{
  "founder": "wumpus",
  "channel": "#bitcoin-core-dev",
  "network": "freenode",
  "id": "c584fe620e1f4a259bea242d8bfb4619",
  "name": "#bitcoin-core-dev",
  "chair": "wumpus",
  "chairs": [
    "wumpus"
  ],
  "nicks": {
    "wumpus": 75,
    "lightningbot": 2,
    "sipa": 61,
    "jonasschnelli": 7,
    "cfields": 7,
    "gmaxwell": 17,
    "kanzure": 6,
    "instagibbs": 15,
    "luke-jr": 27,
    "btcdrak": 9,
    "michagogo": 2,
    "jl2012": 3,
    "jtimon": 24,
    "murch": 1,
    "GreenIsMyPepper": 4
  },
  "start_time": "2016-08-11T18:59:45+00:00",
  "end_time": "2016-08-11T20:00:39+00:00",
  "active": false,
  "original_topic": "Bitcoin Core development discussion and commit log | This is the channel for developing Bitcoin Core. Feel free to watch, but please take commentary and usage questions to #bitcoin | Channel logs: https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev, http://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/",
  "current_topic": "rc3 go-ahead",
  "messages": [
    {
      "id": "45e48e8f19cb4dc6bdca4c66fb242cd3",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "#startmeeting",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T18:59:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "fcac0fe5ae8644b39021585f4d45b5b9",
      "sender": "lightningbot",
      "payload": "Meeting started Thu Aug 11 18:59:45 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T18:59:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ae203890a82149bcac6ee4b406b1fd31",
      "sender": "lightningbot",
      "payload": "Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T18:59:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "41d63ea5d28a4f33ab0906336bd1c5a4",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "present",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:00:25+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "345529d135b840b8bd0e3dd5e4854157",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "sipa proposed some topics earlier today: 1) segwit policy limits  2) can we propose a softfork to make low-s required simultaneously with segwit?  3) 3) raising mandatory script flags to include bip66 4)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:00:37+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e657fd1ed8b34aa49d51b37bcb019be1",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "eh no 4",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:00:41+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9ba87b62cb3e4cbeb08426080406ffc0",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "can anyone do the giant highlight list?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:01:11+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "7f912bb6809a40efb38373052a422195",
      "sender": "jonasschnelli",
      "payload": "ping gmaxwell",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:01:44+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "212bbe75f90c451e97c06a95d2552861",
      "sender": "cfields",
      "payload": "gmaxwell: paging bot",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:01:47+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ddb63302cdc5485f86ed90feeb0ddb77",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "#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",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:01:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6fd3e086190b45fab3131ccb349cd75f",
      "sender": "kanzure",
      "payload": "hi.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:01:55+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "8fcc6ad956064e0aac2c935a3fce54c5",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "oops, it's not wednesday, how about that",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:02:08+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ff6f4d052bb34966b839210a3a8b0504",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "thanks",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:02:08+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "89324a9e0b6b4e51aedd4367db31ab87",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "heh",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:02:41+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b7443505b76540e886bc350c27febbe6",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "another topic would be rc3 go-ahead",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:02:47+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "0177accb25f74219bc28f919decadf05",
      "sender": "kanzure",
      "payload": "not sure about priority but jtimon was asking for code review eyeballs on #8493",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:02:48+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a93dcea0c38c4393be7cc7def3906a50",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "but let's start with sipa's topics",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:05+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "4a3ab632a68d487dac7a8a53e11e4ca0",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "hi",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:07+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "97cb9f295d874ee4926b19837f8258e7",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "#topic segwit policy limits",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:14+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "5d644595fe1643339d88a6979baf54b1",
      "sender": "michagogo",
      "payload": "cfields: I think last time he said it's not a bot...",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:27+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d82ff4fd3c8c4f6fb53ce38d477b1ef4",
      "sender": "cfields",
      "payload": "michagogo: was a joke :)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:48+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "98d6f046028c43fe857a7792b1a90b2b",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "it's just an alias.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:49+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "56210b570b0f4d439c3115867b3b72f5",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "michagogo: all bots say that!",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "c2d3e7fa13444ea19fdbb01741d91a1b",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jl2012 has suggested some changes to prevent DoS attacks with segwit",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:51+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "adcb779f1a9d4b3fa30b54c802894759",
      "sender": "michagogo",
      "payload": "Also, if anyone's interested I think the KSK ceremony is starting soon",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:04:08+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "993257f912b5410c9846d85b9f38d450",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "do we in addition want per txin witness size limits or so",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:04:21+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "5cf1fc31c7b04c099cb66b28b5d95417",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "may make sense to add some initial limits, they can always be removed later",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:04:56+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "3afa85a11aac48d1a7566a21aeaedba8",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "adding limits later is more controversial",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:05:02+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "5bd0382dc0744f60b3be12a68b977778",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "agree",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:05:14+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "2e8919f188424167a8f231f077c94b44",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "is this merely to offset people stuffing data for 25% the price",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:05:51+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ace13a0eefdc42f39f3e6f8d5c5f68b4",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "but i'd like to know what opinions people have about this",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:05:54+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6183466d002a477ea68edecdafc49942",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "could you elaborate additional motivations if any",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:06:06+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "816b7aec1a654defb2b86d75a96f3eba",
      "sender": "jl2012",
