BlueMatt|then dont use 0.16
524 2018-01-11 19:51:15	0|luke-jr|so 0.15 is supported forever?
525 2018-01-11 19:51:20	0|gmaxwell|luke's argument is lame but there are other arguments for the position...  But I think it's ultimately futile.
526 2018-01-11 19:51:22	0|luke-jr|including new features?
527 2018-01-11 19:51:32	0|morcos|luke-jr: right, but thats basically the only feature, so just dont use it until we have the version that doesn't accept all variations of key encoding
528 2018-01-11 19:51:33	0|BlueMatt|if you want the option, do the real fix, not the dirty hack of working like 0.15.1
529 2018-01-11 19:51:33	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: by anyone who cares to support it
530 2018-01-11 19:51:37	0|instagibbs|This feature doesn't make any sense to me though.
531 2018-01-11 19:51:56	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: there isn't a better fix
532 2018-01-11 19:51:57	0|BlueMatt|(the real fix being splitting the hd chain so that we never identify as ours addresses other than the ones we gave out)
533 2018-01-11 19:52:08	0|morcos|^ it's in sipas gist
534 2018-01-11 19:52:11	0|achow101|luke-jr: the real fix is using different hd paths
535 2018-01-11 19:52:13	0|sipa|indeed.
536 2018-01-11 19:52:15	0|BlueMatt|which sipa proposed (I believe to much agreement) as the long-term route for the wallet
537 2018-01-11 19:52:16	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: that's more than a fix. :p
538 2018-01-11 19:52:17	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: it's very bad that we support showing funds paid to addresses we never issued.  It invites really bad behavior that can cause irrecoverable funds loss.   But the ship has already sailed on that.
539 2018-01-11 19:52:23	0|instagibbs|gmaxwell, no I get the issue
540 2018-01-11 19:52:31	0|instagibbs|I don't get his fix, it's one-sided
541 2018-01-11 19:52:39	0|gmaxwell|ah.
542 2018-01-11 19:52:56	0|morcos|we all agree to fixing that, what we don't care about is that we are temporarily makign it worse for the case of giving out legacy and receiving segwit
543 2018-01-11 19:52:57	0|instagibbs|sender has no clue you won't accept it!(outside of us wagging fingers to not try it)
544 2018-01-11 19:53:02	0|gmaxwell|Well thats because his motivation isn't one of the sensible ones, it's because he's discouraging people from using segwit to keep the blocksize down.
545 2018-01-11 19:53:11	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: it is more than a fix for your specific issue, but its much nicer and isnt ridiculous from a ux/maintainability perspective
546 2018-01-11 19:53:13	0|luke-jr|that is a sensible one
547 2018-01-11 19:53:16	0|BlueMatt|we dont need more options in the wallet...
548 2018-01-11 19:53:19	0|instagibbs|anyways, all i have to say. Let's fix the wallet.
549 2018-01-11 19:53:36	0|gmaxwell|I don't share his concern, but even if I did-- his fix isn't needed for it:  anyone autoconverting an address has a serious risk of funds loss already.
550 2018-01-11 19:53:42	0|provoostenator|luke-jr: what's wrong with launching with -addresstype=legacy?
551 2018-01-11 19:53:43	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: 12146 is trivial
552 2018-01-11 19:53:44	0|morcos|luke-jr: would it help if we we very publicly communicated that our philosophy is to not accept payments except for addresses which have been given out?
553 2018-01-11 19:53:45	0|wumpus|certainly not options that only exist for some political goal and no one will actually use nor test
554 2018-01-11 19:54:14	0|morcos|we discussed doing that when we were making this change, b/c we knew we'd be making things worse on that front, but we'd already crossed the bridge with addwitnessaddress
555 2018-01-11 19:54:18	0|luke-jr|provoostenator: the current code will still accept Segwit payments to malleated addresses
556 2018-01-11 19:54:19	0|morcos|and other variants
557 2018-01-11 19:54:26	0|BlueMatt|anyway, one more review on #12118 and slipping in past feature freeze would make me very happy...good to keep the march of performance improvements in block validation latency moving :)
558 2018-01-11 19:54:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12118 | Sort mempool by min(feerate, ancestor_feerate) by sdaftuar · Pull Request #12118 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
559 2018-01-11 19:54:42	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: your change isn't needed to prevent autoconverting. Anyone who 'autoconverts' will have casual funds loss due to converted outputs being unreconized by older software, and _unrecoverable loss_ due to uncompressed pubkeys and potentially HSMs.
