1 2018-03-15 00:50:26	0|eklitzke|if you notice anyone on github opening issues about corrupted chainstate databases (i know this is a fairly common issue for people to open), direct them to #12690 and ask them to compile bitcoin with the new leveldb error log messages which are in master now
  2 2018-03-15 00:50:27	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12690 | LevelDB "corrupted compressed block contents" errors · Issue #12690 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  3 2018-03-15 01:19:04	0|adiabat|not sure if this is a known bug: in the qt UI, the IBD window thing says "blocks left: unknown (syncing headers)"
  4 2018-03-15 01:19:35	0|adiabat|but it's not; it's downloading blocks according to debug.log.  Also the other fields in the UI seem fine and are updating
  5 2018-03-15 01:20:57	0|adiabat|the bottom progress bar also says "syncing headers (99.9%)" but if I mouse-over the bar it pops up the actual height it's gotten to
  6 2018-03-15 01:27:52	0|adiabat|I clicked hide, then clicked the sync icon to bring it back up and it works normally, showing blocks left.  so whatever...
  7 2018-03-15 02:31:03	0|eklitzke|sipa: when you were doing the -fsanitize=address stuff, did you have to rebuild all of the libraries (boost, db4, etc.) with that flag enabled as well?
  8 2018-03-15 02:34:11	0|eklitzke|asking because when i enable it all of the autoconf tests for the third party libs fail
  9 2018-03-15 02:35:57	0|luke-jr|eklitzke: at least one of the sanitizers is documented to require it
 10 2018-03-15 02:37:25	0|sipa|eklitzke: i believe not
 11 2018-03-15 02:37:49	0|sipa|i think only one of the sanitizes needs it
 12 2018-03-15 03:13:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15eklitzke opened pull request #12692: Add configure options for various -fsanitize flags (06master...06sanitize) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12692
 13 2018-03-15 05:49:55	0|SWXRU2cjac|THIS IS A FREENODE BREAKING NEWS ALERT!! Hitechcg AND opal ARE GOING AT IT RIGHT NOW WITH A LOT OF FIGHTING AND ARGUING WOW YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!! TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION...AGAIN TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION!!
 14 2018-03-15 05:49:55	0|SWXRU2cjac|THIS IS A FREENODE BREAKING NEWS ALERT!! Hitechcg AND opal ARE GOING AT IT RIGHT NOW WITH A LOT OF FIGHTING AND ARGUING WOW YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!! TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION...AGAIN TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION!!
 15 2018-03-15 05:49:55	0|SWXRU2cjac|THIS IS A FREENODE BREAKING NEWS ALERT!! Hitechcg AND opal ARE GOING AT IT RIGHT NOW WITH A LOT OF FIGHTING AND ARGUING WOW YOU DON'T WANT TO MISS THIS!! TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION...AGAIN TYPE /JOIN ## TO SEE THE ACTION!!
 16 2018-03-15 05:49:59	0|SWXRU2cjac|pyericz Murch dafunkiz_ sanada justanotheruser kryptopraxis Victorsueca ProfMac_ lnostdal TheRec murrayn CubicEarths dabura667 jojeyh weez17 booyah rafalcpp byteideas ossifrage HFRadical owowo meshcollider contrapumpkin arbitrary_guy LeMiner nullptr| harrymm ken2812221 opdenkamp Megumiin adiabat BashCo_ Deacyde intcat vicenteH qrest Sinclair6 karelb unholymachine dermoth arowser Evel-Knievel sdaftuar jnewbery zivl arubi ghost43 mariorz BGL rya
 17 2018-03-15 05:50:34	0|jojeyh|wtf
 18 2018-03-15 06:10:58	0|dafunkiz_|?
 19 2018-03-15 06:15:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15drewx2 opened pull request #12693: Remove unused variable in SortForBlock (06master...06unused-sort-for-block-param) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12693
 20 2018-03-15 06:45:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15achow101 opened pull request #12694: Actually disable BnB when there are preset inputs (06master...06fix-preset-coins-bnb) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12694
 21 2018-03-15 06:53:16	0|achow101|eklitzke: I'll write a test for that later. It's 3 AM for me right now and I kinda want to sleep
 22 2018-03-15 06:55:10	0|eklitzke|fair
 23 2018-03-15 10:28:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof closed pull request #10386: [WIP] [wallet] Optional '-avoidreuse' flag which defaults to not reusing addresses in sends (06master...06feature-white-black-address) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10386
 24 2018-03-15 10:29:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof closed pull request #10585: [WIP] PoW connection slots (06master...06pow-connection-slots) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10585
 25 2018-03-15 10:30:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15kallewoof closed pull request #10877: [rpc] Verbose flags for chaining and scripting (06master...06verbose-flagging) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10877
 26 2018-03-15 12:20:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15eklitzke opened pull request #12695: [build] Fix some strange behavior with --enable-debug (06master...06enabledebug) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12695
 27 2018-03-15 14:19:39	0|GAit|While doing some regtesting I've noticed that the mempool returned by getrawmempool is sometimes a subset of what I expect if core is processing a block while I ask, even if getbestblockhash returns the same blockhash prior and post getting the rawmempool. Is this known/expected behavior?