      "payload": "this is a conceptual PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8499",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:06:07+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "caaacc8209304e02a810bbfb7ef55fa5",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "ofc",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:06:11+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "fafd0b32b56248a8adc239c75ac25402",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "a policy limit matching p2sh's consensus limit sounds uncontroversial",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:06:18+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "7a9073a8090b49b7966d9bfc29a319ec",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "but this is too small for N-of->15, so maybe slightly larger is desirable",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:06:37+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "7200b7dc9d1041e3bbf5bfdf14de1c33",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "someone involved with Lightning probably should comment as well",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:07:28+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e2a8948207d14eafaeb8b13ad8dadece",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "yes, it would be important not to sabotage that",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:07:58+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f1f1e9f4ba2b4f6c82af5dcf63798348",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "ping roasbeef GreenIsMyPepper rusty ^",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:08:28+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "4bda267bfa88497c9c8019f4481ce437",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "could someone tell me what we're protecting against first? I can't really form an opinion",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:08:33+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "00651167fe0247e08e2b399fba0e6e18",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "is this a new consensus rule or just policy? (looking at 8499 seems policy only, just want to confirm)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:09:06+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "fc93604121cd4c69add069566aff0036",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jl2012: policy",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:09:12+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d29665b051354ff2a35168c1e1c6327e",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "eh, jtimon ^",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:09:16+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "fab6cce0de5c41fb933ea4340ec7499f",
      "sender": "kanzure",
      "payload": "instagibbs: txin witness size bloating",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:09:16+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6a061299d41e488aac078aad33a2bca7",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "thanks",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:09:20+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "368b47e2393f47bc9a7fabe9a8377ec2",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jl2012: 8499 does not set a size limit, right?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:10:05+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a2c28d67169940a297e6376c10e23294",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "8499 I think just bans peers for bad witnesses",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:10:35+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "66028d0dec2a4d29befba064be0a3eca",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "instagibbs: also protection against the problems discussed in #8279",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:10:58+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "68ff9833e90b45a1a9962a6ce6ae56b7",
      "sender": "jl2012",
      "payload": "sipa: it's per input size limit",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:11:18+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "cbcb02950aeb4252a0547e88157db772",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "sipa, yes, makes sense",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:11:25+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ed55f890193c4d539a9394af57d66c83",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "ok",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:11:37+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ad5a03534e9245c0a39f8781470d6c73",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jl2012: but no limits for p2wsh",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:12:11+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ddf7cb85da8042e789477ff424899f4e",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "(sorry, i haven't looked in detail; correct me if i'm wrong)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:12:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b36c0f87ef164b4d9b43e7cc945a42cd",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "seems there are not too many opinions; i'll propose some thing for next meeting",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:13:53+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a5205293ca0442099d800deb014a641a",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "next topic?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:14:19+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6b1be7b9c0bb4ae995f25daad181951a",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "#topic softfork to make low-s required simultaneously with segwit",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:14:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6b4ba73f30cc45648a4162e3a4609288",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "there was some discussion about this earliet today between sipa and jl2012",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:15:37+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "73d0debb0399427d806aabab4f469fa8",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "IIRC, this just blocks transactions that can be fixed with malleation anyway. might as well.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:15:38+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b9297f007798479b97eded4461f8bc65",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "<jl2012> sipa: why would you like to have a low-s softfork? And is it for segwit  scripts only, or for all scripts?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:15:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "83e9eba6fcd740d687cb294c93be5e07",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "<sipa> jl2012: it's already nonstandard for a long time, it doesn't hurt anyone, and removes a source of malleability",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:15:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d503a9cd83654a7296147b89147b062a",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "<jl2012> so you want it for non-segwit scripts too?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:15:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "efc946911422428e9b266617e162c294",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "<sipa> well to be discussed",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:15:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d80bcd345e83425180b0989dc8cb43d7",
      "sender": "murch",
      "payload": "Are there any downsides to that?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:15:52+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "1d8bd257f7894c85a2ab49d0ae1dcb0b",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "so it was recently suggested that since low-s has been non-standard and not present on the network for over a year now, we could propose to turn it into a consensus rules",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:15:57+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6ce5879981414c7a974c790a4fb59fb6",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "<jl2012> with low-s rule, even the wtxid of a p2wpkh tx is not malleable",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:16:06+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b310a7cdb6ac4962bab4bb0e8b33d8ec",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "<jl2012> I don't see a compelling reason to have a low-s soft fork with segwit (in 0.13.1). Non-segwit txs are hopeless and we should not spend any energy to fix them. For segwit txs, why would we need immallable wtxid?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:16:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "41e4a2fd99aa409aaca9ac4569a8479e",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "<sipa> one reason would be avoid 3rd party relayers messing with compact block relay",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:16:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9d20da674b2d4e429413b360a733dec1",
      "sender": "jl2012",
      "payload": "sipa: limiting p2wsh is more difficult, I think it could only be done case-by-case",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:16:41+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "7d88dc6d9e0949e887ae458b8c96ef66",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "sipa: agreed; the thing for discussion is mostly why to combine it with segwit",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:16:52+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "c18032c7101d4962aa4c651ddbc9dbb9",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "a low-s softfork itself at some point is uncontroversial imo",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:17:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ec4d47c603e9400cad393cc4928f9261",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "pro combining it with segwit: it may be hard to do this as a separate softfork",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:17:17+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "80fd72035d7d4e5296df30bc7c9df15d",