560 2018-01-11 19:54:45	0|cfields|instagibbs: at best, if you wag your finger and I'm forced to re-send a non-witness tx, that's 2x the tx's for that interaction. Not doing much to reduce block size...
561 2018-01-11 19:55:09	0|provoostenator|luke-jr: oh, you mean someone sees the public key after you spend it and then figures out how to send to its SegWit equivalent? I'm not sure if that actually works, see my backwards compatibility test PR.
562 2018-01-11 19:55:14	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: that should be ample discouragement there.
563 2018-01-11 19:55:17	0|wumpus|morcos: would make sense to document that, though I wouldn't know where!
564 2018-01-11 19:55:28	0|instagibbs|cfields, what we need is a way of bloating the weight without taking up serialization space lol
565 2018-01-11 19:55:28	0|jnewbery|Doesn't seem to me like this needs to be discussed for v0.16 release. Luke can maintain his patch in knots and everyone is happy. And then we can reconsider 12146 for 0.16.1
566 2018-01-11 19:55:31	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: all the more reason to allow people to avoid accepting the attempts
567 2018-01-11 19:55:36	0|provoostenator|But I don't see the point in ignoring such a transaction. There's certainly no way to stop it.
568 2018-01-11 19:55:38	0|achow101|provoostenator: given a p2pkh address, you can easily make the p2wpkh output without needing to see a transaction
569 2018-01-11 19:55:39	0|morcos|We can use the @bitcoin twitter handle maybe
570 2018-01-11 19:55:48	0|meshcollider|provoostenator: you don't need the public key, segwit addresses use PKH too
571 2018-01-11 19:56:02	0|wumpus|but a warning against 'malleating' addresses would make sense, I mean it's bad form and just because bitcoin core happens to accept it doesn't mean other wallets do
572 2018-01-11 19:56:04	0|luke-jr|provoostenator: it's an invalid payment
573 2018-01-11 19:56:06	0|gmaxwell|And yes, as morocos said, we knew that our handling of segwit would increase the risk that someone falsely believed they could autoconvert.  It was a tradeoff we made, otherwise segwit support would be delayed behind a massive redesign.
574 2018-01-11 19:56:23	0|luke-jr|morcos: It would probably be good to do so, but I'm not sure it accomplishes the same thing
575 2018-01-11 19:56:41	0|luke-jr|also, you *can't* malleate right now
576 2018-01-11 19:56:41	0|morcos|yes, so lets spend our time doing the redesign and communicating our intentions
577 2018-01-11 19:56:43	0|cfields|instagibbs: heh
578 2018-01-11 19:56:50	0|morcos|you can do other forms of malleation
579 2018-01-11 19:56:53	0|BlueMatt|</topic>? It seems like everyone agrees outside of luke, and there is a *real* solution...also easy to not use 0.16 for now
580 2018-01-11 19:57:00	0|sipa|luke-jr: you can use p2pk instead of p2pkh
581 2018-01-11 19:57:05	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: yes, any other topics?
582 2018-01-11 19:57:07	0|Chris_Stewart_5|PSA: if anyone is interested in talking more about #12131 or #12132 there is a development channel that some work has been occurring in: #bitcoin-mast
583 2018-01-11 19:57:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12131 | [BIP-98 + BIP-116] MERKLEBRANCHVERIFY by kallewoof · Pull Request #12131 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
584 2018-01-11 19:57:11	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12132 | [BIP-117] Tail call semantics by kallewoof · Pull Request #12132 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
585 2018-01-11 19:57:12	0|luke-jr|sipa: only if you know the key, which only the recipient does
586 2018-01-11 19:57:12	0|wumpus|oh 3 minutes to go
587 2018-01-11 19:57:28	0|morcos|aren't those a bit premature for PR's?
588 2018-01-11 19:57:29	0|arubi|sipa, then I'll trick you into accepting some big bare n-of-m with a bunch of pubkeys
589 2018-01-11 19:57:30	0|achow101|luke-jr: you can malleate it to a p2sh nested p2pkh
590 2018-01-11 19:57:34	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I think it's adequate enough to let people know that if they do that, they _will_ lose funds, its effectively a guarentee.  some switch to willfully ignore the outputs in a recoverable way wouldn't help that message at all.
