1 2018-03-22 03:52:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15eklitzke closed pull request #12649: Add documentation about generating flame graphs. (06master...06flamegraphs) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12649
  2 2018-03-22 05:09:47	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Empact closed pull request #12745: Expose node relay fee settings in help, independent of -help-debug (06master...06expose-relay-fee-settings-help) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12745
  3 2018-03-22 08:10:07	0|koichirose|hello! what could be the reason for 0.16 to always return legacy addresses, even with 'getnewaddress “” p2sh-segwit’?
  4 2018-03-22 09:00:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14bcab47b 15Kevin Pan: use base58 map instead of strchr()
  5 2018-03-22 09:00:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e0f7515f5500...ad823178e85a
  6 2018-03-22 09:00:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ad82317 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12704: base58: use map instead of strchr() when decode...
  7 2018-03-22 09:01:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12704: base58: use map instead of strchr() when decode (06master...06b58_bitmap) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12704
  8 2018-03-22 09:32:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ad823178e85a...185d48473e43
  9 2018-03-22 09:32:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140ec08a6 15John Newbery: [Tests] Move assert_start_raises_init_error method to TestNode
 10 2018-03-22 09:32:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145812273 15John Newbery: [Tests] Require exact match in assert_start_raises_init_eror()
 11 2018-03-22 09:32:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fae1374 15MarcoFalke: qa: Allow for partial_match when checking init error...
 12 2018-03-22 09:33:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12718: [Tests] Require exact match in assert_start_raises_init_eror (jnewbery) (06master...06Mf1803-qaRegexInitError) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12718
 13 2018-03-22 10:12:05	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c8330d4 15MarcoFalke: qa: Use node.datadir instead of tmpdir in test framework
 14 2018-03-22 10:12:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/185d48473e43...6d36f599f88e
 15 2018-03-22 10:12:06	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146d36f59 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12076: qa: Use node.datadir instead of tmpdir in test framework...
 16 2018-03-22 10:12:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12076: qa: Use node.datadir instead of tmpdir in test framework (06master...06Mf1801-qaUseUtilDatadir) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12076
 17 2018-03-22 10:26:38	0|wumpus|jnewbery: done
 18 2018-03-22 11:35:07	0|timothy|is it normal that verificationprogress in getblockchaininfo are never 1?
 19 2018-03-22 11:35:13	0|timothy|when blockchain in synched too
 20 2018-03-22 13:29:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6d36f599f88e...a6926b065d65
 21 2018-03-22 13:29:06	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141e0ee90 15Martin Ankerl: Use best-fit strategy in Arena, now O(log(n)) instead O(n)...
 22 2018-03-22 13:29:06	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145fbf7c4 15Martin Ankerl: fix nits: variable naming, typos
 23 2018-03-22 13:29:07	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a6926b0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12048: Use best-fit strategy in Arena, now O(log(n)) instead O(n)...
 24 2018-03-22 13:29:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12048: Use best-fit strategy in Arena, now O(log(n)) instead O(n) (06master...06faster_arena) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12048
 25 2018-03-22 13:32:09	0|eklitzke|timothy: it's normal, it uses a heuristic to guess what the current tip is as a floating point height
 26 2018-03-22 13:33:05	0|timothy|eklitzke: so it's better to use something like bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo | jq ".blocks == .headers" ?
 27 2018-03-22 13:33:25	0|timothy|to know when it's synched
 28 2018-03-22 13:33:39	0|eklitzke|i just check if progress is > 0.9999 but that seems reasonable to me too
 29 2018-03-22 13:36:49	0|echeveria|probably no reason to not expose isInitalBlockDownload there.
 30 2018-03-22 13:53:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #12755: [tests] Better stderr testing (06master...06better_stderr_testing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12755
 31 2018-03-22 13:54:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery closed pull request #12379: [WIP] Better stderr testing in functional tests (06master...06test_full_stderr2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12379
 32 2018-03-22 14:15:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148674e74 15murrayn: Provide relevant error message if datadir is not writable.
 33 2018-03-22 14:15:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a6926b065d65...c290508a5ebf
 34 2018-03-22 14:15:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c290508 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12630: Provide useful error message if datadir is not writable....
 35 2018-03-22 14:16:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12630: Provide useful error message if datadir is not writable. (06master...06datadir_writable) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12630
 36 2018-03-22 14:32:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #12756: [config] Remove blockmaxsize option (06master...06remove_blockmaxsize) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12756
 37 2018-03-22 14:53:12	0|instagibbs|wumpus, #12742 looks ready
 38 2018-03-22 14:53:15	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12742 | Make FastRandomContext support standard C++11 RNG interface by sipa · Pull Request #12742 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 39 2018-03-22 15:30:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #12757: Clarify include guard naming convention (06master...06include-guard) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12757
 40 2018-03-22 16:23:45	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141ec1602 15Pieter Wuille: Make FastRandomContext support standard C++11 RNG interface...
 41 2018-03-22 16:23:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c290508a5ebf...f686002a8eba
 42 2018-03-22 16:23:46	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f686002 15MarcoFalke: Merge #12742: Make FastRandomContext support standard C++11 RNG interface...