      "sender": "jonasschnelli",
      "payload": "why is it hard?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:17:32+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f22e840c0a2e422fbf3ae514d7310ab3",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "^",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:17:34+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "2414694647664ca988d4fdb55b7cf37b",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "miners need to upgrade software",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:17:52+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "33790fe466ae4855b3ab5876f6a0fb86",
      "sender": "jonasschnelli",
      "payload": "Combine it with another, later software?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:18:08+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "23f836dee473493fb860d4c76215529b",
      "sender": "jonasschnelli",
      "payload": "softfork",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:18:12+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f3abf6fbb2024fcd8e8a3537624f1653",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "a low-s softfork would be uncontroversial, but also very low benefit",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:18:16+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "3dae3928e6aa4e1fa66eb032490e25f8",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "no reason to make it urgent; just roll it out and let miners deploy on their own time?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:18:27+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a640b64e6932428192b1a5bf1cae2585",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "that's possible, but i thought it would be neat to just never have anything but low-s in segwit",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:18:30+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "41e41e18542644578ba9fd95cf41955d",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "but rolling everything into one giant softfork is more risky",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:18:30+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "32e48994dbd04a6fb21aba07802b7abc",
      "sender": "GreenIsMyPepper",
      "payload": "reading scrollback...",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:18:36+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "2b27d614636a4e21b29a15a5e99bde01",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "that is true",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:19:30+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "4591dc58190e45b0ad96d343d9411c82",
      "sender": "jonasschnelli",
      "payload": "I think it's useful to combine to low-s restriction with the SW software in 0.13.1",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:19:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e8f52394990b45b28f1fe170bb2fc134",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "it's literally, VersionBitsActive(pindexPrev, DEPLOYMENT_LOW_S) == ACTIVE { flags |= SCRIPT_VERIFY_LOW_S; }",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:19:52+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b689b4351b4f4a9284823c4a07db5ce5",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "well yes that would be 0.13.1",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:19:56+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "27778e616cd04e538b30ec2c2a5c65ce",
      "sender": "GreenIsMyPepper",
      "payload": "is the policy limit for number of sigs? (sorry for the noise)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:19:59+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a227f87986c949df8290b8b5e5323b04",
      "sender": "kanzure",
      "payload": "size",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:20:11+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ead381964b194b768330a211010eb27d",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "a low s softfork should be also quite easy, no? it's already implemented, just make a flag mandatory for consensus",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:20:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "30dfd845561846c4ac7c32370a276620",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "oh, right. speaking of 0.13.1, it seems quite uncontroversial",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:20:18+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "c55678bb59b943a28e07e37e98ec9eac",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "Oh, if the two bip9 aren't packaged, I think we should",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:20:20+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d2e9a813ce244f02a49993581a464801",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "jtimon: yes, sipa just quoted the code change :)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:20:25+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "4739f5eb733d481fadf75eb55c38a496",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "(duh, bip9)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:20:28+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "0a67f7fd34d8495eb05ce023e99e30b6",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jl2012 sounded like he thought this would require more testing; and i agree that if due to extra testing this would delay the segwit softfork, we should not",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:21:31+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6e8ed35f2b6e4dcdb90c46f87b43c5ea",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "I like coupling an uncontroversial change to a more risky one more than the other way around at least",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:21:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "64e1b92692ce4435b5d0bafdbd0272cf",
      "sender": "kanzure",
      "payload": "s/we should not/we should not bundle",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:21:46+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e953711422ab4660b8a0ff920fc41610",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "(huh, it occurs to me - not a real suggestion - that we *could* have de-bundled the block size increase from segwit into a separate BIP9 bit, so long as all deployment of segwit included support for the separate blocksize-increase bit; IMO interesting)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:21:53+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "be457985d36c46dcabd9ea9419b08d1f",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "no strong opinion about doing the low-s sf with segwit or later",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:22:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6a0abda03e5b4406b266955f7fc6bf61",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "but yeah, the sf itself seems uncontroversial",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:22:35+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "5a66ae8593404358a906a76d8935166f",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "gmaxwell countered that if low_s requires testing, that's testing we should be doing already, as it's being enforced on every transaction on the network already, so making it consensus likely just removes the possibility for untested cases",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:22:41+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "fd9dafbeff6c4c1f9a0ff3370eda3c17",
      "sender": "GreenIsMyPepper",
      "payload": "seems cleaner to have low-S from the start, no?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:23:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "dececaa46fc649de9971214b2aa154f7",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "wumpus: coupling an uncontroversial change to a more controversial one, could be taken as pressure to activate the controversial one; so for that reason, it may be best to keep them separate (like how we don't do softforks in .0 releases)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:24:22+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "3e43b259a78b4bfdad34df80ae39fc34",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "(separate in the BIP9 sense, not necessarily a different release)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:24:34+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9e6dca6664ec43998d070fbffbe11ec3",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "luke-jr, my assumption would be a different bit",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:24:53+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "578945cf0e9d4f0dbc474f9a8c40aba7",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "I think lowS softfork is a nobrainer, it's also easy and uncomplicated since it's already policy.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:24:54+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9640ffb85cfa4824b4c5a3feb777461d",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "luke-jr:that would be if it is uncontroverial *and* attractive, but there's no one really waiting for low-s enforcement, it's just a cleanup",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:25:04+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "4da801543c7548d6aaabd2d58d3f2fc7",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "I mean, we can also deploy low-s in, say 0.12.2 before segwit (oh, wait, backport bip9)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:25:05+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d3c46f37849d4519afc75d991ce32ed1",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "if they go in the same release, why separate them in the bip9 sense?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:25:24+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e8e4490421c4463dae78a60d2181c0f6",
