19:00:22 <laanwj> #startmeeting 
19:00:23 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Aug 12 19:00:22 2021 UTC.  The chair is laanwj. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings.
19:00:23 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
19:00:45 <laanwj> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 _aj_ amiti ariard BlueMatt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 darosior digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb glozow gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jarolrod jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral laanwj lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos
19:00:46 <laanwj> nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild
19:00:49 <meshcollider> hi
19:00:52 <gene> hi
19:00:53 <larryruane> hi
19:00:53 <laanwj> welcome to the weekly bitcoin-core-dev meeting
19:00:57 <michaelfolkson> hi
19:00:58 <jonatack> hi
19:01:00 <jamesob> hi
19:01:04 <achow101> hi
19:01:07 <laanwj> there have been no proposed topics using #proposedmeetingtopic
19:01:13 <laanwj> any last minute ones?
19:01:43 <jamesob> can I talk about the state of assumeutxo? pretty brief, mostly a beg
19:01:45 <laanwj> PSA: 0.21.2rc1 was tagged today
19:02:05 <laanwj> jamesob: sure!
19:02:09 <laanwj> i'll announce the topic
19:02:46 <gleb7> Hi
19:03:23 <laanwj> we'll start with "high priority for review" as usual
19:03:35 <laanwj> #topic High priority for review
19:03:35 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review
19:03:40 <hebasto> hi
19:03:42 <kanzure> hi
19:04:04 <laanwj> current status: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8   5 blockers, no bugfixes or chasing concept ACK
19:04:26 <laanwj> anything to add/remove, or that is ready for merge?
19:06:00 <jonatack> i'm going through #21526 commit-by-commit right now.  spent some time while my machine was blocked gitian building today to catch up on the context and progress.
19:06:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21526 | validation: UpdateTip/CheckBlockIndex assumeutxo support by jamesob · Pull Request #21526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:25 <laanwj> jonatack: great!
19:06:47 <jonatack> (it's been through a number of review cycles and seems close)
19:07:03 <laanwj> that's good to know
19:07:36 <laanwj> no one has new high prio PRs to propose?
19:08:02 <jonatack> i wonder if #22651 and #22648 should be considered for 22.0 but might be late for it
19:08:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22651 | tor: respect non-onion -onlynet= for outgoing Tor connections by vasild · Pull Request #22651 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:08:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22648 | doc, test: improve i2p/tor docs and i2p reachable unit tests by jonatack · Pull Request #22648 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:08:43 <laanwj> only if they're considered bugfixes
19:08:44 <jonatack> this seems to be a source of new confusion for people who are running I2P for the first time
19:09:14 <luke-jr> would be nice to finally get #12677 in
19:09:17 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12677 | RPC: Add ancestor{count,size,fees} to listunspent output by luke-jr · Pull Request #12677 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:09:24 <laanwj> as for the doc PR, sure
19:10:18 <laanwj> luke-jr: added
19:11:12 <laanwj> #topic The state of assumeutxo (jamesob)
19:11:12 <core-meetingbot> topic: The state of assumeutxo (jamesob)
19:11:23 <jamesob> many of you are probably familiar with assumeutxo (#15606). I think this is a pretty high-value feature that not only solves some existing problems today (e.g. people offering GPG-signed datadirs to speed bootstrapping in various thirdparty projects, linear-time IBD which isn't scalable), but also promises some interesting optimizations down the road (e.g. parallel n chainstate validation a la utreexo).
19:11:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15606 | assumeutxo by jamesob · Pull Request #15606 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:12:03 <jamesob> (worth noting that AU has also helped other interesting projects like chainstate deglobalization and so indirectly libbitcoinkernel)
19:12:08 <jamesob> the draft implementation of this has been under review for almost two and a half years now, and I'm a little concerned with the rate of progress - especially relative to the effort needed to keep the change rebased. At this rate it feels like it'll be another two years before the feature is actually available to end users.