 28 2018-03-15 14:21:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15eklitzke opened pull request #12696: Fix possible data race when committing block files (06master...06fsync) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12696
 29 2018-03-15 16:06:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e057589dc67f...947c25ead21a
 30 2018-03-15 16:06:49	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14152b7fb 15James O'Beirne: [tests] Add a (failing) test for waitforblockheight...
 31 2018-03-15 16:06:49	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f98b543 15James O'Beirne: Only call NotifyBlockTip when the active chain changes...
 32 2018-03-15 16:06:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14947c25e 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12431: Only call NotifyBlockTip when chainActive changes...
 33 2018-03-15 16:07:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12431: Only call NotifyBlockTip when chainActive changes (06master...06jamesob/2018-02-prevent-bad-latestblock) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12431
 34 2018-03-15 16:20:15	0|instagibbs|murchandamus, any notion on whether single random draw should prune after hitting it's required value?
 35 2018-03-15 16:21:23	0|instagibbs|scan the list again, try to remove items and stay above thresh. I have a hunch that any gain of "more distributed" output values from pure draw are outweighed by spending an addition utxo *now*
 36 2018-03-15 17:18:52	0|promag|wumpus: on #12624 s/0.15/0.17?
 37 2018-03-15 17:18:53	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12624 | Release schedule for 0.17.0 · Issue #12624 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 38 2018-03-15 17:19:16	0|wumpus|?
 39 2018-03-15 17:19:27	0|promag|in the issue description
 40 2018-03-15 17:19:43	0|promag|"Finalize and close translations for 0.15"
 41 2018-03-15 17:19:47	0|wumpus|that's correct
 42 2018-03-15 17:19:52	0|promag|oh
 43 2018-03-15 17:20:12	0|promag|ok sorry
 44 2018-03-15 17:21:29	0|instagibbs|how many hours/minutes until dev meeting? clock change in US...
 45 2018-03-15 17:22:31	0|sipa|instagibbs: 98
 46 2018-03-15 17:22:42	0|wumpus|$ date -u -> Thu Mar 15 17:22:05 UTC 2018 -> 1 hour and 8 minutes
 47 2018-03-15 17:22:48	0|wumpus|eh 38
 48 2018-03-15 17:43:08	0|instagibbs|Core wallet currently orders inputs based on the CInputCoin ordering, which orders in non-descending order via COutPoint... wouldn't it be better to shuffle for privacy?
 49 2018-03-15 17:43:14	0|instagibbs|or are other wallets doing this as well
 50 2018-03-15 17:53:35	0|sipa|instagibbs: it doesn't shuffle? :o
 51 2018-03-15 17:54:03	0|instagibbs|nope, it uses std::set which uses, I believe, the comparator of the underlying type
 52 2018-03-15 17:54:10	0|instagibbs|based on my internetting
 53 2018-03-15 17:54:24	0|instagibbs|either way it's definitely not shuffled
 54 2018-03-15 17:56:02	0|Murch|instagibbs, sipa: Wouldn't it be fine if they were sorted by outpoint?
 55 2018-03-15 17:56:30	0|instagibbs|Murch, I'm not particularly bothered, provided it's a standard thing wallets do. I assumed everything was shuffled
 56 2018-03-15 17:57:13	0|Murch|The thing that you would want to obfuscate, is the order in which they were picked, or when they come from different wallets and such. If they'd all be ordered by the outpoint that would still be obfuscated
 57 2018-03-15 17:57:34	0|instagibbs|it's saying "I'm a Core wallet!" unless others do it as well
 58 2018-03-15 17:57:52	0|instagibbs|Slowly hoping we can stop announcing that so much :)
 59 2018-03-15 17:57:53	0|gmaxwell|I'd rather it sorted by script pubkey.
 60 2018-03-15 17:58:09	0|gmaxwell|(ignoring the consideration of distinguishability vs other software)
 61 2018-03-15 17:58:29	0|GAit|please ignore my comment above re: bestblockhash and getrawmempool, looks like i got confused
 62 2018-03-15 17:58:32	0|wumpus|instagibbs: as there is no common standard between wallets how to do those things, I suppose all software is pretty distinguishable
 63 2018-03-15 17:58:59	0|gmaxwell|(the reason for scriptpubkey is that we came up with a compact encoding that is much smaller when spk's are reused in adjcent outputs)
 64 2018-03-15 17:59:51	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: I would think that encoding would be detrimental since it encourages reuse
 65 2018-03-15 18:00:11	0|instagibbs|luke-jr, doesn't make anything cheaper for wallet though
 66 2018-03-15 18:00:16	0|luke-jr|at the very least, though, I'd think we should use a std::unordered_set
 67 2018-03-15 18:00:58	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: not relevant; it encourages reuse because many people DO care about the health of the network
 68 2018-03-15 18:01:19	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: it doesn't encourage it.
 69 2018-03-15 18:01:28	0|gmaxwell|it's not like you pay lower fees due to it.