591 2018-01-11 19:57:37	0|arubi|(all of yours)
592 2018-01-11 19:57:41	0|gmaxwell|and basically no one but you would set it.
593 2018-01-11 19:57:41	0|morcos|is there any consensus at all around wanting those features?
594 2018-01-11 19:57:52	0|luke-jr|achow101: nope, pretty sure we won't accept that without adding it to the wallet explicitly
595 2018-01-11 19:58:09	0|sipa|achow101: as luke-jr says
596 2018-01-11 19:58:15	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: I don't agree only I would set it.
597 2018-01-11 19:58:25	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: you can malleat addresses now fwiw, this is a long term design flaw in the wallet.
598 2018-01-11 19:58:32	0|gmaxwell|oh sipa pointed that out too
599 2018-01-11 19:58:39	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: but you can't, as I pointed out
600 2018-01-11 19:58:40	0|wumpus|there's not really incentive for anyone to set a 'ignore some payments to me' setting, real user complaints are about not receiving payments...
601 2018-01-11 19:58:41	0|Chris_Stewart_5|morcos: I would say they are premature -- but I think they are definitely worht exploring more
602 2018-01-11 19:58:41	0|instagibbs|you can send people naked multisig...
603 2018-01-11 19:58:42	0|instagibbs|lol
604 2018-01-11 19:58:52	0|Chris_Stewart_5|if that was directed at me
605 2018-01-11 19:58:56	0|sipa|instagibbs: indeed
606 2018-01-11 19:58:59	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: !
607 2018-01-11 19:59:03	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: something like 80% of addresses are reused...
608 2018-01-11 19:59:06	0|arubi|and with a bunch of pubkeys
609 2018-01-11 19:59:19	0|morcos|Chris_Stewart_5: yes...  i just wasnt sure if i was behind the times...
610 2018-01-11 19:59:27	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: unsupported use case, not relevant to the discussion, but instagibbs found an example case
611 2018-01-11 19:59:28	0|gmaxwell|as wumpus says, the incentives are against setting that knob.
612 2018-01-11 19:59:40	0|instagibbs|I guess that's another argument, there are tons of ways of malleating it, let's just fix the wallet instead.
613 2018-01-11 19:59:42	0|Chris_Stewart_5|morcos: Also why we should discuss the development in a separate channel IMO as it is a little speculative still
614 2018-01-11 19:59:44	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: also thanks to some exchanges that have a limit on the number of deposit addresses
615 2018-01-11 19:59:46	0|sipa|instagibbs: indeed
616 2018-01-11 20:00:07	0|sipa|DING
617 2018-01-11 20:00:10	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
618 2018-01-11 20:00:11	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-01-11-19.00.log.html
619 2018-01-11 20:00:11	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Jan 11 20:00:10 2018 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
620 2018-01-11 20:00:11	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-01-11-19.00.html
621 2018-01-11 20:00:11	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-01-11-19.00.txt
622 2018-01-11 20:00:50	0|gmaxwell|Yea, thats my point: regardless of any willfully-ignore-naughty-payments-knob  other vectors exist... and if someone does segwit convert random stuff, they're going to lose funds in an unrecoverable way.
623 2018-01-11 20:01:28	0|meshcollider|Since when do all PR mentions get added to the minutes
624 2018-01-11 20:01:43	0|achow101|I don't think any wallet that people use actually does that sort of conversion. It would have to be someone either being malicious or using their own faulty software
625 2018-01-11 20:02:05	0|gmaxwell|achow101: no of course not, it will immediately cause unrecoverable funds loss.
626 2018-01-11 20:02:20	0|luke-jr|so outcome of conversation: I consider it reasonable to not have 12146 (so I won't be too upset if it doesn't get in), but not quite so reasonable to reject it for no reason (so I will be disappointed).
627 2018-01-11 20:02:32	0|gmaxwell|achow101: one of the concerns we had with the design we used here is we chose a design where it will sometimes work... and this may encourage someone to try it with the belief that it always works.
628 2018-01-11 20:03:09	0|gmaxwell|achow101: which is unfortunate, but no option was great.