 43 2018-03-22 16:24:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12742: Make FastRandomContext support standard C++11 RNG interface (06master...06201803_stdrandom) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12742
 44 2018-03-22 18:11:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15eklitzke opened pull request #12759: [Docs] Improve formatting of developer notes (06master...06developer-notes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12759
 45 2018-03-22 18:24:17	0|Randolf|I was looking at the FAQ at the Bitcoin.org web site, and I didn't find any mention of Segregated Witness nor the Lightning Network.  I'm wondering if an entry should be added?  https://bitcoin.org/en/faq#transactions
 46 2018-03-22 18:25:27	0|Randolf|The reason I ask about this is that I've seen questions in the #bitcoin channel and in other forums about this, and it seems that there is confusion regarding it.
 47 2018-03-22 18:29:49	0|sipa|Randolf: i'm sure they value contributions
 48 2018-03-22 18:31:03	0|Randolf|sipa:  Is bitcoin.org's content not part of overall project?
 49 2018-03-22 18:31:06	0|BlueMatt|I believe bitcoin.org has gone mostly unmaintained for the past few months, so segwit stuff never landed before folks stopped working
 50 2018-03-22 18:31:54	0|Randolf|A few months is not a big deal to me.  I'd be happy to write something up for the FAQ.
 51 2018-03-22 18:32:09	0|sipa|Randolf: no, it's a site privately run website
 52 2018-03-22 18:32:12	0|Randolf|I just need to know a bit more about the Lightning Network support before I do that.
 53 2018-03-22 18:32:38	0|sipa|Randolf: the project's website is bitcoincore.org
 54 2018-03-22 18:32:43	0|Randolf|sipa:  I know that Bitcoin.com is privately owned and operated by a BCash fanatic.  I was always under the impression that Bitcoin.org was the good one.
 55 2018-03-22 18:33:01	0|Randolf|Yeah, I know that BitcoinCore.org is part of the development side of things.
 56 2018-03-22 18:33:27	0|BlueMatt|no, bitcoin.org is *also* a privately-run website
 57 2018-03-22 18:33:55	0|BlueMatt|I mean it doesnt deliberately try to confuse people as to the bcash-v-bitcoin thing, so its better in that regard, sure
 58 2018-03-22 18:33:59	0|BlueMatt|but similar setup
 59 2018-03-22 18:34:17	0|BlueMatt|bitcoincore.org is the *only* site that is in any way associated with the bitcoin core project
 60 2018-03-22 18:35:04	0|Randolf|According to WHOIS, bitcoin.org is legally owned by "WhoisGuard, Inc."
 61 2018-03-22 18:35:59	0|wumpus|last I heard cobra was busy with a redesign of bitcoin.org, but yea maintenance for the site is not very active in general. That shouldn't dissuade you from contributing, though.
 62 2018-03-22 18:36:36	0|Randolf|wumpus:  I don't typically judge web sites by their update frequency.
 63 2018-03-22 18:37:16	0|Randolf|While it makes sense for some web sites (e.g., news), for most just having high quality content is sufficient.
 64 2018-03-22 18:39:43	0|wumpus|doesn't seem there is a PR open yet adding informatino about segwit or lightning: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pulls
 65 2018-03-22 18:46:28	0|Randolf|wumpus:  Thanks for that link.  I'll try to get involved in that project.
 66 2018-03-22 18:55:32	0|wumpus|thanks
 67 2018-03-22 18:59:35	0|dongcarl|Does anyone understand dwheeler's DDC method? Could be good for further ensuring binary security when integrated with Gitian.
 68 2018-03-22 19:00:28	0|wumpus|I don't know about it - but probably better to ask that after the meeting
 69 2018-03-22 19:00:45	0|sipa|meeting!
 70 2018-03-22 19:00:45	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
 71 2018-03-22 19:00:46	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Mar 22 19:00:45 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
 72 2018-03-22 19:00:46	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
 73 2018-03-22 19:01:06	0|provoostenator|Hi
 74 2018-03-22 19:01:13	0|morcos|kind of here
 75 2018-03-22 19:01:14	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
 76 2018-03-22 19:01:21	0|kanzure|hi.
 77 2018-03-22 19:01:22	0|cfields|hi
 78 2018-03-22 19:01:24	0|achow101|oh right, it's thursday
 79 2018-03-22 19:01:33	0|wumpus|yep
 80 2018-03-22 19:01:37	0|instagibbs|hi
 81 2018-03-22 19:01:52	0|wumpus|any topic suggestions?
 82 2018-03-22 19:02:18	0|BlueMatt|<topic suggestion>
 83 2018-03-22 19:02:23	0|wumpus|#topic high priority for review
 84 2018-03-22 19:02:24	0|ryanofsky|#11536
 85 2018-03-22 19:02:28	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11536 | Rename account to label where appropriate by ryanofsky · Pull Request #11536 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 86 2018-03-22 19:02:34	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
 87 2018-03-22 19:02:40	0|meshcollider|Hi
 88 2018-03-22 19:03:12	0|Randolf|Hello.
 89 2018-03-22 19:03:18	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: anothing specific you want to discuss regarding that pr?
 90 2018-03-22 19:03:46	0|ryanofsky|just curious about status, if it is ready to be merged or if it needs more review
 91 2018-03-22 19:03:51	0|wumpus|anything that needs to be added/removed from high priority for review?
