19:04:00 <laanwj> #startmeeting 19:04:00 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 16 19:04:00 2021 UTC. The chair is laanwj. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings. 19:04:00 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 19:04:49 <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 19:04:51 <laanwj> nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild 19:04:54 <kvaciral[m]> hi 19:04:58 <achow101> hi 19:05:04 <sipsorcery> hi 19:05:27 <ajonas> hi 19:05:38 <jonatack> hi 19:05:49 <laanwj> there was one proposed meeting topic: Use database for `lockunspent` (prayank), but they couldn't be there for the meeting 19:06:02 <laanwj> any last minute topics? 19:06:07 <meshcollider> hi 19:06:41 <ajonas> I had a 5 second thing about a new IRC logger 19:06:52 <achow101> #proposedmeetingtopic changing CFeeRate rounding 19:07:43 <laanwj> thanks! let's start with high prio as usual 19:07:48 <laanwj> #topic High priority for review 19:07:49 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review 19:07:54 <b10c> hi 19:08:11 <laanwj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 7 blockers, 2 chasing concept ACK at the moment 19:08:21 <laanwj> anything to add/remove, or that is (almost) ready for merge? 19:08:42 <sipa> hi 19:08:56 <amiti> can I have 22950 added? 19:09:20 <laanwj> looks like #21859 needs rebase 19:09:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21859 | Add minisketch subtree and integrate in build/test by sipa ÷ Pull Request #21859 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:33 <jonatack> #21526 likely RFM soon 19:09:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21526 | validation: UpdateTip/CheckBlockIndex assumeutxo support by jamesob ÷ Pull Request #21526 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:10:11 <laanwj> amiti: added! 19:10:16 <laanwj> jonatack: great 19:10:36 <amiti> thanks :) 19:12:04 <laanwj> #topic New IRC logger (ajonas) 19:12:05 <core-meetingbot> topic: New IRC logger (ajonas) 19:12:15 <ajonas> Very quick - wanted to point out that Chaincode put up yet another IRC logger -- the twist is that this is searchable. 19:12:20 <ajonas> https://bitcoin-irc.chaincode.com/ 19:12:24 <ajonas> Feedback welcome. 19:12:29 <ajonas> That's it 19:12:32 <laanwj> that's really neat 19:12:37 <harding> Nice! 19:12:45 <b10c> bookmarked 19:13:00 <laanwj> i wonder how we should handle this with the topic 19:13:08 <sipa> not loading for me. and I'm in the chaincode office... 19:13:13 <jonatack> nice! insta-pinned 19:13:38 <harding> We could link to all the logs on the IRC channels wiki page and link that in the topic? 19:13:41 <laanwj> it's getting quite long we can hardly add another logger url there 19:13:51 <laanwj> yes, might be a better idea 19:14:02 <laanwj> also the proposedmeetingtopic lists 19:14:29 <laanwj> would be more organised than this way, at least 19:14:53 <laanwj> #topic Changing CFeeRate rounding (achow101) 19:14:54 <core-meetingbot> topic: Changing CFeeRate rounding (achow101) 19:15:01 <jonatack> ajonas: not sure the analytics (gaug.es) is needed 19:15:14 <jonatack> but very cool (thank you!) 19:15:24 <ajonas> yeah, that's not hooked up to anything 19:15:27 <ajonas> but happy to remove 19:15:38 <achow101> currently CFeeRate::GetFee always rounds down (via truncation), but this seems to be incorrect behavior to me, although we have tests for it 19:15:55 <achow101> it means that at some feerates and sizes, we end up paying a feerate that is less than intended 19:16:12 <achow101> this can also lead to an assertion failure in coin selection 19:16:39 <laanwj> would "always round up" lead to better behavior? 19:16:46 <achow101> I propose in #22949 that we change to rounding up, but there are concerns that this could affect policy 19:16:48 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22949 | fee: Round up fee calculation to avoid a lower than expected feerate by achow101 ÷ Pull Request #22949 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:17:24 <achow101> so I just wanted to get more people familiar with policy to have a look at that and figure out whether it would actually affect policy 19:17:50 <achow101> laanwj: yes. it both avoids the assertion failure, and guarantees that the targeted feerate is being met 19:18:14 <laanwj> so for policy you'd ideally want to round down, but for the wallet up? 19:18:27 <laanwj> could make it an explicit flag 19:18:59 <achow101> I guess? I don't think it actually affects policy since GetFee is only used to get the minrelayfee and incremental relay fee 19:19:22 <laanwj> if it doesn't affect policy then it's moot 19:19:25 <achow101> it's a bit odd to me that policy and the wallet would have different behavior for calculating at the same feerate 19:20:06 <laanwj> well one is for what you want paid, the other is for what you pay, it's different sides of the transaction 19:22:17 <achow101> I'm pretty sure it has no affect on policy, but I don't know policy well enough to definiteively say so 19:23:07 <laanwj> ok, that would be something to figure out for sure 19:25:28 <laanwj> no one else weighing in now, i guess that concludes the topic 19:25:38 <laanwj> anything else to discuss today? 19:25:45 <jonatack> hm, few existing tests needed to be updated, given how much functional fee rate testing we have. will review 19:27:14 <michaelfolkson> Just inform the mailing list that this change is being proposed if it is touching policy? I don't see any bad implications and neither does darosior on that issue you linked achow101 19:28:23 <laanwj> yes, if it (noticibly) affects policy it would be good to discuss on the ml 19:29:06 <michaelfolkson> I can't see there being any discussion but good to follow what is most likely best practice going forward 19:30:02 <laanwj> that concludes the meeting i guess, thanks everyone 19:30:04 <laanwj> #endmeeting