19:01:11 <wumpus> #startmeeting 
19:01:14 <jonasschnelli> hi
19:01:19 <sipsorcery> hi
19:01:34 <hebasto> hi
19:01:51 <wumpus> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 aj amiti ariard bluematt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb glozow gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik
19:01:53 <wumpus> petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild wumpus
19:02:01 <jonatack> hi
19:02:03 <amiti> hi
19:02:06 <fjahr> hi
19:02:08 <jeremyrubin> hallo
19:02:22 <phantomcircuit> uhm hello
19:02:33 <achow101> hi
19:02:39 <jnewbery> hi
19:02:41 <luke-jr> hi
19:02:51 <wumpus> one proposed meeting topic: attempts to use "dev muscle" to force MTP against community consensus of BIP8 (luke-jr)
19:02:55 <wumpus> any last minute suggestions?
19:03:22 <wumpus> (as a reminder: you can propose a meeting topic with #proposedmeetingtopic <topic> at any time during the week)
19:03:59 <wumpus> #topic High priority for review
19:03:59 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review
19:04:12 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 has 11 blockers, 2 chasing concept ACK
19:04:23 <wumpus> anything to add, remove, or that is ready to merge?
19:04:25 <jonatack> #21392 seems closed, remove?
19:04:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21392 | Implement BIP 8 based Speedy Trial activation by achow101 · Pull Request #21392 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:04:40 <wumpus> jonatack: looks like it
19:04:55 <jonatack> (not opining, just info)
19:04:56 <achow101> remove for now
19:05:23 <wumpus> should we add #21377 instead?
19:05:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21377 | Speedy trial support for versionbits by ajtowns · Pull Request #21377 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:05:31 <luke-jr> replace with #19573
19:05:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19573 | Replace unused BIP 9 logic with draft BIP 8 by luke-jr · Pull Request #19573 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:05:37 <luke-jr> #21377 is NACK
19:05:38 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21377 | Speedy trial support for versionbits by ajtowns · Pull Request #21377 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:05:49 <achow101> We can add 21377 to hi prio
19:05:56 <luke-jr> it would be an abuse of position to merge 21377
19:06:08 <wumpus> ok never mind...
19:06:14 <wumpus> anything else?
19:06:25 <achow101> #17331 for me
19:06:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17331 | Use effective values throughout coin selection by achow101 · Pull Request #17331 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:47 <jeremyrubin> +1 #21377 for high priority for review
19:06:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21377 | Speedy trial support for versionbits by ajtowns · Pull Request #21377 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:07:02 <wumpus> achow101: added
19:07:03 <jeremyrubin> I think irrespective of if it is merged, reviewing it is high priority
19:08:06 <wumpus> in the end it's up to the author (ajtowns) if he wants it has high prio, but you're right that is separate from whether it can be merged or not
19:08:58 <jeremyrubin> he can ack adding it after the meeting, unclear if he's present
19:09:09 <wumpus> yes
19:09:58 <wumpus> that concludes high priority for review unless anyone else has suggstions
19:10:21 <wumpus> #topic Attempts to use "dev muscle" to force MTP against community consensus of BIP8 (luke-jr)
19:10:22 <core-meetingbot> topic: Attempts to use "dev muscle" to force MTP against community consensus of BIP8 (luke-jr)
19:10:27 <jonatack> #19521 freshly needs rebase but should be close to ready, it's been through a number of review rounds by provoostenator and i
19:10:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19521 | Coinstats Index by fjahr · Pull Request #19521 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:10:45 <luke-jr> I find it quite disturbing a few devs are attempting a NYA-like push to make consensus changes outright disregarding the community consensus around BIP 8.
19:10:52 <wumpus> jonatack: good to know!
19:11:41 <jeremyrubin> As the author behind the quoted "dev muscle", I would like to note that the context in which it was used was referring to sufficient resources to review and audit the corresponding PR
19:11:47 <luke-jr> and for no real apparent reason but to spite UASFers by reverting all the improvements made over 2017 - widely acknowledged as improvements until LOT=True began to move forward
19:12:13 <jeremyrubin> It is not in the context of devs muscling the community, which i think it has been represented to be in the setting of this topic
19:12:21 <jnewbery> As usual, luke-jr is misrepresenting
19:12:27 <luke-jr> no, I am not
19:12:44 <luke-jr> nor is that usual
19:13:44 <achow101> there is a person who has raised an unaddressed objection to BIP 8, therefore it does not have consensus
19:13:49 <luke-jr> jnewbery: I don't know what you have against me, but trolling liek that is unproductive and malicious.