 92 2018-03-22 19:04:21	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: makes sense
 93 2018-03-22 19:04:34	0|sipa|i'll have a look in a minute
 94 2018-03-22 19:04:42	0|Randolf|PR #12759 looks like it would be an easy one to merge quickly.
 95 2018-03-22 19:04:44	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12759 | [Docs] Improve formatting of developer notes by eklitzke · Pull Request #12759 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 96 2018-03-22 19:04:52	0|wumpus|Randolf: that's not the topic though
 97 2018-03-22 19:04:57	0|Randolf|Oh, sorry.
 98 2018-03-22 19:05:21	0|wumpus|formatting of developer notes is not 'high priority for review' in any definition
 99 2018-03-22 19:05:23	0|Randolf|I though you were asking if there was anything to add/remove for review.
100 2018-03-22 19:05:28	0|Randolf|I see.  Yes.
101 2018-03-22 19:05:48	0|wumpus|high priority for review description is: These either block other important work in progress, or are necessary for backport to a minor release.
102 2018-03-22 19:06:19	0|Randolf|Thank you.
103 2018-03-22 19:06:30	0|wumpus|if something can be merged it's better to let me know outside the meeting
104 2018-03-22 19:06:40	0|wumpus|anyhow, it seems people are happy with the current set, next topic
105 2018-03-22 19:06:42	0|provoostenator|Topic suggestion: Gitter (we talked about this recently as a way to lower barrier for new contributors, compared to IRC)
106 2018-03-22 19:06:49	0|jimpo|I've already got one in high pri for review list, but #11857 is more of a blocker for my work
107 2018-03-22 19:06:53	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11857 | Build tx index in parallel with validation by jimpo · Pull Request #11857 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
108 2018-03-22 19:07:05	0|sipa|jimpo: agree that seems a better candidate for now
109 2018-03-22 19:07:08	0|wumpus|jimpo: swap it out?
110 2018-03-22 19:07:14	0|jimpo|Yep
111 2018-03-22 19:07:36	0|sipa|can i have #12714 on the list?
112 2018-03-22 19:07:38	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12714 | Introduce interface for signing providers by sipa · Pull Request #12714 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
113 2018-03-22 19:07:45	0|wumpus|jimpo: done
114 2018-03-22 19:08:04	0|wumpus|sipa: done
115 2018-03-22 19:08:28	0|wumpus|#topic Rename account to label where appropriate (ryanofsky)
116 2018-03-22 19:08:52	0|provoostenator|That PR seems more or less ready to go, right?
117 2018-03-22 19:08:52	0|wumpus|<ryanofsky> just curious about status, if it is ready to be merged or if it needs more review
118 2018-03-22 19:09:06	0|meshcollider|It has 3 tested acks and a utACK already, looks very close if not ready
119 2018-03-22 19:09:09	0|wumpus|ok!
120 2018-03-22 19:09:15	0|achow101|I thought that was supposed to go after #7729?
121 2018-03-22 19:09:17	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7729 | rpc: introduce label API for wallet by laanwj · Pull Request #7729 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
122 2018-03-22 19:09:18	0|ryanofsky|yeah, i think it's ready
123 2018-03-22 19:09:21	0|achow101|or did I get the order backwards
124 2018-03-22 19:09:31	0|meshcollider|Yeah other way around achow101
125 2018-03-22 19:09:33	0|wumpus|if it's ready it should go in
126 2018-03-22 19:09:39	0|sipa|achow101: 12714 is just a first step taken out of 7729
127 2018-03-22 19:09:46	0|achow101|oh, ok
128 2018-03-22 19:09:47	0|sipa|topic suggestion: what's up with #12694 and next steps?
129 2018-03-22 19:09:50	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12694 | Actually disable BnB when there are preset inputs by achow101 · Pull Request #12694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
130 2018-03-22 19:09:57	0|meshcollider|Topic suggestion: EOL date for 0.13 ( https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/528 )
131 2018-03-22 19:10:29	0|wumpus|#topic gitter (provoostenator)
132 2018-03-22 19:10:45	0|BlueMatt|it'd have to be mirrored to irc
133 2018-03-22 19:10:56	0|sipa|gitter has an IRC interface
134 2018-03-22 19:10:57	0|BlueMatt|bidirectionally, that is
135 2018-03-22 19:11:10	0|sipa|as in, you can connect to it as an IRC server
136 2018-03-22 19:11:11	0|BlueMatt|sipa: that requires we all move our bouncers, I think thats more than its worth
137 2018-03-22 19:11:11	0|wumpus|I've never used gitter, but I'm not going to join any more chat services
138 2018-03-22 19:11:27	0|sipa|well what's the context?
139 2018-03-22 19:11:32	0|luke-jr|what is it?
140 2018-03-22 19:11:34	0|sipa|i don't think we're planning to move this channel...
141 2018-03-22 19:11:37	0|BlueMatt|its my impression it can be bidirectionally mirrored to irc, which would be fine, but I'm not sure how much its worth
142 2018-03-22 19:11:42	0|Randolf|I've tried other chat services, and they're just not as good as IRC.