      "sender": "kanzure",
      "payload": "luke-jr: that's at best an argument for your segwit bip9 activation decoupling idea.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:25:29+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "dbb633db82444a498e8a9ea1be8dc7de",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "I don't think we should deploy anything before segwit",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:25:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "81826e1029da49feabb9ade5d62978be",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "wumpus: agree",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:25:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "2a1c1290ceb84fe1b0f41296b950500e",
      "sender": "jonasschnelli",
      "payload": "agree",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:25:58+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "251ee85471594f47beffe6b50feef418",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "it's time for segwit now, we should try to move ahead with things instead of introducing more things in between",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:26:27+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "8bdf8f24aed7499197fdeae1167f7ee7",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "kanzure: well, it's almost certainly too late for that (it definitely would add to testing required)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:26:35+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "440411f4a0f84cbca08878e72b01f77f",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "wumpus: just saying that together is not the only option for having low-s from the start of segwit, no strong opinion",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:26:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d38186afcffc4fe08ec07d78dac1709b",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "so, yeah, let's get 0.13.0 out asap then decide on a timeframe etc for segwit and do 0.13.1",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:26:54+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f35ff91137964ff9a46a285e38374288",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "ok",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:27:02+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9885d53bc0554b6388316c5cba2bc07d",
      "sender": "GreenIsMyPepper",
      "payload": "luke-jr: to follow up with the above ping, we're presuming a policy limit to be the same as P2SH constraints with the redeemScript size",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:27:08+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "245bcb45423949a28455d2d84a2383b3",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "GreenIsMyPepper: thanks",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:27:22+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "dd54104f8b79428a87fdbcd40aaaddd2",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "adding LOW_S is fine with me, it's simple to do and not risky and not controversial, indeed is a lot of overhead to do a seperate softfork for it",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:27:57+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "108211b1974a48c4843d613cde9dce7a",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "also segwit could activate first, in some universe",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:28:32+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "62557c23d3904340a32927e265e1188a",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "GreenIsMyPepper: oh sure - no reason why segwit would be able to do less than what is currently possible with P2SH",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:28:33+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "7804aa70d3d0449a9b22ec0fa336e1f5",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "next topic?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:29:26+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d325d5b363114a3facca74813e807a46",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "#topic raising mandatory script flags to include bip66",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:29:41+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "54bff4782e6f464e95013df203e5e923",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "I would prefer we combine lowS with segwit.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:29:53+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "eaeca55001984d4494870eeac8a83945",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "regarding luke-jr's argument, I don't think segwit is controversial either, but if segwit+low-s deployment fails, you can always try again with them separated",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:29:58+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "74153a0799ad46739a9a3d95d444adac",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "so, we have 3 sets of flags currently",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:29:59+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "fff35435fbaf41cba8ff7d3718e61b5e",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "what node versions does this result in cutting off from the network? pre-0.8, I think?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:30:00+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d5d0f5de9ff047f09b19b2c7768302a0",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "1) mandatory flags 2) consensus flags 3) standardness",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:30:16+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "596e3dcf11e94e90bd1406d67012368d",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "luke-jr: no one is 'cut off' from the network?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:30:26+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "214b80ecc885430fa9f64710e2fa1ea2",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "then I am misunderstanding",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:30:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "1ec1690a46a541548ab17e3a84fbf0ff",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "sipa: how are mandatory flags different from consensus flags?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:30:42+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "8db3ad3a124a4eb4a2951ef590a5ce7f",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "luke-jr is not misunderstanding",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:30:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "122711d18bd44adb8573443c0945bad4",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "luke-jr: it's a softfork so 0.8 nodes should still be able to verify?