 70 2018-03-15 18:01:35	0|instagibbs|luke-jr, nuking your own privacy is a larger negative :/
 71 2018-03-15 18:01:44	0|instagibbs|imo
 72 2018-03-15 18:01:45	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: hopefully
 73 2018-03-15 18:01:48	0|instagibbs|own and others*
 74 2018-03-15 18:02:07	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: but some people already do it, so apparently not a large enough negative
 75 2018-03-15 18:02:26	0|luke-jr|there's no reason to optimise reuse; in the ideal situation, it does nothing useful; in the worse situation, it's harmful
 76 2018-03-15 18:02:27	0|sipa|how does it encourage reuse?
 77 2018-03-15 18:02:35	0|instagibbs|anyways, I'll open an issue, since I found it surprising
 78 2018-03-15 18:03:12	0|Randolf|Hello.
 79 2018-03-15 18:03:26	0|sipa|i think they should be randomly ordered
 80 2018-03-15 18:03:54	0|sipa|we can't guess what other wallets are doing, but a random sort will at least sometimes be indistinguishable from others
 81 2018-03-15 18:04:03	0|wumpus|yes, why not
 82 2018-03-15 18:04:36	0|wumpus|there seems to be no reason to *not* randomly order inputs, at least with SIGHASH_ALL
 83 2018-03-15 18:04:48	0|luke-jr|Randolf: hi (you're an hour early)
 84 2018-03-15 18:04:57	0|Randolf|I am?
 85 2018-03-15 18:05:03	0|sipa|timezones are confusing
 86 2018-03-15 18:05:09	0|Randolf|Oh, I'm in Pacific Time.
 87 2018-03-15 18:05:13	0|sipa|the meeting is 8pm UTC
 88 2018-03-15 18:05:15	0|luke-jr|everyone should switch to tonal time ;)
 89 2018-03-15 18:05:20	0|sipa|or 7pm?
 90 2018-03-15 18:05:26	0|wumpus|7
 91 2018-03-15 18:05:39	0|Randolf|I've heard that Decimal Time is quite good -- only 10 hours in a day, 100 minutes per hours, but the seconds are a bit strange.
 92 2018-03-15 18:05:55	0|luke-jr|Randolf: that's pretty insane,  not good :P
 93 2018-03-15 18:06:01	0|instagibbs|I can PR, it seems strictly better to shuffle imo, I've never heard of this COutPoint ordering used anywhere else
 94 2018-03-15 18:07:30	0|wumpus|instagibbs: ok
 95 2018-03-15 18:08:52	0|Murch|Randolf: If your calendar supports it, you can just set the event's time to the 7pm UTC, and it'll automatically fix weird shifts like that for you. ;)
 96 2018-03-15 18:09:16	0|sipa|Protip: Iceland is always on UTC
 97 2018-03-15 18:09:32	0|luke-jr|Murch: (and put the meeting overlapping with picking kids up at school, it seems)
 98 2018-03-15 18:09:38	0|jcorgan|protip: if your calendar doesn't support UTC as a time zone, setting it to Iceland
 99 2018-03-15 18:09:57	0|jcorgan|heh
100 2018-03-15 18:10:07	0|gribble|Error: "hi5" is not a valid command.
101 2018-03-15 18:10:07	0|luke-jr|sadly, Florida just voted to make DST permanent/year-round, so this is going to be a persistent issue for me :x
102 2018-03-15 18:10:07	0|sipa|!hi5 jcorgan
103 2018-03-15 18:10:20	0|sipa|luke-jr: which apprently violates federal law
104 2018-03-15 18:10:25	0|Randolf|Murch:  Thanks.
105 2018-03-15 18:10:26	0|luke-jr|sipa: ⁈
106 2018-03-15 18:10:31	0|Murch|Getting rid of summertime would be great.
107 2018-03-15 18:10:47	0|jcorgan|getting rid of timezones would be great
108 2018-03-15 18:10:53	0|sipa|luke-jr: states apparently have a right to choose whether they adopt DST or not, but not what timezone they are in
109 2018-03-15 18:11:10	0|luke-jr|sipa: so how does choosing to adopt DST year-round violate federal law? :P
110 2018-03-15 18:11:43	0|CubicEarths|Obviously solution - Set the meeting for a block height :)
111 2018-03-15 18:12:02	0|luke-jr|CubicEarths: that would be a bit chaotic, but maybe fun for a few meetings
112 2018-03-15 18:12:31	0|luke-jr|(and probably super annoying after a few)
113 2018-03-15 18:12:32	0|jcorgan|miner incentives to delay or advance core mtgs :)
114 2018-03-15 18:13:43	0|luke-jr|perhaps I'll learn to go to school early with a laptop, and join the meeting from there ;)
115 2018-03-15 18:14:46	0|instagibbs|yes you creeping around the school parking lot with a laptop wont sound any alarms
116 2018-03-15 18:14:52	0|luke-jr|lol
117 2018-03-15 18:15:22	0|luke-jr|I'll need to get the wifi password from them first anyway
118 2018-03-15 18:15:25	0|wumpus|I wouldn't mind moving it an hour earlier or later, but whatever time is chosen it's probably inconvenient to someone, and for the people in aus/asia it won't help
119 2018-03-15 18:16:27	0|wumpus|CubicEarths: I guess that would be 'fair' for some definitions of fair, but hard to plan for :)
120 2018-03-15 18:17:20	0|luke-jr|if we had more eastern devs, it might be "fair" to just shift it by 8 hours every week
121 2018-03-15 18:18:48	0|wumpus|yes
122 2018-03-15 18:18:56	0|sipa|how about shifting by 7 hours every week? that would over long periods of time uniformly distribute meetings :)
123 2018-03-15 18:19:07	0|sipa|(no, not a serious suggestion)
124 2018-03-15 18:20:59	0|luke-jr|anyhow, topic for meeting hopefully we can cover in the first ~10 minutes: multiwallet GUI, finally getting it merged?