629 2018-01-11 20:03:30	0|luke-jr|btw, if someone can quickly unlock #11403 for conversation, I'd like to Post-merge utACK it
630 2018-01-11 20:03:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11403 | SegWit wallet support by sipa · Pull Request #11403 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
631 2018-01-11 20:03:52	0|meshcollider|Yeah why can't all members comment on locked PRs/issues
632 2018-01-11 20:04:06	0|achow101|meshcollider: you need to have write access to the repo
633 2018-01-11 20:04:11	0|achow101|which means you could commit
634 2018-01-11 20:04:13	0|gmaxwell|achow101: and an opt out knob really doesn't educate people more:  The issue with it working at all is people incorrectly thinking that they can do it and people can collect their funds simply by upgrading.  Adding a knob would make it so that they falsely believed people could collect their funds simply by flipping the knob back.
635 2018-01-11 20:04:25	0|gmaxwell|achow101: when in reality some people are still using uncompressed keys...
636 2018-01-11 20:04:28	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: lol no? outcome is consider it as-is unreasonable, but if you want to fix the broader issue, sounds great!
637 2018-01-11 20:04:43	0|gmaxwell|meshcollider: github sucks.
638 2018-01-11 20:04:51	0|achow101|gmaxwell: oh yeah, uncompressed keys. that would be a problem
639 2018-01-11 20:04:59	0|gmaxwell|achow101: or HSMs.
640 2018-01-11 20:05:07	0|achow101|lol, armory has that problem...
641 2018-01-11 20:05:18	0|gmaxwell|Someone could have their key potted in a hardware device where it can never be exported.. and which can't sign segwit style.
642 2018-01-11 20:07:12	0|gmaxwell|when we talked about our style of segwit support, the concern was raised that because conversion would sometimes work it might cause fools and madmen to think it always works...  Unfortunately, we didn't really have any good alternative for segwit support.  Among other reasons backwards supporting the addwitnessaddress stuff more or less required us to go this route for now.
643 2018-01-11 20:09:49	0|gmaxwell|also geesh, please don't call someone manipulating your address malleation.
644 2018-01-11 20:10:17	0|wumpus|bitcoiners like to overload words with as many as possible different meanings
645 2018-01-11 20:10:18	0|gmaxwell|We already have far too many morons out there confused due to existing reuse of the word.
646 2018-01-11 20:10:35	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: what do we call it then?
647 2018-01-11 20:11:02	0|luke-jr|mutilation? :p
648 2018-01-11 20:11:43	0|gmaxwell|Conversion? I dunno. though the surrounding issues could also arise without any conversion.
649 2018-01-11 20:12:37	0|gmaxwell|For example, a wallet could plausably not scan for any change outputs because it knows all that it creates.  If I go find one of your prior change addresses and pay it there is no reason to think the wallet would ever see it.  ... and in existing software (e.g. bitcoin core) the payment wouldn't show up even if it did see the funds.
650 2018-01-11 20:12:38	0|meshcollider|Hmm achow101 all branches are protected so then write access still does not allow members to push to them without explicit permission right?
651 2018-01-11 20:13:08	0|wumpus|meshcollider: correct
652 2018-01-11 20:13:37	0|achow101|meshcollider: oh!
653 2018-01-11 20:13:48	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: AFAIK there is no common term for "someone attempted to 'pay me' by digging a hole in by back yard and leaving an envelope of money in it"... because outside of bitcoin no one is that @#$@# stupid. :)
654 2018-01-11 20:14:13	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: conversion is too innocent-sounding IMO
655 2018-01-11 20:14:25	0|achow101|write access means you can also tag things
656 2018-01-11 20:14:26	0|instagibbs|gmaxwell, IsChange logic is also kind loopy...
657 2018-01-11 20:14:33	0|luke-jr|anyway, gotta run
658 2018-01-11 20:15:11	0|cfields|out of curiosity, how to handle this with segwit v1? enforce incompatibility with all previous witness versions?
659 2018-01-11 20:15:42	0|sipa|cfields: have split chains first
660 2018-01-11 20:15:48	0|gmaxwell|every address type should be its own chain.
661 2018-01-11 20:15:54	0|sipa|that ^
662 2018-01-11 20:16:06	0|gmaxwell|so you just wouldn't see such a payment.
663 2018-01-11 20:16:44	0|cfields|right, ok
664 2018-01-11 20:16:49	0|meshcollider|achow101: that could be a benefit :) but no I guess write access is too potent still
665 2018-01-11 20:16:59	0|gmaxwell|that would have been the prefered path for segwit wallet support, but it requires much more major changes _AND_ isn't compatible with the addwitness stuff people were already doing.