143 2018-03-22 19:11:52	0|BlueMatt|sipa: its some newfangled slack-like bullshit that is "for open source projects"
144 2018-03-22 19:11:54	0|wumpus|mirroring sounds fine to me, if ti doesn't increase the noise level too much
145 2018-03-22 19:12:11	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i know; i've used it for another project before and it works pretty well
146 2018-03-22 19:12:19	0|achow101|Isn't the idea to make it easier for people to start contributing?
147 2018-03-22 19:12:21	0|sipa|but i'm wondering why it's being brought up here?
148 2018-03-22 19:12:21	0|wumpus|IIRC monero-dev has a mirroring-bot as well and it works there
149 2018-03-22 19:12:27	0|luke-jr|IRC is easy
150 2018-03-22 19:12:34	0|sipa|provoostenator: ?
151 2018-03-22 19:12:35	0|achow101|I don't think it's hard to setup a mirroring bot at all
152 2018-03-22 19:12:49	0|provoostenator|IRC is a pain to setup because of the need for a bouncer
153 2018-03-22 19:12:56	0|testweb-morcos|so easy, can't we just tell people how to do this
154 2018-03-22 19:13:20	0|sipa|https://github.com/finnp/gitter-irc-bot
155 2018-03-22 19:13:21	0|achow101|provoostenator: IMO, no. we have a public log of this channel, so if someone isn't online, they can read that
156 2018-03-22 19:13:21	0|wumpus|so - anyhow, if you want to try setting up a mirroring bot, seems people are ok with it
157 2018-03-22 19:13:22	0|luke-jr|provoostenator: if someone wants a bouncer (it's not needed), point them at Quassel
158 2018-03-22 19:13:23	0|provoostenator|So it probably keeps at least some new devs from reaching out.
159 2018-03-22 19:13:35	0|wumpus|luke-jr: +1 for quassel
160 2018-03-22 19:14:04	0|achow101|also, there's already a "bitcoin core community" slack that we can use instead of setting up some new service
161 2018-03-22 19:14:05	0|Randolf|There are many different IRC clients available (including some web-based clients).  The problem with a lot of these proprietary messengers is that the options for client software is limited.
162 2018-03-22 19:14:09	0|wumpus|though if someone can't get IRC to work, I'm not sure how much of a dev they really are
163 2018-03-22 19:14:12	0|morcos|webchat.freenode.net is trivial for non-tech people, we should just have simple instructions for using that in some obviouse locations
164 2018-03-22 19:14:23	0|luke-jr|achow101: I hope that gets shut down in a month
165 2018-03-22 19:15:05	0|jimpo|+1 webchat.freenode.net
166 2018-03-22 19:15:18	0|luke-jr|morcos: +1
167 2018-03-22 19:15:22	0|dongcarl|Does webchat.freenode.net work for unregistered?
168 2018-03-22 19:15:29	0|luke-jr|dongcarl: yes
169 2018-03-22 19:15:30	0|Randolf|dongcarl:  Yes.
170 2018-03-22 19:15:31	0|provoostenator|I'm fine with better instructions for IRC too, especially if a Gitter bridge is too painful to setup. Agree that monitoring multiple chat things is not a good idea.
171 2018-03-22 19:15:53	0|luke-jr|achow101: (Slack is removing IRC support)
172 2018-03-22 19:16:01	0|achow101|luke-jr: they are??!!
173 2018-03-22 19:16:07	0|achow101|well that sucks
174 2018-03-22 19:16:08	0|luke-jr|yep
175 2018-03-22 19:16:10	0|cfields|yep
176 2018-03-22 19:16:12	0|provoostenator|Not a fan of Slack and it's closed nature.
177 2018-03-22 19:16:14	0|sipa|slack had IRC support?
178 2018-03-22 19:16:24	0|dongcarl|and removing XMPP
179 2018-03-22 19:16:26	0|MarcoFalke|instructions are basically google for "webchat irc"
180 2018-03-22 19:16:33	0|BlueMatt|slack is garbage
181 2018-03-22 19:16:33	0|luke-jr|sipa: yes, until next month, you can login to slacks with an IRC client
182 2018-03-22 19:16:38	0|wumpus|slack is terrible, how can a chat client use so much resources
183 2018-03-22 19:16:39	0|cfields|sipa: yea, they had a bridge you could enable. Only reason I idle on a few slack channels.
184 2018-03-22 19:16:59	0|sipa|but the fact that that bitcoin core slack exists, and has people discussing things there who are not here, is probably a sign that there exists an actual barrier
185 2018-03-22 19:17:00	0|achow101|we can add a link in the readme that points to webchat.freenode
186 2018-03-22 19:17:00	0|Randolf|wumpus:  Discord uses a lot of resources too.  I tried it for a while but stopped.
187 2018-03-22 19:17:04	0|luke-jr|that's why I was on the Core slack at all
188 2018-03-22 19:17:14	0|provoostenator|wumpus: that's just Electron JS stuff taking up lots of memory.
189 2018-03-22 19:17:21	0|luke-jr|sipa: I think the barrier is mobile software
190 2018-03-22 19:17:21	0|wumpus|achow101: FWIW the reason we haven't done that is to avoid people going here for suport questions
191 2018-03-22 19:17:28	0|sipa|luke-jr: perhaps
192 2018-03-22 19:17:39	0|dongcarl|slack-to-IRC mirror?