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:31:00+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "4c29d64652c740ce9ca7d34f5e9a5d11",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "wumpus: i'm explaining",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:31:14+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "77fa748adbe049e1b2fc5fc7cc4c56d7",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "Mandatory script verification flags that all new blocks must comply with for",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:31:27+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ac5578489ae4406db47f60110040caa3",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "* them to be valid. (but old blocks may not comply with) Currently just P2SH,",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:31:28+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b99418c410bc4f6b882da7b98ba17142",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "the reason why mandatory flags are different from consensus is because old nodes are not guaranteed to not send us currently-invalid transactions",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:31:34+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6df0c5f982624237991ff3514b6c7e91",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "and we would ban them if they send a BIP66-invalid transaction, for example",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:31:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "1b645a5f0d954ee79f2234871299a561",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "\"Failing one of these tests may trigger a DoS ban\" I see",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:31:55+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "8727d8dcf065462591c54b5da12584fa",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "so that's why BIP66 is not part of mandatory flags",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:01+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ad42f0021a3244b4a5f1ab118abeb8dd",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i just wanted to bring up the topic, not necessarily for anytime soon",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:18+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "735a4084e88248ee98a3d11f57525244",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "right, so they would not be cut off the network, but only if they actually generate or relay something invalid by new rules",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:20+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "06997fb8cc5f440e86cc8761ce22197b",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "note we have a fork of 0.5.3 that is actively \"maintained\" and used",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:28+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "352a55bb2ce14b09894eaffd7c20799b",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "instagibbs: also bip66, bip65 and bip112, no?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:33+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "2ba6ced150054256be82bfcf5c84838e",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "wumpus: it could partition the network, though",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:34+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a920733a335e4ca3b2f30a5a2837f3a3",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "s/we/someone else on the network/",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:41+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "24581975b96b42958ed7b2467cade4a3",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "sipa: ok, let's look at it from the other side then",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:55+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a8f005a02c954cdc904a1ade5e8e4954",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "jtimon, oh, the comment is straight from master",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:32:57+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "73e2bd94885c4749b9abf1f55f7844a8",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "sipa: what would be the advantage?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:33:00+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "acec7f1c25ae4eab9cbbabb58aa04413",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "wumpus: if there is a large group of pre-0.8 nodes connected to eachother, and they get an invalid transactions relayed to eachother",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:33:01+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "4dffa305002b43f38b9420b2e420db14",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "but all new blocks must comply with those too",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:33:23+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ffbbf83004d04f42b9025fddc5c3ea34",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "does it cost a node a lot of resources to verify BIP66 compliance? if not, why does it warrant DoS banning?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:33:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9689783a875b41d697c5f1ef16e07676",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "wumpus: good point",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:33:58+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f56c1da67dca49f1aaf79ed463a8edbf",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "perhaps the policy should just be to never extend mandatory flags",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:34:22+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "0a4664b93b1b46d793e061118eccc383",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "unless there is a DoS attack that needs it to be fixed",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:34:31+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "7c5785eb4f754b17ade93cd33c768c8f",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "I remember a previous discussion about being less trigger happy regarding DoS banning",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:34:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "233d1373942948129a44e905234fda6b",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "right, if there is DoS risk it is the appropriate measure",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:34:49+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9b55bc6a8101483282e2b75da6239e88",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i just noticed that this is something we've been ignoring the value of mandatory flags",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:35:04+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "82dbf52144d1433d88a33fbc5ad03d37",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "yes, sure, it's confusing",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:35:20+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9e34215b73db4d378d736fa3cd228a67",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "yes, indeed, i remember reducing dos banning flags",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:35:25+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "371f27ff03434140830a9667494b6f70",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "but adding a comment explaining this rationale would do just as well as extending the mandatory flags",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:35:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "31f915eaaace4b9bad18914db85b6815",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "fair enough",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:36:08+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "207dcdfd4d1b4cf1ae94cb4a15e44ec8",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "sipa: I'm not sure I follow, why aren't SCRIPT_VERIFY_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and SCRIPT_VERIFY_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY in MANDATORY_SCRIPT_VERIFY_FLAGS ?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:36:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "00f3cd87a88340b0a93113af2fd32c31",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jtimon: because pre-0.11.2 nodes could get banned by us if they'd send a CSV-violating transaction",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:37:18+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b94a6f3aa7484023be95b895d0310a1f",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "jtimon: for the same reason, probably, it would be harmful to DoS ban on them",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:37:25+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "5be9235052244c43bf332294b8f75a6a",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "jtimon: if a 0.5.3 node sends you a transaction violating those rules, you don't want to ban them, just reject it; if you banned them, you partition such nodes off the network and they stop getting blocks",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:37:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a486a81c6bd44e1d9036651af44e9998",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "(to not accidentally partition the network)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:37:55+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "caa499de616d47aea972636d2087e70f",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "ok, so it's all about the DoS score",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:38:01+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "687e5d3de70043fba355959fcfb12e75",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "yes",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:38:06+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "185ed4ef785b4897ae0a088e8f68c171",
      "sender": "instagibbs",