666 2018-01-11 20:17:22	0|gmaxwell|meshcollider: part of the problem with that too is that github might randomly stir what 'write access' could do at any time.
667 2018-01-11 20:18:03	0|meshcollider|gmaxwell: mhm true, the permission system doesn't seem very flexible
668 2018-01-11 20:18:16	0|cfields|petertod1: ping. Is there any canonical format for an opentimestamps proof?
669 2018-01-11 20:18:53	0|gmaxwell|github in general has a lot of anti features.
670 2018-01-11 20:20:17	0|gmaxwell|there was some thread on reddit where one group of ignorant people was screaming at another group of ignorant people with at claim that 0.16 wouldn't be out for a year because some random and usless github milestone "percentage" page said such and such.
671 2018-01-11 20:20:51	0|meshcollider|Heh
672 2018-01-11 20:22:54	0|provoostenator|gmaxwell: I really like Github's code review UI, except that it doesn't email the full thread if someone says "fixed" in response to inline comment.
673 2018-01-11 20:23:25	0|gmaxwell|the code review has gotten better at least.
674 2018-01-11 20:23:36	0|provoostenator|Github also completely breaks down if a PR or issue becomes political.
675 2018-01-11 20:24:20	0|gmaxwell|not just 'political' but linked to on any part of the internet mostly populated by idiots.
676 2018-01-11 20:24:32	0|provoostenator|It was almost impossible to have a sane discussion about replay protection on the btc1 repo; you'd have 3 people making serious arguments and 100 ranting comments from others, including from people who do write code.
677 2018-01-11 20:24:36	0|gmaxwell|god help anyone who gets their repository linked in a youtube comment.
678 2018-01-11 20:25:18	0|provoostenator|I suppose "political" is a euphemism for  "linked to on any part of the internet mostly populated by idiots"
679 2018-01-11 20:25:19	0|Chris_Stewart_5|lol
680 2018-01-11 20:25:39	0|gmaxwell|They're highly correlated at least. :)
681 2018-01-11 20:26:08	0|provoostenator|I sometimes tweet out PR's; haven't seen too negative results for the Core ones, but I would think twice doing that for anything contentious.
682 2018-01-11 20:28:31	0|gmaxwell|I'm not sure about any of your tweets, but sometimes it does.
683 2018-01-11 20:28:58	0|gmaxwell|e.g. the announcements re the merge of the segwit PR inspired a half dozen really nasty comments on that PR (which people just deleted)
684 2018-01-11 20:33:42	0|provoostenator|I only have 1.5K followers and anyone who SegWit has probably unfollowed me by now.
685 2018-01-11 20:33:58	0|provoostenator|*who hates
686 2018-01-11 20:37:53	0|provoostenator|gmaxwell: I'm guessing from the replies it was this tweet that attracted those folks: https://twitter.com/theonevortex/status/951479475908194304
687 2018-01-11 20:43:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kekimusmaximus opened pull request #12159: Use the character based overload for std::string::find. (06master...06use_char_overload_find) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12159
688 2018-01-11 20:49:23	0|gmaxwell|I probably should have brought up #11739 during the meetings.
689 2018-01-11 20:49:25	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11739 | RFC: Enforce SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH and SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS from genesis by sdaftuar · Pull Request #11739 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
690 2018-01-11 20:58:06	0|promag|late suggestion, but how about -changetype=auto? (being that the default)
691 2018-01-11 21:30:13	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: I think you broke on rebase of #11281 - you deleted the pwallet->UpdateTimeFirstKey(1); call in importprivkey
692 2018-01-11 21:30:17	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11281 | Avoid permanent cs_main/cs_wallet lock during RescanFromTime by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #11281 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
693 2018-01-11 21:35:47	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12118 | Sort mempool by min(feerate, ancestor_feerate) by sdaftuar · Pull Request #12118 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
694 2018-01-11 21:37:30	0|instagibbs|provoostenator, I think we have different definitions of actionable, haha
695 2018-01-11 21:56:21	0|sipa|instagibbs: is "cheaper" actionable? (just trying to understand your definition)
696 2018-01-11 22:04:03	0|instagibbs|sipa, of course it is, but the comment was about privacy(which we agree users won't be able to act on)
697 2018-01-11 22:05:52	0|sipa|instagibbs: i'm confused
698 2018-01-11 22:06:17	0|sipa|instagibbs: how is "cheaper" actionable but "better privacy" isn't?