193 2018-03-22 19:17:56	0|sipa|i've heard several smart people complain about IRC being hard to use, though
194 2018-03-22 19:17:57	0|wumpus|a bit of a a barrier isn't a bad thing, this channel is really only for development, not 'core discussion'
195 2018-03-22 19:18:00	0|achow101|maybe we should start pointing people to https://bitcoincore.org/en/contribute/
196 2018-03-22 19:18:02	0|jimpo|wumpus: In the contributing guide though?
197 2018-03-22 19:18:05	0|achow101|it has all the links and instructions
198 2018-03-22 19:18:11	0|luke-jr|sipa: ask for details? ☺
199 2018-03-22 19:18:19	0|jimpo|Putting instructions for webchat.freenode and the IRC logs?
200 2018-03-22 19:18:28	0|jimpo|Link to the logs is almost more valuable
201 2018-03-22 19:18:31	0|BlueMatt|sipa: we need to kill the fucking slack
202 2018-03-22 19:18:35	0|Randolf|sipa:  Many smart people have trouble using computers in general.  Oh well.
203 2018-03-22 19:18:41	0|sipa|BlueMatt: yes, i agree
204 2018-03-22 19:18:45	0|BlueMatt|or at least rename it Bitcoin Community, not Bitcoin Core....
205 2018-03-22 19:18:59	0|sipa|BlueMatt: but the fact that it exists is probably a sign that things can be improved
206 2018-03-22 19:19:12	0|wumpus|ok, time for next topic I think
207 2018-03-22 19:19:15	0|sipa|:)
208 2018-03-22 19:19:39	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: are you here today?
209 2018-03-22 19:19:41	0|wumpus|#topic what's up with #12694 and next steps? (sipa)
210 2018-03-22 19:19:43	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12694 | Actually disable BnB when there are preset inputs by achow101 · Pull Request #12694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
211 2018-03-22 19:19:54	0|sipa|achow101: what is the issue right now?
212 2018-03-22 19:19:57	0|achow101|12694 is a bug fix because I forgot a line of code
213 2018-03-22 19:20:03	0|achow101|it got lost in a rebase somewhere
214 2018-03-22 19:20:09	0|sipa|then we should just merge it
215 2018-03-22 19:20:11	0|achow101|next steps are #12605
216 2018-03-22 19:20:12	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12605 | High level road map for coin selection changes · Issue #12605 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
217 2018-03-22 19:20:12	0|sipa|how bad is it?
218 2018-03-22 19:20:38	0|achow101|it gets messed up when people use preset inputs, but not too bad I think
219 2018-03-22 19:20:50	0|sipa|can you define "messed up" ?
220 2018-03-22 19:20:53	0|achow101|I think BnB will be missed when that happens, but there's no guarantee
221 2018-03-22 19:21:05	0|sipa|i see
222 2018-03-22 19:21:31	0|achow101|the preset inputs use actual value, but BnB uses effective value. So using both simultaneously can result in some strange behavior, particularly with fees
223 2018-03-22 19:21:43	0|sipa|what do you think about fixing BnB to work correctly with preset inputs (before also swapping out the fallback selection?)
224 2018-03-22 19:21:59	0|wumpus|yes seems #12694 is ready for merge
225 2018-03-22 19:22:01	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12694 | Actually disable BnB when there are preset inputs by achow101 · Pull Request #12694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
226 2018-03-22 19:22:07	0|sipa|as i expect that swapping out the fallback selections may take some time
227 2018-03-22 19:22:10	0|achow101|it requires switching everything over to use effective value
228 2018-03-22 19:22:19	0|sipa|hmm
229 2018-03-22 19:22:33	0|sipa|which is something you'd do anyway for the new fallback strategy anyway?
230 2018-03-22 19:22:36	0|achow101|yes
231 2018-03-22 19:22:39	0|sipa|gotcha
232 2018-03-22 19:23:05	0|achow101|I started working on using random selection as a fallback here: https://github.com/achow101/bitcoin/tree/srd-fallback
233 2018-03-22 19:24:01	0|sipa|ok
234 2018-03-22 19:24:06	0|wumpus|nice
235 2018-03-22 19:24:08	0|sipa|thanks, that clarified things
236 2018-03-22 19:24:45	0|wumpus|ok, any other topics?
237 2018-03-22 19:24:51	0|morcos|one sec
238 2018-03-22 19:25:06	0|meshcollider|EOL date for 0.13 ( https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/528 )
239 2018-03-22 19:25:07	0|morcos|We have to as a project get on the same page for at least near term priorities on coin selection
240 2018-03-22 19:25:35	0|morcos|how do we weight privacy vs fee cost vs utxo set effects in aggregate
241 2018-03-22 19:26:02	0|luke-jr|users should get a choice per-tx ideally
242 2018-03-22 19:26:03	0|sipa|how do you even measure privacy?
243 2018-03-22 19:26:05	0|wumpus|#topic coin selection priorities
244 2018-03-22 19:26:17	0|morcos|previously we had said we can't worsen the overall utxo set effects, but this is a tough bar to meet given how "dumb" existing coin selection is
245 2018-03-22 19:26:20	0|sipa|without metric, there isn't even something to optimize for, even if we knew what we wanted
246 2018-03-22 19:26:58	0|wumpus|if possible we'd not want to reduce privacy at all
247 2018-03-22 19:27:06	0|luke-jr|sipa: ideally coinjoin everything with other users sending bitcoins at the same time. :p
248 2018-03-22 19:27:11	0|it-3276294625|I can write an bitcoin bruteforce generator
249 2018-03-22 19:27:27	0|morcos|well the question is, is it ok to make the coin selction consoldiate inputs less by default?  in exchange for perhaps increasing privacy and saving on fees?