125 2018-03-15 18:21:07	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: will you be here? XD
126 2018-03-15 18:51:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs opened pull request #12699: Shuffle transaction inputs before returning from SelectCoins (06master...06shuffleinputs) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12699
127 2018-03-15 19:00:17	0|wumpus|meeting?
128 2018-03-15 19:01:19	0|provoostenator|hi
129 2018-03-15 19:01:23	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Mar 15 19:01:22 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
130 2018-03-15 19:01:23	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
131 2018-03-15 19:01:23	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
132 2018-03-15 19:01:27	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 provoostenator
133 2018-03-15 19:01:40	0|meshcollider|eHi
134 2018-03-15 19:01:44	0|cfields|hi
135 2018-03-15 19:01:44	0|meshcollider|Hi*
136 2018-03-15 19:01:58	0|wumpus|any topics?
137 2018-03-15 19:02:10	0|wumpus|#topic high priority for review
138 2018-03-15 19:02:18	0|luke-jr|GUI multiwallet
139 2018-03-15 19:02:26	0|wumpus|only 5 things left: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
140 2018-03-15 19:02:33	0|achow101|hi
141 2018-03-15 19:02:44	0|luke-jr|wumpus: the wrong multiwallet PR is included in that :/
142 2018-03-15 19:02:44	0|wumpus|cfields should probably rebase the banman
143 2018-03-15 19:03:00	0|cfields|nobody rebases banman!
144 2018-03-15 19:03:03	0|cfields|(will do)
145 2018-03-15 19:03:03	0|Randolf|Hello.
146 2018-03-15 19:03:04	0|achow101|#12560 please
147 2018-03-15 19:03:06	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12560 | [wallet][RPC] Set or generate a new HD seed by achow101 · Pull Request #12560 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
148 2018-03-15 19:03:21	0|wumpus|cfields: was already afraid the banman wouldn't agree with that :)
149 2018-03-15 19:03:37	0|luke-jr|#11383
150 2018-03-15 19:03:40	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr · Pull Request #11383 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
151 2018-03-15 19:03:43	0|cfields|heh
152 2018-03-15 19:03:53	0|wumpus|chainhead: added
153 2018-03-15 19:04:02	0|wumpus|achow101: added, I mean, sorry chainhead
154 2018-03-15 19:04:27	0|wumpus|as jonasschnelli isn't here, I don't think discussing multiwallet GUI makes much sense :/
155 2018-03-15 19:04:31	0|meshcollider|I'd like to see #12254 on there
156 2018-03-15 19:04:38	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12254 | BIP 158: Compact Block Filters for Light Clients by jimpo · Pull Request #12254 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
157 2018-03-15 19:05:04	0|promag|hi
158 2018-03-15 19:05:11	0|wumpus|ok
159 2018-03-15 19:05:21	0|luke-jr|wumpus: ok
160 2018-03-15 19:06:50	0|kanzure|hi.
161 2018-03-15 19:06:55	0|wumpus|so apart from that, we have two PRs by BlueMatt on there
162 2018-03-15 19:07:07	0|BlueMatt|yea, those should be removed as they have not yet beedn rebased (I think)
163 2018-03-15 19:07:14	0|BlueMatt|also I dont recall how two ended up on there...thats clearly cheating
164 2018-03-15 19:07:24	0|kanzure|http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2018-03-07-priorities/
165 2018-03-15 19:07:33	0|wumpus|ok
166 2018-03-15 19:08:06	0|cfields|feel free to remove banman for being non-rebased as well. I'll try to get to it today/tomorrow, but I *think* that's in fitting with the discussion we had
167 2018-03-15 19:08:31	0|achow101|+1 on removing things that need rebasing
168 2018-03-15 19:08:33	0|wumpus|cfields: ok, done
169 2018-03-15 19:08:57	0|wumpus|can always be readded
170 2018-03-15 19:09:11	0|Randolf|I suspect that more people would do rebasing if the web-interface provided an option for that.
171 2018-03-15 19:09:13	0|wumpus|and yes, it's consistent and fair with BlueMatt
172 2018-03-15 19:09:46	0|wumpus|Randolf: not all rebases are trivial one-click affairs
173 2018-03-15 19:09:53	0|Randolf|That's true.