699 2018-01-11 22:06:45	0|instagibbs|the language says "may" or somesuch, and if the user googles, or whatever, they'll find nothing. I *guess* the could just get scared and never set it.
700 2018-01-11 22:06:54	0|instagibbs|so I take it back, whatever, it's just a super verbose message imo
701 2018-01-11 22:07:21	0|sipa|instagibbs: oh no disagreement that it's too verbose
702 2018-01-11 22:07:53	0|instagibbs|also if uptake is quick(doubt, but possible) that users will be confronted with the message and go the wrong direction
703 2018-01-11 22:08:25	0|instagibbs|i think release notes might be the best place
704 2018-01-11 22:14:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #12166: [docs] Clarify -walletdir usage (06master...06clarify_walletdir_usage) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12166
705 2018-01-11 22:20:35	0|sipa|instagibbs: agree
706 2018-01-11 22:28:13	0|promag|block index skiplist and GetAncestor don't require any lock right? it's computed before a blockindex is given out?
707 2018-01-11 22:32:12	0|sipa|promag: indeed
708 2018-01-11 22:32:29	0|sipa|every CBlockIndex has those permanently set
709 2018-01-11 22:32:30	0|promag|ty
710 2018-01-11 22:43:09	0|BlueMatt|promag: re: #11041: why do you want to use LookupBlockIndex inside CChainState?
711 2018-01-11 22:43:12	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11041 | Add LookupBlockIndex by promag · Pull Request #11041 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
712 2018-01-11 22:43:22	0|promag|BlueMatt: hold on there
713 2018-01-11 22:43:27	0|promag|I'll make it const
714 2018-01-11 22:43:36	0|BlueMatt|please dont do that in the same pr :(
715 2018-01-11 22:43:44	0|BlueMatt|dont really want to delay it further
716 2018-01-11 22:43:49	0|promag|and in validation.cpp just use mapBlockIndex directly
717 2018-01-11 22:43:50	0|BlueMatt|unless you want to make things more scripted-diff...
718 2018-01-11 22:43:59	0|BlueMatt|no, not validation.cpp, CChainState
719 2018-01-11 22:44:11	0|BlueMatt|outside of CChainState should all be const CBlockIndex, even in validation.cpp
720 2018-01-11 22:44:17	0|BlueMatt|but that may not be trivially possible quite yet
721 2018-01-11 22:45:23	0|BlueMatt|promag: you saw my outstanding pr to constify them with scritped-diffs, right? You're welcome to replace it if you want, but no use duplicating effort wholesale...
722 2018-01-11 22:46:13	0|BlueMatt|promag: also, generally, that pr is already one giant commit that does like 3 things....please try to script what you can and cut it down
723 2018-01-11 22:46:24	0|promag|+1
724 2018-01-11 22:51:25	0|promag|curiosity, an off chain block could have 0 confirmations, why -1?
725 2018-01-11 23:52:56	0|promag|gmaxwell: "it's a mistake to say "bech32" -- there is no address involved with change"
726 2018-01-11 23:53:55	0|promag|listunspent includes changes right? what will be "address" for change utxo?
727 2018-01-11 23:56:10	0|sipa|yes, bech32
728 2018-01-11 23:56:33	0|gmaxwell|promag: you're missing my point. One can use scripts which no address can be defined.
729 2018-01-11 23:56:38	0|gmaxwell|er s/can be/is/
730 2018-01-11 23:56:52	0|sipa|but if bech32 didn't exist, there would just be no way to show an address for such outputs, but they would have been totally possible to use
731 2018-01-11 23:56:59	0|gmaxwell|And if there were no bech32 defined we still could be using p2wpkh as change.
732 2018-01-11 23:57:15	0|gmaxwell|The fact that there is an address is incidental.
733 2018-01-11 23:58:00	0|gmaxwell|There are also other address encodings for that same script, e.g. BIP142 (though hopefully no one uses them)
734 2018-01-11 23:58:40	0|sipa|for certain types of addresses there even exist no address that can be derived from the output (e.g. ECDH based constructions like stealth addresses or CT)
735 2018-01-11 23:59:18	0|sipa|listunspent would just be unable to show an address for such outputs