19:14:01 <jeremyrubin> anyone is free to review the logs for relevent context http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-04-06.log
19:14:27 <jnewbery> at the very least you're misrepresenting the intent of jeremy's words
19:14:29 <luke-jr> achow101: even if that were true,  all but one person is still far more than this MTP nonsense
19:14:30 <jeremyrubin> i've also summarized from https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018746.html
19:14:47 <luke-jr> jnewbery: read the log
19:14:56 <jnewbery> I've read it, thanks
19:15:23 <achow101> at this time, 21377 is in a state where everyone except luke-jr is okay with it, and onlyu luke-jr has stated "no" and "nack" without providing any reasoning behind those statements
19:15:34 <achow101> simply asserting "no" and "nack" is not an objection
19:15:42 <jnewbery> achow101: +1
19:16:00 <luke-jr> achow101: that isn't true
19:16:20 <jeremyrubin> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#conceptual-review
19:16:23 <luke-jr> there is practically no community support for 21377, just a handful of devs
19:16:36 <jeremyrubin> A NACK needs to include a rationale why the change is not worthwhile. NACKs without accompanying reasoning may be disregarded.
19:16:42 <luke-jr> and most of you acknowledge height is better
19:16:43 <achow101> luke-jr: so all of the people who participated in the meeting yesterday or all devs?
19:16:51 <achow101> *are
19:17:06 <luke-jr> achow101: I didn't say that, but it's far fewer than the consensus around BIP8
19:17:13 <luke-jr> not even comparable
19:17:29 <jeremyrubin> numerous ACKs on https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/92899f27f1ab30aa2ebee82314f8fe7f#gistcomment-3695024 which is nonspecific to height or MTP
19:17:59 <luke-jr> the whole point of ST in the first place, was to be a neutral start between the simple disagreement on LOT
19:18:09 <luke-jr> throwing away the consensus on everything else defeats the point
19:18:18 <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: that gist was about height
19:18:28 <jnewbery> luke-jr: most people have stopped responding to your outlandish claims because there's almost no point. There's no evidence that your proposal has "community support"
19:18:57 <jeremyrubin> it was about harding's proposal https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018583.html
19:19:05 <luke-jr> jnewbery: far more evidence than this MTP nonsense
19:19:34 <jeremyrubin> which says: " The idea can be implemented on top of either Bitcoin Core's existing BIP9 code or its proposed BIP8 patchset.[6]"
19:19:39 <jnewbery> you've had plenty of opportunity to make your case already. What exactly do you hope to achieve in this meeting by restating things you've claimed many times before in many previous meetings?
19:21:40 <jeremyrubin> I'd also invite those unfamiliar to review a different community's operating procedure https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
19:22:04 <achow101> there have been a few people who pop in and nack 21377, however those nacks are always unsubstantiated and no response is provided upon asking for the motivation behind those nacks
19:22:40 <luke-jr> the problems with MTP are well-known and shouldn't need ot be repeated constantly
19:23:02 <jeremyrubin> I think aj and achow101 adressed them in a very elegent manner
19:23:19 <jeremyrubin> so i do not beleive any of the past issues are unaddressed
19:23:42 <jeremyrubin> if you would like to contest the solutions as they are, you should review the current proposed changes and comment on that
19:25:29 <luke-jr> hack after hack is not addressing issues. nor does it justify disregarding community consensus.
19:25:33 <achow101> luke-jr: you should repeat them in the context of this proposal specifically. Many contributors/reviewers may not be aware of them because either they occurred in a venue that they were not aware of, or they occurred at a time where they were not active participants in development.
19:26:15 <achow101> if they have already been stated in the context of the proposal being reviewed, then please link them
19:26:29 <jeremyrubin> further, there does seem to be a substantial body of agreeing devs on the approach put forward in 21377. so there can hardly be said to be consensus for any other approach either
19:26:30 <jnewbery> luke-jr: there is no evidence that your proposal has "community consensus"
19:27:10 <luke-jr> jnewbery: that is not true
19:27:38 <achow101> asserting it does not make it true or false
19:29:14 <jnewbery> luke-jr: I'll ask again: what is your aim for this meeting item? You've had a chance to raise your objections.
19:29:22 <achow101> "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
19:29:36 <luke-jr> anyone involved in the community knows there is consensus around BIP8.
19:29:51 <jeremyrubin> I don't have anything else to add on this matter; I think it should be relatively clear what sort of communications would be required to raise a tangible objection to 21377.
19:30:19 <aj> wumpus: (thanks for adding 21377 to hi pri)
19:30:46 <jeremyrubin> #proposedmeetingtopic meeting notes & timelines implied
19:31:50 <luke-jr> wumpus: reminder to add #19573 too
19:31:50 <wumpus> #topic Meeting notes & timelines implied (jeremyrubin)
19:31:50 <core-meetingbot> topic: Meeting notes & timelines implied (jeremyrubin)
19:31:52 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19573 | Replace unused BIP 9 logic with draft BIP 8 by luke-jr · Pull Request #19573 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:32:58 <wumpus> luke-jr: ok added
19:33:09 <wumpus> jeremyrubin: or was that a topic fo rnext week?
19:34:35 <wumpus> #endmeeting