174 2018-03-15 19:10:01	0|wumpus|other topics?
175 2018-03-15 19:10:12	0|meshcollider|luke's multiwallet stuff
176 2018-03-15 19:10:26	0|Randolf|There seems to be confusion about whether Lightning Network is supported in Bitcoin 0.16.
177 2018-03-15 19:10:33	0|sipa|...
178 2018-03-15 19:10:37	0|BlueMatt|wut
179 2018-03-15 19:10:44	0|wumpus|I don't think discussing GUI multiwallet makes sense without jonasschnelli here, but if you really want to discuss it meshcollider we could
180 2018-03-15 19:10:46	0|sipa|there is no such thing as "Bitcoin 0.16"
181 2018-03-15 19:11:01	0|promag|I would like some feedback here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12507#issuecomment-372367647
182 2018-03-15 19:11:03	0|Randolf|I meant v0.16.
183 2018-03-15 19:11:04	0|sipa|and if you mean Bitcoin Core, that has nothing to do with Lightning
184 2018-03-15 19:11:07	0|achow101|Randolf: from who?
185 2018-03-15 19:11:08	0|wumpus|lightning is 'supported' since segwit was activated
186 2018-03-15 19:11:16	0|meshcollider|wumpus: true I'm indifferent, I'd just like to see a decision be made lol
187 2018-03-15 19:11:33	0|Randolf|achow101:  Well, I see the question come up from time-to-time in the #bitcoin channel, and in other IRC channels there's disagreement about whether it's fully implemented or at all.
188 2018-03-15 19:11:50	0|BlueMatt|Randolf: please take this after the meeting
189 2018-03-15 19:11:59	0|Randolf|I'm thinking that it may be good to indicate it prominently on the bitcoin.org web site or a readme file clearly.
190 2018-03-15 19:12:00	0|Randolf|Okay.
191 2018-03-15 19:12:11	0|promag|regarding multiwallet gui, IMO both still have some things to fix
192 2018-03-15 19:12:18	0|provoostenator|I'd also like the multiwallet stuff to go forward, but does it get in the way of the RPC Interface stuff?
193 2018-03-15 19:12:54	0|promag|provoostenator: you mean #10740?
194 2018-03-15 19:12:57	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10740 | [WIP] [wallet] dynamic loading/unloading of wallets by jnewbery · Pull Request #10740 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
195 2018-03-15 19:13:06	0|wumpus|#topic Multiwallet GUI
196 2018-03-15 19:13:07	0|wumpus|ok
197 2018-03-15 19:13:31	0|luke-jr|promag: there's nothing left to fix in #11383; just needs a rebasing since a day or so ago
198 2018-03-15 19:13:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr · Pull Request #11383 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
199 2018-03-15 19:14:04	0|promag|luke-jr: receiving address and sending addresses dialogs should mention the wallet name in some place
200 2018-03-15 19:14:11	0|promag|in the title for instance
201 2018-03-15 19:14:45	0|luke-jr|I could add that, but it seems okay to wait for a later PR to add those, and would invalidate the ACKs already received :/
202 2018-03-15 19:14:48	0|promag|also test with -disablewallet, the wallet selection should be invisible?
203 2018-03-15 19:15:55	0|promag|luke-jr: well that also works, just saying that it could be more complete
204 2018-03-15 19:16:21	0|luke-jr|yes, there is much room to improve on it; but I fear causing further delays
205 2018-03-15 19:16:25	0|provoostenator|promag: no I mean #10244
206 2018-03-15 19:16:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10244 | Refactor: separate gui from wallet and node by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
207 2018-03-15 19:17:03	0|wumpus|luke-jr: I agree, at some point, if it's an improvement we should merge it, it doesn't have to do every single thing people can think of
208 2018-03-15 19:17:14	0|promag|provoostenator: oh I still have to see that one
209 2018-03-15 19:17:14	0|provoostenator|luke-jr: and there's the issue of putting model state in UI elements, which makes future changes to the design needlessly hard
210 2018-03-15 19:17:18	0|wumpus|collaboration works better on the master branch
211 2018-03-15 19:17:38	0|wumpus|but jonasschnelli had some problems with your approach
212 2018-03-15 19:18:10	0|provoostenator|E.g. if I want to change the dropdown into a menu, I now need to figure out where to keep the wallet array. The other PR handles that more elegantly (but maybe it's worse in other ways, I can't tell).
213 2018-03-15 19:18:37	0|wumpus|provoostenator: agree
214 2018-03-15 19:18:42	0|promag|well the way I see both build on top of a weak support of multiwallets
215 2018-03-15 19:18:51	0|ryanofsky|fwiw, i haven't looked at jonas pr yet, but i think luke's approach is fine. if jonas has improvements, no reason they can't go in later
216 2018-03-15 19:19:10	0|promag|maybe we should focus also on #12587, adding signals etc
217 2018-03-15 19:19:12	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12587 | Introduce g_wallet_manager, prepare for better dynamic wallet loading/unloading by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #12587 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
218 2018-03-15 19:19:24	0|luke-jr|wumpus: I don't think we can discuss that fairly without him, unfortunately
219 2018-03-15 19:19:37	0|promag|I also think we should consider something like #11402
220 2018-03-15 19:19:39	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11402 | [wallet] Use shared pointer for wallet instances by promag · Pull Request #11402 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
221 2018-03-15 19:19:42	0|wumpus|luke-jr: I agree, I think it's a bit single sided like this
222 2018-03-15 19:20:04	0|luke-jr|promag: yes, that's one plan I had for down the road
223 2018-03-15 19:20:21	0|luke-jr|promag: which is partly why it's important we use a CWalletRef instead of wallet name string ;)
224 2018-03-15 19:21:15	0|wumpus|any other topics?