19:12:22 <jamesob> 15606 has recently undergone thorough review by ryanofsky, and subsequently I made a number of improvements based on his feedback. I think the PR is in a pretty good state, with functional tests, scripts, release notes, doc etc. and I'd like to do anything I can to help get it reviewed and merged in a timely way.
19:12:43 <jamesob> if others could look the PR over I'd be really thankful, and I'm curious if anyone has any good ideas for how we might expedite the process so that assumeutxo isn't in progress for another few years; e.g. should I be doing larger PRs so as to consolidate review/test cycles?
19:13:12 <jonatack> jamesob: it might be helpful to clarify in the 15606 where 21526 fits in the roadmap
19:13:53 <laanwj> we should be able to merge feature PRs quicker while we're early in the 23.0 release cycle
19:14:03 <jamesob> jonatack: sure - 21526 is just the first few commits of 15606; the latter represents the complete set of commits needed to implement assumeutxo
19:14:04 <laanwj> but I guess it's all bottlenecked by review as usual
19:14:06 <jonatack> jamesob: i ended up ~figuring it out by going through the various docs
19:14:13 <luke-jr> I think smaller PRs would go faster, but maybe it's just me
19:14:24 <jonatack> yes
19:14:51 <laanwj> there's definitely a compromise there, too small PRs and people get tired of reviewing them if there's no clear forward progress
19:14:53 <jamesob> luke-jr: that's what I've been trying to do, but smaller PRs seem to take almost a fixed amount of time in overhead, and part of me wonders if it doesn't make sense to amortize review and test
19:15:21 <jamesob> e.g. the taproot PRs were fairly large and everyone was able to focus review/test on just a few PRs
19:15:25 <laanwj> but too many changes at once and everyone just puts it off
19:15:45 <laanwj> yes
19:15:50 <jonatack> jamesob: istm that there has some ongoing (and good) redesigning too that bubbles back across the changes
19:16:12 <jamesob> istm?
19:16:35 <jonatack> it seems to me. so that adds time but if the result is better...
19:16:50 <laanwj> i agree it's taking very long
19:16:53 <jamesob> there have certainly been some minor redesigns, but I would say they are essentially marginal refactors done for clarity
19:17:14 <jamesob> but of course I don't want to merge anything doesn't meet our standards
19:17:32 <jamesob> I'm just concerned that this has taken 2.5 years and I'm _maybe_ halfway through
19:17:49 <laanwj> you definitely didn't pick the easiest thing to integrate
19:17:55 <jamesob> haha, that's fair
19:18:21 <sipa> yeah, and it's something pretty invasive that many people perhaps aren't very keen on touching
19:18:33 <jonatack> yes, just been trying to catch up today on the context. progress could very well accelerate at a tipping point of "it's ready" :)
19:18:39 <luke-jr> I've avoided it because it feels huge, though looking at the current diff maybe not too bad
19:18:56 <sipa> (by which i don't mean it shouldn't be done - just that reviewers tend to focus on other more shortterm things)
19:19:17 <jamesob> well hey as long as you guys will write me attestations for sponsors that this thing is worth devoting time to lol
19:19:53 <jamesob> anyway, thanks for the consideration
19:20:04 <laanwj> thanks for the update!
19:20:15 <laanwj> i really hope it won't take another two years
19:20:46 <laanwj> any other topics for today?
19:20:52 <michaelfolkson> As laanwj says next few months seems like a good opportunity to make speedier progress as things seem to be quieter
19:20:54 <larryruane> there's something of a paradox, because when something is well-written (as I suspect this is), people are reluctant to review because they suspect they won't come up with anything to suggest
19:21:28 <jamesob> larryruane: I've proposed a number of bugs over the years so that absolutely shouldn't be the case :P
19:21:36 <larryruane> haha
19:21:42 <michaelfolkson> Higher up the priority list now (perhaps)
19:22:18 <laanwj> right
19:23:22 <laanwj> #endmeeting