250 2018-03-22 19:27:39	0|wumpus|luke-jr: he's talking about short-term
251 2018-03-22 19:28:10	0|morcos|my view, is that we shouldn't expect any wallet to do anything that is better for the local user, so if there is an aggregate net negative effect on the utxo
252 2018-03-22 19:28:22	0|luke-jr|morcos: depends on where you're sending them
253 2018-03-22 19:28:27	0|morcos|then that needs to be addressed with consensus costing changes in the long run (such as segwit)
254 2018-03-22 19:28:44	0|morcos|and we should give up trying to be overally globally nice at the expense of our own users in core
255 2018-03-22 19:28:57	0|morcos|for instance we currently spend non-economic inputs
256 2018-03-22 19:29:03	0|meshcollider|morcos: by consolidate less, you mean the total number would remain roughly the same? Or actively worsen
257 2018-03-22 19:29:09	0|luke-jr|consensus changes aren't that simple nor obvious
258 2018-03-22 19:29:54	0|morcos|meshcollider: i don't know... i don't trust the simulations that much, but it would be obvious from the algorithm that the utxo set growth by core wallets would be increased somewhat
259 2018-03-22 19:29:59	0|luke-jr|demurrage would probably make sense, but that would be so controversial it would never happen
260 2018-03-22 19:30:19	0|morcos|luke-jr: agreed, and we don't know now what the long term bottlenecks really are, so we couldn't even design the right answer , let alone implement it
261 2018-03-22 19:30:35	0|it-3276294625|How bitcoin keygen is build , between what parameters
262 2018-03-22 19:30:48	0|sipa|it-3276294625: not now; we're in a meeting
263 2018-03-22 19:30:55	0|it-3276294625|Ok
264 2018-03-22 19:31:29	0|wumpus|bitcoinwarezkeygencracker
265 2018-03-22 19:31:55	0|morcos|if murchandamus were here, i think he'd say that of course nothing is going to be as good for the utxo set as the existing core algo.   my argument is therefore we should allow ourself to make it worse, since thats not what anyone would design from scratch
266 2018-03-22 19:31:55	0|wumpus|#topic EOL date for 0.13 (meshcollider)
267 2018-03-22 19:32:27	0|it-3276294625|wumpus: steel not answering to my question :)) what are the parameters that the code is generated
268 2018-03-22 19:32:34	0|wumpus|it-3276294625: go away
269 2018-03-22 19:32:49	0|meshcollider|morcos: yeah I think most users are more concerned with the fees, they can consolidate inputs themselves when fees are low
270 2018-03-22 19:32:54	0|wumpus|morcos: sorry! thought the topic was over
271 2018-03-22 19:33:01	0|morcos|no problem
272 2018-03-22 19:33:28	0|meshcollider|But consolidation worsens the coin selection performance does it?
273 2018-03-22 19:33:29	0|morcos|meshcollider: yeah and i'm in favor building iin functionality to do that in core too...  we should try to make it easy to be a good utxo citizen
274 2018-03-22 19:33:33	0|jcorgan|a rigorous definition of "loss of privacy" would go a long way toward being able to measure it
275 2018-03-22 19:33:41	0|morcos|meshcollider: what do you mean by performance?
276 2018-03-22 19:33:50	0|achow101|morcos: less utxo's make BnB less effective
277 2018-03-22 19:34:18	0|meshcollider|How well it can select inputs, a larger variety of inputs improves the selection doesn't it?
278 2018-03-22 19:34:20	0|morcos|achow101: well, we disagree on how much difference BnB makes.  i think exact matches are rare enough that trying to improve their frequency is a neglible effect
279 2018-03-22 19:34:45	0|sipa|morcos: in high-fee times i think they matter a lot, no?
280 2018-03-22 19:34:52	0|morcos|exact matches?
281 2018-03-22 19:35:40	0|sipa|within a window of the cost of creating change, yes
282 2018-03-22 19:36:09	0|morcos|i think they are still rare, but unforutnately neither of us have any data, b/c we dont know what core txs are from big wallets and what are from small
283 2018-03-22 19:36:19	0|sipa|fair
284 2018-03-22 19:36:48	0|morcos|but sure, i mean all you are arguing is maybe loosening consolidation isn't making things as bad as i'm saying
285 2018-03-22 19:36:51	0|morcos|great
286 2018-03-22 19:37:32	0|morcos|it sounds like we're mostly in agreement we can move in this direction, just not #reckless ly
287 2018-03-22 19:37:43	0|luke-jr|maybe we could have an opt-in statistics report at some point? just with the "exact match found? y/n" and vague wallet classifications?
288 2018-03-22 19:37:59	0|Randolf|luke-jr:  That's an interesting idea.