225 2018-03-15 19:21:47	0|sipa|lunch?
226 2018-03-15 19:21:51	0|luke-jr|XD
227 2018-03-15 19:21:56	0|promag|dinner?
228 2018-03-15 19:21:59	0|instagibbs|coin selection next steps?
229 2018-03-15 19:22:07	0|wumpus|already had both lunch and dinner xD
230 2018-03-15 19:22:11	0|instagibbs|a few of us had discussions during coredev, we may want to socialize those ideas?
231 2018-03-15 19:22:13	0|Randolf|Just finished lunch.
232 2018-03-15 19:22:20	0|jtimon|is it still breakfast if it's dinner time?
233 2018-03-15 19:22:20	0|wumpus|#topic coin selection next steps
234 2018-03-15 19:22:31	0|luke-jr|kallewoof's stuff, or something else?
235 2018-03-15 19:22:45	0|sipa|breakfast is defined as the first meal after waking up; the time of day is irrelevant
236 2018-03-15 19:23:10	0|luke-jr|I gotta run :x  bbl
237 2018-03-15 19:23:16	0|wumpus|later luke-jr
238 2018-03-15 19:23:20	0|achow101|#12605
239 2018-03-15 19:23:22	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12605 | High level road map for coin selection changes · Issue #12605 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
240 2018-03-15 19:23:25	0|instagibbs|so, Branch and Bound was merged(yay), which leaves us with what to do when we cannot find an exact match. Current strategy is to fallback to Single Random Draw as per murchandamus thesis
241 2018-03-15 19:23:38	0|instagibbs|with some *, if achow101 wants to continue
242 2018-03-15 19:23:47	0|achow101|*current plannned strategy is to use SRD
243 2018-03-15 19:24:13	0|instagibbs|morcos had any idea to only SRD on coins smaller than target, to slightly bias towards spending smaller coins, for utxo set reasons
244 2018-03-15 19:24:35	0|instagibbs|debate as to whether that is even necessary were had
245 2018-03-15 19:25:04	0|instagibbs|pure SRD gives the wallet a nice distribution of utxos, which likely feeds to better BnB exact match rates
246 2018-03-15 19:26:17	0|instagibbs|that's... about it.
247 2018-03-15 19:26:43	0|sipa|i think SRD may be a privacy issue too
248 2018-03-15 19:26:49	0|instagibbs|jtimon, might mark as Core, but right now we hoover tiny inputs
249 2018-03-15 19:27:04	0|instagibbs|sipa, versus what?
250 2018-03-15 19:27:34	0|sipa|ideally you end up with a strategy that is hard to distinguish from BnB
251 2018-03-15 19:27:54	0|jtimon|instagibbs: yeah, I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, just launching questions to the air to see what other people think
252 2018-03-15 19:28:19	0|jtimon|what was BnB?
253 2018-03-15 19:28:46	0|instagibbs|#10637
254 2018-03-15 19:28:51	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10637 | Coin Selection with Murchs algorithm by achow101 · Pull Request #10637 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
255 2018-03-15 19:28:59	0|meshcollider|BnB stands for Branch and bound
256 2018-03-15 19:29:16	0|sipa|instagibbs: if you have 80% of UTXO very close to 1 BTC, then SRD will be very likely to include such outputs, revealing something about your UTXO size distribution
257 2018-03-15 19:29:19	0|jtimon|thanks!
258 2018-03-15 19:29:54	0|instagibbs|sipa, with a 1BTC target? As oppose to BnB?
259 2018-03-15 19:30:02	0|instagibbs|Maybe we can continue post-meeting...
260 2018-03-15 19:30:04	0|sipa|yeah
261 2018-03-15 19:32:19	0|wumpus|ok, anything else for the meeting?
262 2018-03-15 19:33:02	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-03-15-19.01.log.html
263 2018-03-15 19:33:02	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Mar 15 19:33:01 2018 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
264 2018-03-15 19:33:02	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-03-15-19.01.html
265 2018-03-15 19:33:02	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-03-15-19.01.txt
266 2018-03-15 19:33:02	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
267 2018-03-15 19:35:41	0|achow101|instagibbs: post meeting continue?
268 2018-03-15 19:35:47	0|instagibbs|yeah, formulating thoughts
269 2018-03-15 19:36:12	0|instagibbs|sipa, I see what you mean, but I don't think other strategies are much(any?) better
270 2018-03-15 19:36:24	0|instagibbs|aside from quite advanced coin control
271 2018-03-15 19:36:35	0|sipa|Randolf: Lightning is implemented by software like c-lightning and lnd. Bitcoin is implemented by software like Bitcoin Core and btcd. They are otherwise unrelated.