      "payload": "so why is it ok to ban a misbehaving p2sh transaction (probably veering off the path here)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:38:23+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e4339a999be649689a6475255d532a79",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "why SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH is different from other softforks for this again?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:38:44+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "661e25fd53a846c492648d6ba6731032",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "validation overhead?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:38:48+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "78263c0a15e2473e968cad38a1ca96b2",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jtimon: it was very old at the time mandatory flags was introduced, so nobody cared, i guess",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:39:06+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "739e4e98e45148149118018519866597",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "We can't reasonably support old versions forever; We're not testing them, and certantly not testing weirdo transactions with them.  perhaps we should have a program of making links to sufficiently old versions blocks-only after some point.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:39:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "85e69adf6319413d9e711e4ff045b0a7",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "well people run them on their own risk",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:39:43+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "793842e1351e4bd48bb7a3c024c4d8cb",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "wumpus: well they risk being banned, no?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:40:04+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b4ac3e0b41c5443b92350661e35489a0",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "yes, though if we blocks only them we won't risk partitioning them do to weirdness with txn handling. Much more likely to be reliable.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:40:17+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "0ac8d5c7be21446f85cd75849fe62120",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i think it's more a philosophical issue... another implementation may have different policy, and it's not our place to trigger happy ban them",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:41:12+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "610d84d577db4eb6bb26b40dc18d9aa7",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i like the idea of reducing dos banning where possible",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:41:12+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "44233f0e397546c789712343a19c6b30",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "sure, but would be best to not DoS ban in the first place for non DoS offenses",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:41:14+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "50b8f635331f49f0af33be8b709c8c61",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "sipa: for SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH too?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:41:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "116f04341c68418aa83c32a310133fc0",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "gmaxwell: would blocks-only treatment break their wallet broadcasts, though?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:41:57+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d6269ee089e94143aaad280162e8b5a8",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "Sending a consensus invalid transaction is a prefectly reasonable thing to ban for ... ignoring that the consensus rules change over time.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:42:07+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b6c7b50611c249ca942fbd74bac95efa",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "I don't think we should make the one-sided decision to make lower version nodes blocks-only",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:42:09+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f66ca1f03482465aae7dd66ea68ac4ad",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "luke-jr: yes but nodes that old already have wallet broadcast problems because of high-S enforcement as standardness.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:42:28+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f8652af8ebd14d0a974ec3836b63adf0",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "e.g. something may report a low network version but be perfectly able to handle new transactions",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:42:28+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "8631ad0aa7f6409e83c458d280e093aa",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "they're not really coupled the same way in other software than bitcoin core",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:42:44+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "931e477b707749d0ab847e34fbd5c179",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "probablity of their txn not relaying already is exponential in the number of signatures.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:42:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "add76a648b1b4dcf82659eae663be7d5",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "gmaxwell: consider that there's a crowd who insist on using 0.5.3 :/",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:42:51+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "565454c321954440a43bfff9fbe614dd",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "in any case I don't think this is a very urgent topic",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:43:06+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ea4773188b774ff1972b161e71348650",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "I guess they must have patched that",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:43:08+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "8e384ccaeef242039e7458c5a966fd8d",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "luke-jr: who insists in using 0.5.3 ?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:43:31+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "29872a9d5a2d4d148bc2d5b1cdffde5f",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "jtimon: therealbitcoin.org people",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:43:48+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "627990979cdc4127b9dd01533ea63121",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "luke-jr: they have to apply a small pile of fixes in any case.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:43:58+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a6a4ec223e4f44c1ad4f5fdc8a8ec42b",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "presumably they're fixed to produce high-S signatures (or not transacting at all... :P )",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:44:25+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "4ac81b706758453aadce7d8c5220d747",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "I suppose the BIP 66 patch is fairly trivial to add to that pile if they care; but sipa is right about the principle of not cutting them off IMO",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:45:20+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "03615d4d6d8b42818319d4d462b4eef0",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "they probably write raw transactions in their head instead of using the bitcoin core wallet",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:45:27+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b1d7faa7ca2746d9bdb328338639de0e",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "I guess I can ask after the meeting, but why don't they want to upgrade?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:45:30+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "fe6b9b554b6f48dd9b015c66ab1e4ab1",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jtimon: yes, let's discuss that after the meeting",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:45:51+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "1a84b4008991411b8541f444c605e847",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "^+1",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:45:58+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e5f3a3ee78bf4023834756824bce7cea",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "sipa: sure, np",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:46:02+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "15e43d16147a44b8bc2a9a0e7f8c4872",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i think this is getting too abstract",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:46:07+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "afadfab299ea428183ae42dcc3693cb4",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i just wanted to raise attention to the neglected mandatory flags :)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:46:21+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "abb71645f8d948c3a784af24bd437931",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "in any case, not our problem, we should not do anything to sabotage use of old clients, but we're also not responsible for making sure all old versions still work, they'll have to do with a pile of patches on top",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:46:29+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "0db0b262871841d38c10edc6f2cd1f8c",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "yes, next topic?