289 2018-03-22 19:38:12	0|meshcollider|"Bitcoin core would like to collect and share anonymous usage data with the developers"
290 2018-03-22 19:38:15	0|luke-jr|delayed randomly to prevent fingerprinting
291 2018-03-22 19:38:15	0|meshcollider|Heh
292 2018-03-22 19:38:15	0|morcos|luke-jr: i certainly think that would be useful, but who would trust that
293 2018-03-22 19:38:34	0|luke-jr|morcos: design it so the data can be public without revealing anything dangerous
294 2018-03-22 19:38:35	0|morcos|and next thing you know we're being subpoenaed for it
295 2018-03-22 19:38:40	0|morcos|perhaps
296 2018-03-22 19:38:45	0|Randolf|morcos:  I think a lot of users probably would use that feature.  I would because I'd see it as a way to support the future development of Bitcoin.
297 2018-03-22 19:38:59	0|achow101|luke-jr: make it so public that everything is publicly logged
298 2018-03-22 19:39:13	0|meshcollider|It'd be cool if it just wrote to a data file in the directory so they could just upload that file if they want to help
299 2018-03-22 19:39:14	0|morcos|yeah taht would be the only way
300 2018-03-22 19:39:15	0|luke-jr|achow101: yeah, we could literally have a site with all data received
301 2018-03-22 19:39:40	0|sipa|i'd be against that
302 2018-03-22 19:40:00	0|luke-jr|which part?
303 2018-03-22 19:40:12	0|sipa|having a single site that collecta data
304 2018-03-22 19:40:15	0|wumpus|would definitely be against automatic uploading
305 2018-03-22 19:40:22	0|Randolf|meshcollider:  I don't like that -- people should be asked first.  The problem is that spyware could copy such a file.
306 2018-03-22 19:40:23	0|cfields|if nothing else, seems the data would be skewed against the privacy metric anyway?
307 2018-03-22 19:40:39	0|sipa|cfields: right
308 2018-03-22 19:40:54	0|jcorgan|some ideas are just better left unexplored
309 2018-03-22 19:41:36	0|meshcollider|Ok are we moving to next topic now?
310 2018-03-22 19:42:04	0|Randolf|sipa:  Decentralized would certainly be better.
311 2018-03-22 19:42:14	0|meshcollider|Just a quick one, to discuss the EOL date for 0.13 since the lifecycle page on bitcoincore.org needs an update
312 2018-03-22 19:42:26	0|meshcollider|https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/528
313 2018-03-22 19:42:29	0|morcos|ready to move on
314 2018-03-22 19:42:40	0|Randolf|meshcollider:  I think the date suggested there is reasonable.
315 2018-03-22 19:42:42	0|luke-jr|I still use 0.13 for my cold wallet, but I'm not willing to commit to maintaining it
316 2018-03-22 19:43:21	0|MarcoFalke|It is already unmaintained
317 2018-03-22 19:43:53	0|wumpus|meshcollider: looks good to me
318 2018-03-22 19:44:16	0|meshcollider|Sweet, jnewbery just wanted to have it discussed here
319 2018-03-22 19:44:19	0|luke-jr|MarcoFalke: then it shouldbe a past date
320 2018-03-22 19:44:31	0|meshcollider|luke-jr: there are 2 dates
321 2018-03-22 19:44:35	0|MarcoFalke|^
322 2018-03-22 19:44:45	0|meshcollider|One is end of maintenance, the other is full EOL
323 2018-03-22 19:44:46	0|luke-jr|I know
324 2018-03-22 19:45:17	0|meshcollider|Ok that's that then. Any other topics?
325 2018-03-22 19:45:33	0|wumpus|right, maintenance means that there could be general bugfix releases on that branch, EOL means even cricitcal security patches won't be backported to that
326 2018-03-22 19:46:07	0|luke-jr|which is what I was referring to anyway
327 2018-03-22 19:46:15	0|achow101|i think luke-jr is saying that 0.13 is already past EOL
328 2018-03-22 19:46:24	0|jnewbery|date seems fine to me. Is there any convention we use to set the EOL date?
329 2018-03-22 19:46:38	0|Randolf|achow101:  Then perhaps the EOL date should be changed to today?
330 2018-03-22 19:46:54	0|wumpus|+/- a year after end maintenance
331 2018-03-22 19:47:16	0|meshcollider|Note that 0.12 EOL was only 3 weeks ago
332 2018-03-22 19:47:26	0|luke-jr|achow101: well, that depends on the rest of you all; if someone will backport critical fixes..
333 2018-03-22 19:47:55	0|luke-jr|I just meant that I'm not willing to commit to doing it longer ☺
334 2018-03-22 19:49:08	0|wumpus|me neither
335 2018-03-22 19:49:13	0|wumpus|any other topics?
336 2018-03-22 19:49:58	0|achow101|luke-jr: I doubt there will be anything that requires another 0.13 release in the next 4 months anyways
337 2018-03-22 19:50:58	0|MarcoFalke|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blame/f686002a8eba820a40ac2f34a6e8f57b2b5cc54c/doc/release-process.md#L297 could be modified to include "Update https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/blob/master/_includes/posts/_maintenance-table.md"
338 2018-03-22 19:51:24	0|achow101|while we're talking about this, maybe we should also set 0.14's EOL date
339 2018-03-22 19:52:17	0|meshcollider|Feb 1 2019?