272 2018-03-15 19:37:09	0|sipa|Particular implementations of lightning may or may not require you to run particular bitcoin implementations, but that depends heavily on what software is involved.
273 2018-03-15 19:38:33	0|meshcollider|e.g. lnd requires either core or btcd, c-lightning and eclair both requires core
274 2018-03-15 19:39:18	0|sipa|he left
275 2018-03-15 19:40:41	0|instagibbs|BnB dodges this issue I think by 1) not having change 2) "over fitting" to the exact target. Once we have change, we have to make decisions about how big that change should be. Right now it's 1 bitcent, and ends up with Core hoovering tiny inputs to hit that.
276 2018-03-15 19:41:26	0|Murch|sorry, I was at lunch.
277 2018-03-15 19:42:20	0|Murch|BnB strictly only includes inputs smaller or equal than the target, so limiting SRD to inputs smaller than the target might make the input set more like a BnB one.
278 2018-03-15 19:43:48	0|achow101|The fact that there will be change indicates that BnB wasn't used at all though
279 2018-03-15 19:44:06	0|achow101|so I don't think it really needs to look like BnB
280 2018-03-15 19:44:08	0|instagibbs|its more about revealing stuff about the rest of your utxo set
281 2018-03-15 19:44:10	0|sipa|well ideally the chabge isn't recognizable
282 2018-03-15 19:44:21	0|instagibbs|typically it will mean a single output
283 2018-03-15 19:44:29	0|sipa|but leaking BNB or not isn't as bad as leaking information about your utxo size distribution
284 2018-03-15 19:44:49	0|Murch|sipa: with random selection, change might be bigger or smaller than the sending output, isn't that good?
285 2018-03-15 19:45:26	0|sipa|there are so many aspects to privacy, it's hard :)
286 2018-03-15 19:45:50	0|instagibbs|if you can name a counter-proposal, it may help
287 2018-03-15 19:46:05	0|instagibbs|not putting on spot, for my own imagination
288 2018-03-15 19:46:06	0|Murch|Largest first would probably also work well in combination with BnB
289 2018-03-15 19:46:12	0|Murch|:p
290 2018-03-15 19:46:16	0|instagibbs|lol
291 2018-03-15 19:46:38	0|Murch|FIFO is pretty decent all around, might leak less information about composition, but more about time distribution
292 2018-03-15 19:47:23	0|sipa|i was wondering if you could do something like randomly adding change of a particular size, and then run BnB again
293 2018-03-15 19:47:38	0|instagibbs|sipa, me too, if you can engineer a target
294 2018-03-15 19:47:38	0|sipa|but there are so many design parameters, and risk becoming very slow
295 2018-03-15 19:47:56	0|Murch|Then we'd waste all the computational work to hit something that is actually arbitrary
296 2018-03-15 19:47:59	0|instagibbs|i think picking the "right" change size using expert rules is foolhardy unless we really know more
297 2018-03-15 19:48:15	0|sipa|agree
298 2018-03-15 19:48:24	0|Murch|instagibbs: I mean you could fill buckets of change sizes, to spread combination space for BnB
299 2018-03-15 19:48:28	0|sipa|Murch: yes, absolutely - though it could run with lower computational limits or so
300 2018-03-15 19:48:40	0|Murch|but that seems overly optimistic in regard to how well we understand the overall effect
301 2018-03-15 19:48:46	0|instagibbs|Murch, wallet history to know targets, etc :)
302 2018-03-15 19:49:02	0|instagibbs|like, maybe Coinbase needs a 2 BTC utxo for daily payments, i dont!
303 2018-03-15 19:49:15	0|instagibbs|but again this leaks info if used
304 2018-03-15 19:49:24	0|instagibbs|ack on hard :(
305 2018-03-15 19:49:37	0|sipa|use change = your previous payment output amount :p
306 2018-03-15 19:50:19	0|Murch|sipa then you leak a connection to a previous tx
307 2018-03-15 19:50:32	0|sipa|oh. duh.
308 2018-03-15 19:51:32	0|Murch|It's been suggested to target the average amount of the last x spents from the wallet, to make sure the change is a useful size
309 2018-03-15 19:51:41	0|Murch|but then again we're reducing the UTXO pool's variance
310 2018-03-15 19:51:49	0|Murch|which is bad for the combination space of BnB
311 2018-03-15 19:52:32	0|Murch|so, yes, random leaks information about the distribution of the wallet's utxo pool, but only if you create a large transaction target in the first place
312 2018-03-15 19:52:49	0|Murch|otherwise the information is spread out over potentially unrelated tx in the first place
313 2018-03-15 19:53:21	0|Murch|and if you're creating a large transaction, you'd be leaking information about your wallet's utxo pool composition with most strategies
314 2018-03-15 19:57:33	0|instagibbs|sipa, i thought you were joking :P
315 2018-03-15 19:58:35	0|Murch|we could have multiple fallback algorithms that switch off. :p
316 2018-03-15 19:58:49	0|Murch|But that would be terrible to analyze
317 2018-03-15 20:01:24	0|Murch|Largest first smaller than the target might actually also be an option.