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:46:33+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ef7c601077ec4acf93d774a8a469159f",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "I dont see any 0.5.3 useragents",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:46:39+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "75244ecfc2ba48fbac6cdf1c7c33959f",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "wumpus: you had rc3 as topic?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:46:58+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f1b7bf08fc3844ff9c34ef142e54cc23",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "#topic rc3 go-ahead",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:47:04+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b388d838bbf74642a098fd3fc7f7b4a2",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "luke-jr: are you sure there are 0.5.3 nodes on the network? https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/?q=0.5.3",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:47:30+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "607e97f16b954add84ca0aa44bc8873a",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "yes, quick question, anything that still needs to be merged/backported for 0.13.0 apart from release notes?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:47:32+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e8289d272e6f4e8e81aff227b8e70555",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "not seeing anything here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/20",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:48:09+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b93cf492fb8f4f1cb17c819954544c39",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "on the off-chance there's no objection, I'd like to PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5a716a3bc6621e4d2e2c1de5b6b5596d6877d589 for 0.13.0 mostly just to make #8459 uncontroversial",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:48:11+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "03d2cccfc09344e3a41ed516bf60d921",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "so I'm going to tag rc3 in a very short while, after the usual translation updates and such",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:48:28+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ddc9a5699c9d4860b3da9e2330137a3b",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "btcdrak: 1) those are just listening nodes, 2) 7 nodes show as 99999 \"/therealbitcoin.org:0.9.99.99/\"",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:48:49+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "79e68ec60a8848e9bbe539c6d3a82c62",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "yes they don't report as 0.5.3",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:49:23+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "311dd8b513a44bd0814a7e93ac1e5052",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "sipa: so should we get  SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH out of mandatory too?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:49:40+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "b449bdf9582b44228f2d8ce14da262b1",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "luke-jr: ok so there are 5 nodes out of 5000, I really dont think we have to be concerned.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:49:57+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "bdfedfa6259647febb751902f1021bd9",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "jtimon: out of topic :)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:50:01+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "54a426ecd9744cd5962dbdcb3ddc0e8f",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "sipa: ok, later too, whatever",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:50:15+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "79f6d92436294a458f4b1d9ab93d19fd",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "btcdrak: it's not a concern",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:50:26+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "62f222ebf69043dbb0700959e9b1a62e",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "wumpus: rc3 looks good to go.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:50:29+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "f5da838d9ffc44208cefda2c040eb901",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "foss gives that freedom to run your own stack of weird hacks if you want for whatever reason",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:50:59+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "e7b19969cc7342e8b0ada940ef5ff773",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "btcdrak: ok!",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:51:15+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "978811263e6c4ca192e19423970395bd",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "ack rc3",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:51:37+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9cd082dd59aa444a84e41b4d714bea90",
      "sender": "jonasschnelli",
      "payload": "ready to build",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:51:44+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "3a12f2f13d7b4351b48be2594bbb5e6d",
      "sender": "cfields",
      "payload": "sipa: as discussed yesterday, any need to try to get default_witness_commitment added to gbt with no witness data for 0.13.0? So miners can start easily adding commitments even before activation?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:51:52+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "2794bd24e9d24f29afaf0dcd2544a8c4",
      "sender": "btcdrak",
      "payload": "There's also a blog post being written about 0.13.0 if some eyes could review and comment https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/199",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:52:00+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a68fd253e590470ea6c71a324d75ed0c",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "cfields: fine be me",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:52:38+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "292673a251454fb5bc6aed373cbe9e2a",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "btcdrak: great",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:53:18+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "fe442df583464bc5bfdd768a94dfa7e5",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "cfields: eh, so that means holding up rc3?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:53:30+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "66fcdd3b5a894a609736be6002e0138b",
      "sender": "cfields",
      "payload": "wumpus: opinion ^^? Not critical, we have testnet.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:53:32+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9525b78319b34275aa787d0e12603e8c",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "if it's not critical I'd say not do it, at this point",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:53:55+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "2185d952387542a2b4387dd56feb655e",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "cfields: 0.13.0 has no activation, so it would not produce a default_witness_commitment?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:54:03+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d8b3b0bf3ee1437c95599e5844d8a310",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "unless you want to be that person holding up the release :)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:54:10+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d4cc4de886994d53bcb93b172122e261",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i think there is no need for that in 0.13.0",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:54:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ae11c3712a2a47d2949fe5c57821f1d8",
      "sender": "luke-jr",