340 2018-03-22 19:52:50	0|jnewbery|meshcollider: +1
341 2018-03-22 19:52:55	0|Randolf|achow101:  This starts to venture into another question:  How many previous versions should be supported/non-EOL?
342 2018-03-22 19:53:02	0|Randolf|Should there be a maximum number?
343 2018-03-22 19:53:44	0|jcorgan|said number would be dynamic an depend entirely on the willingness of volunteers to do it
344 2018-03-22 19:53:47	0|achow101|Randolf: IIRC we always did current, previous as maintenance, and one before that critical updates only
345 2018-03-22 19:54:00	0|luke-jr|Randolf: all depends on what developers are willing to maintain
346 2018-03-22 19:54:20	0|luke-jr|several years ago, I maintained some versions for years
347 2018-03-22 19:55:01	0|wumpus|also depends on the scope of the problem, if it's a simple backport, it's easy to roll another 0.13 version anyway, if it takes a full-on refactor first, no one will likely bother
348 2018-03-22 19:55:04	0|jcorgan|if there were an user/organization that was dependent upon security and/or bug fixes in an older, unmaintained version, they could certainly pay industry rates to a competent person to do so
349 2018-03-22 19:55:14	0|luke-jr|jcorgan: +1
350 2018-03-22 19:55:30	0|Randolf|luke-jr++
351 2018-03-22 19:56:12	0|sipa|(luke) - (jr++) ?
352 2018-03-22 19:56:14	0|Randolf|wumpus:  I can see that if it's a major job, the recommendation will be to upgrade to a newer version anyway.
353 2018-03-22 19:56:26	0|wumpus|Randolf: yes
354 2018-03-22 19:56:27	0|luke-jr|sipa: lol
355 2018-03-22 19:57:01	0|jcorgan|the issue would come up with someone who maintains and uses a modified branch
356 2018-03-22 19:57:32	0|jcorgan|it might be easier to pay someone to backport something than to try to roll their changes forward
357 2018-03-22 19:57:49	0|luke-jr|depends on what it is
358 2018-03-22 19:57:58	0|jcorgan|sure
359 2018-03-22 19:58:12	0|Randolf|sipa:  I'm used to the karma bot in the #perl channel.  :)
360 2018-03-22 19:58:23	0|achow101|on a semi-related note, should we remove the branches for EOL versions
361 2018-03-22 19:58:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jimpo opened pull request #12760: Docs: Improve documentation on standard communication channels. (06master...06communication-channels) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12760
362 2018-03-22 19:58:43	0|wumpus|achow101: probably
363 2018-03-22 19:59:43	0|wumpus|has been a while since I last cleaned up branches
364 2018-03-22 20:00:01	0|sipa|PLOINK
365 2018-03-22 20:00:09	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
366 2018-03-22 20:00:10	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-03-22-19.00.log.html
367 2018-03-22 20:00:10	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Mar 22 20:00:09 2018 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
368 2018-03-22 20:00:10	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-03-22-19.00.html
369 2018-03-22 20:00:10	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-03-22-19.00.txt
370 2018-03-22 20:00:15	0|luke-jr|sipa lays down the time limit
371 2018-03-22 20:00:50	0|luke-jr|heading home, this worked out well; bbl
372 2018-03-22 20:00:55	0|Randolf|Take care luke-jr.
373 2018-03-22 20:01:14	0|Randolf|Good day to everyone.  That seemed to be a very productive meeting.
374 2018-03-22 20:01:25	0|wumpus|later
375 2018-03-22 20:01:51	0|achow101|wumpus: merge #12694
376 2018-03-22 20:01:53	0|achow101|?
377 2018-03-22 20:01:53	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12694 | Actually disable BnB when there are preset inputs by achow101 · Pull Request #12694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
378 2018-03-22 20:02:56	0|wumpus|yes
379 2018-03-22 20:13:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f686002a8eba...9552dfb1f632
380 2018-03-22 20:13:44	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14081bf54 15Andrew Chow: Test that BnB is not used when there are preset inputs
381 2018-03-22 20:13:44	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146ef9982 15Andrew Chow: Actually disable BnB when there are preset inputs...
382 2018-03-22 20:13:45	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149552dfb 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12694: Actually disable BnB when there are preset inputs...
383 2018-03-22 20:14:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #12694: Actually disable BnB when there are preset inputs (06master...06fix-preset-coins-bnb) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12694
384 2018-03-22 20:28:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9552dfb1f632...cead84b72d27
385 2018-03-22 20:28:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14045eeb8 15Russell Yanofsky: Rename account to label where appropriate...
386 2018-03-22 20:28:35	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d2527bd 15Russell Yanofsky: Rename wallet_accounts.py test...
387 2018-03-22 20:28:36	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cead84b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11536: Rename account to label where appropriate...
388 2018-03-22 20:28:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #11536: Rename account to label where appropriate (06master...06pr/acct) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11536
389 2018-03-22 21:14:33	0|justin__|any reason not to further lower relay fee even 1 sat/byte seems expensive nowadays or am I just cheap? :P
390 2018-03-22 21:21:47	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #12757: Clarify include guard naming convention (06master...06include-guard) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12757
391 2018-03-22 21:47:37	0|luke-jr|justin__: any lower probably won't get relayed, but off-topic here.