318 2018-03-15 20:02:09	0|achow101|Murch: sipa: btw started doing SRD here: https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/srd-fallback
319 2018-03-15 20:03:19	0|Murch|achow101: I've been thinking. We might want to do SRD first, since it is computationally much cheaper than BnB, and then use the waste result of the SRD as an upper bound for BnB.
320 2018-03-15 20:03:29	0|Murch|only switch to the BnB result if it has less waste.
321 2018-03-15 20:04:52	0|achow101|Murch: i don't think that it is likely for SRD to find a result that has less waste than BnB. Furthermore, that would mean we do both SRD and BnB for every selection
322 2018-03-15 20:05:20	0|Murch|Yeah, but shuffle pick from front is super cheap.
323 2018-03-15 20:05:44	0|Murch|*"Yeah, but shuffle, then pick from front is super cheap."
324 2018-03-15 20:05:46	0|instagibbs|BnB being preferred has the nice property that it ends transaction chaining in the wallet for good
325 2018-03-15 20:06:01	0|Murch|mhkay, just an idea
326 2018-03-15 20:06:12	0|instagibbs|not saying it's a bad idea, just saying it was one considering iirc
327 2018-03-15 20:07:46	0|Murch|In the end it's always a question of tradeoffs. Do you want to minimize costs, maximize privacy, minimize UTXO pool, …, or some mix thereoff. ;)
328 2018-03-15 20:10:07	0|instagibbs|code complexity, transaction chaining limits...
329 2018-03-15 20:41:59	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #12700: Document RPC method aliasing (06master...06pr/alias) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12700
330 2018-03-15 21:05:52	0|Murch|yeah
331 2018-03-15 21:07:09	0|Murch|instagibbs: I think that SRD or FIFO would probably be a contender for decent mix of tradeoffs, and would use one of those as a baseline to compare against. But then suggest that we compare with concrete other proposals.
332 2018-03-15 21:09:16	0|sipa|Murch: i wonder if a good strategy (perhaps only when the utxo set is large) is use a pre filtering that trims the UTXO set down, biasing in favor of amounts that are further away from other amounts
333 2018-03-15 21:09:57	0|Murch|That would definitely help BnB, and also spread out selection for SRD. Isn't that computationally intensive, though?
334 2018-03-15 21:10:17	0|sipa|why would it?
335 2018-03-15 21:10:29	0|sipa|it seems like it can be done with a single pass
336 2018-03-15 21:10:49	0|Murch|How would you do it? Logarithmic bucketing?
337 2018-03-15 21:11:35	0|sipa|i'll think about it
338 2018-03-15 22:40:12	0|promag|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12650#issuecomment-373538129 wut
339 2018-03-15 22:42:56	0|sipa|yeah...
340 2018-03-15 22:43:07	0|sipa|i think i can guess what you're linking to
341 2018-03-15 22:50:31	0|meshcollider|Looks like spam, it's nonsense
342 2018-03-15 23:07:34	0|luke-jr|looks like it wants to be human :x
343 2018-03-15 23:08:32	0|sipa|i think it may be human
344 2018-03-15 23:08:45	0|midnightmagic|that's charitable
345 2018-03-15 23:31:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14bb079a0 15Drew Rasmussen: Remove unused variable in SortForBlock
346 2018-03-15 23:31:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/947c25ead21a...df529dcc65e8
347 2018-03-15 23:31:51	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14df529dc 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #12693: Remove unused variable in SortForBlock...
348 2018-03-15 23:32:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #12693: Remove unused variable in SortForBlock (06master...06unused-sort-for-block-param) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12693
349 2018-03-15 23:38:07	0|promag|sipa: don't stop there, here is another :P #12621
350 2018-03-15 23:38:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12621 | Avoid querying unnecessary model data when filtering transactions by promag · Pull Request #12621 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
351 2018-03-15 23:45:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141ee72a8 15João Barbosa: qt: Avoid querying unnecessary model data when filtering transactions
352 2018-03-15 23:45:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/df529dcc65e8...2bac3e484114
353 2018-03-15 23:45:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142bac3e4 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #12621: Avoid querying unnecessary model data when filtering transactions...
354 2018-03-15 23:46:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #12621: Avoid querying unnecessary model data when filtering transactions (06master...062018-03-transaction-filter-avoid-querying) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12621
355 2018-03-15 23:58:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2bac3e484114...7be9a9a570c1
356 2018-03-15 23:58:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14172f5fa 15Pieter Wuille: Support deserializing into temporaries...
357 2018-03-15 23:58:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142761bca 15Pieter Wuille: Merge READWRITEMANY into READWRITE
358 2018-03-15 23:58:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147be9a9a 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #12683: Fix more constness violations in serialization code...
359 2018-03-15 23:59:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #12683: Fix more constness violations in serialization code (06master...06201803_moreser) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12683