      "payload": "sipa: the subject was commitments pre-activation",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:54:22+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6bcf34521ec94978af1b9254847875d5",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i'm confused about that",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:54:40+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "bf90990f5c30456dbb6ffd5a7ede3195",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "#link review blog post https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/199",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:55:01+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "68d5b2175948433c808f3b0dbaf7c384",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "i think a miner on 0.13.0 should never produce a segwit commitment, and a 0.13.1 one (assuming it has a defined start date) should always (regardless of whether it is before or after the start time)",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:55:13+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "3cf6a48f1a5e45c384d58ed676f5d42c",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "^ thats my expectation",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:55:35+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "070c54403fbc4ca884b3b7a0b4f86a4f",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "there is no problem if people choose to diverge from that",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:55:38+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "7ccade762ec54c29b08d28e30cac2cdb",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "cfields: to be honest I'm not sure what the advantage or disadvantage of that is",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:56:08+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6a130cd259674344b35f633d6bc4b76c",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "The reason I believe we should do that is so that we don't hae sudden behavior changes at times which are far away from updating the software which might break downstream mining infrastructure.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:56:56+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "a531e594423b4e6bb21bb52793602491",
      "sender": "cfields",
      "payload": "works for me. i was only considering it as a way to see that pools had begun adding valid structures. obviously it wouldn't be actually checked/used",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:56:57+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "edff2579b7574fe48f2cfd956ef7c8e7",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "e.g. if you update your bitcoin node and then days/weeks later it starts doing thing with segwit commitments that breaks your miners or pooling software, that is preferable. You would prefer the break to happen at upgrade time.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:57:32+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "8ad3040a2e03488d874ed89f4d6b95b9",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "cfields: 0.13.0 for all intents and purposes behaves identical to older nodes wrt segwit behaviour",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:57:44+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "07094be5104a4e999d0ae58b9b37edd1",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "cfields: so i think there is no point in using witness commitments as a signalling mechanism for anything in 0.13.0 already",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:58:03+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "9f1dfaeff5e14613a23a146fed9b973c",
      "sender": "cfields",
      "payload": "sipa: understood",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:58:05+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "6078b911b7e34043a1c8486b5cb2aa49",
      "sender": "sipa",
      "payload": "so, ack rc3?",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:58:44+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "86e54cdc77bb4847868a99c3cd5fd61c",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "as far as 0.13 vs 0.13.1 I think 0.13 should not change behavior, because it won't ever activate. so there is no problem of behavior suddenly changing with it.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:58:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "58068ae2afc24b1aa48c40bcadbe6946",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "rc3 sounds good to me.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:58:55+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "ddc100d2e19c425a9e38e9c91a8ec7fd",
      "sender": "cfields",
      "payload": "works for me",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:59:19+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "5ed08010744740d986548253adaf812e",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "yay 0.13.0!",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:59:41+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "8a6ac2f624664acd836421c5cd07d53d",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "jtimon: careful, you're going to trigger some confused reddit posts.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:59:54+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "42fc00869d014b7aac92ac3f81b01cef",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "roughly one minute to go",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T20:00:12+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "1a5d5c1e40f24953a8e27d41205a8852",
      "sender": "jtimon",
      "payload": "oops, sorry, yay ack rc3",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T20:00:20+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "16357a20b64d4b18b1379651ee6049c0",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "I think someone's clock is off.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T20:00:24+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "202da3ca2c4744dfb98c2b16ab3eb5d9",
      "sender": "gmaxwell",
      "payload": "Time to die.",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T20:00:31+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "bae7c81df0a347a5a0fe7fc320ce8c0e",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "jtimon: yes, let's not get ahead of ourselves",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T20:00:37+00:00"
    },
    {
      "id": "d0a344d25c38402493a295d8e231b3c1",
      "sender": "wumpus",
      "payload": "#endmeeting",
      "action": false,
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T20:00:39+00:00"
    }
  ],
  "events": [
    {
      "event_type": "START_MEETING",
      "message": {
        "id": "45e48e8f19cb4dc6bdca4c66fb242cd3",
        "sender": "wumpus",
        "payload": "#startmeeting",
        "action": false,
        "timestamp": "2016-08-11T18:59:45+00:00"
      },
      "operand": null,
      "id": "45e48e8f19cb4dc6bdca4c66fb242cd3",
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T18:59:45+00:00"
    },
    {
      "event_type": "TOPIC",
      "message": {
        "id": "97cb9f295d874ee4926b19837f8258e7",
        "sender": "wumpus",
        "payload": "#topic segwit policy limits",
        "action": false,
        "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:14+00:00"
      },
      "operand": "segwit policy limits",
      "id": "97cb9f295d874ee4926b19837f8258e7",
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:03:14+00:00"
    },
    {
      "event_type": "TOPIC",
      "message": {
        "id": "6b1be7b9c0bb4ae995f25daad181951a",
        "sender": "wumpus",
        "payload": "#topic softfork to make low-s required simultaneously with segwit",
        "action": false,
        "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:14:50+00:00"
      },
      "operand": "softfork to make low-s required simultaneously with segwit",
      "id": "6b1be7b9c0bb4ae995f25daad181951a",
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:14:50+00:00"
    },
    {
      "event_type": "TOPIC",
      "message": {
        "id": "d325d5b363114a3facca74813e807a46",
        "sender": "wumpus",
        "payload": "#topic raising mandatory script flags to include bip66",
        "action": false,
        "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:29:41+00:00"
      },
      "operand": "raising mandatory script flags to include bip66",
      "id": "d325d5b363114a3facca74813e807a46",
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:29:41+00:00"
    },
    {
      "event_type": "TOPIC",
      "message": {
        "id": "f1b7bf08fc3844ff9c34ef142e54cc23",
        "sender": "wumpus",
        "payload": "#topic rc3 go-ahead",
        "action": false,
        "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:47:04+00:00"
      },
      "operand": "rc3 go-ahead",
      "id": "f1b7bf08fc3844ff9c34ef142e54cc23",
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:47:04+00:00"
    },
    {
      "event_type": "LINK",
      "message": {
        "id": "bf90990f5c30456dbb6ffd5a7ede3195",
        "sender": "wumpus",
        "payload": "#link review blog post https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/199",
        "action": false,
        "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:55:01+00:00"
      },
      "operand": "review blog post https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/199",
      "id": "bf90990f5c30456dbb6ffd5a7ede3195",
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T19:55:01+00:00"
    },
    {
      "event_type": "END_MEETING",
      "message": {
        "id": "d0a344d25c38402493a295d8e231b3c1",
        "sender": "wumpus",
        "payload": "#endmeeting",
        "action": false,
        "timestamp": "2016-08-11T20:00:39+00:00"
      },
      "operand": null,
      "id": "d0a344d25c38402493a295d8e231b3c1",
      "timestamp": "2016-08-11T20:00:39+00:00"
    }
  ],
  "aliases": {},
  "vote_in_progress": false,
  "motion_index": null
}