19:00:14 <laanwj> #startmeeting 19:00:14 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Nov 18 19:00:14 2021 UTC. The chair is laanwj. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings. 19:00:14 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 19:00:29 <achow101> hi 19:00:57 <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 larryruane lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball 19:00:59 <laanwj> morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild 19:01:07 <michaelfolkson> hi 19:01:11 <jeremyrubin> Hi 19:01:15 <kanzure> hi 19:01:38 <laanwj> no pre-proposed meeting topics for this week 19:01:42 <laanwj> any last minute ones? 19:01:56 <larryruane> hi 19:03:16 <sipa> hi 19:03:29 <provoostenator> hi 19:03:32 <jb55> hi 19:03:38 <jeremyrubin> I can't stick around but maybe burying by height or Genesis with one block exception for taproot is a good topic 19:04:17 <sipa> also, maybe #23542 is interesting 19:04:18 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23542 | net: open p2p connections to nodes that listen on non-default ports by vasild ÷ Pull Request #23542 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:04:24 <provoostenator> (insert pun about burrying roots) 19:04:38 <laanwj> burying taproot deployment would definitely be a sensible topic 19:05:35 <jeremyrubin> (leaving now, but I like the exception version but would change my mind if there's something compelling) 19:06:00 <michaelfolkson> Relevant PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23505 19:06:48 <laanwj> #topic High priority for review 19:06:48 <core-meetingbot> topic: High priority for review 19:07:09 <laanwj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 -- at the moment, 11 blockers, 1 chasing concept ACK 19:07:20 <laanwj> anything to add, remove, or that is almost ready for merge? 19:08:15 <sipa> i'm working on reviewing #16807 19:08:18 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16807 | Let validateaddress locate error in Bech32 address by meshcollider ÷ Pull Request #16807 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:00 <michaelfolkson> Maybe add #16807 to the wallet meeting discussion topics tomorrow 19:09:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16807 | Let validateaddress locate error in Bech32 address by meshcollider ÷ Pull Request #16807 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:43 <laanwj> i intend to look at that PR too 19:10:08 <michaelfolkson> Seems like a no brainer 19:10:24 <sipa> concept, sure, but i'd still like to review the code :) 19:11:15 <laanwj> 8 files changed, of which 2 tests 19:11:42 <michaelfolkson> Yeah surprised it hasn't got in earlier 19:12:20 <laanwj> it has quite a lot of not yet addressed comments 19:13:54 <laanwj> nothing else for high prio? 19:14:59 <laanwj> #topic Burying taproot (jeremyrubin) 19:14:59 <core-meetingbot> topic: Burying taproot (jeremyrubin) 19:15:16 <gene> shuffles in quietly 19:15:22 <laanwj> (if anyone wants to discuss this, it's a bit weird to propose topics then leave) 19:15:25 <b10c> hi 19:15:44 <sipa> concept ack on burying taproot, especially given the depth of its activation already 19:16:01 <sipa> there are two PRs with vaguely related changes about this; i think the details can be discussed there 19:16:50 <michaelfolkson> The discussion is whether it should be genesis minus a single block versus from the block directly aftewards that single block? 19:17:03 <sipa> that's the discussion on one of the PRs 19:17:19 <michaelfolkson> What's the other relevant PR number? 19:17:41 <michaelfolkson> #23505 and... 19:17:42 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23505 | Bury taproot deployment by MarcoFalke ÷ Pull Request #23505 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:17:48 <sipa> #23536 19:17:49 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23536 | Enforce Taproot script flags whenever WITNESS is set by MarcoFalke ÷ Pull Request #23536 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:18:05 <michaelfolkson> Thanks 19:18:19 <michaelfolkson> Excluding a single block seems intuitively a bit strange to me 19:18:27 <michaelfolkson> But need to read the discussion 19:18:42 <luke-jr> we already have exceptions 19:19:12 <michaelfolkson> For a single block with blocks either side treated differently? 19:19:17 <luke-jr> yes 19:19:29 <michaelfolkson> Hmm interesting. Example? 19:19:38 <sipa> bip30 and bip34 have exceptions 19:19:48 <luke-jr> look up fEnforceBIP30 19:19:50 <sipa> michaelfolkson: you could read the code 19:20:02 <michaelfolkson> Ok 19:20:14 <achow101> the PR follows the existing BIP16Exception cde 19:20:49 <luke-jr> I do think using heights is cleaner, but idk 19:20:56 <provoostenator> For anyone inspecting the code it's trivial to reason that no real taproot violation took place in that particular block, because it wasn't activated yet. 19:21:05 <provoostenator> For all the other blocks, the node checks. 19:22:58 <provoostenator> To review the PR, just sync the chain, and maybe do it again without the block exception. 19:23:45 <luke-jr> could always do height && hash to make it even more trivial to review 19:27:06 <laanwj> next topic? 19:27:13 <sipa> sure 19:27:55 <laanwj> #topic P2P connections on non-default ports (sipa) 19:27:55 <core-meetingbot> topic: P2P connections on non-default ports (sipa) 19:28:00 <laanwj> #23542 19:28:01 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23542 | net: open p2p connections to nodes that listen on non-default ports by vasild ÷ Pull Request #23542 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:29:05 <michaelfolkson> BIP 30 seems interesting, didn't know anything about it :) 19:29:07 <sipa> just wanted to briefly bring this up 19:29:19 <sipa> as it's a pretty significant change 19:29:44 <sipa> bitcoin core has traditionally (since satoshi times) shied away from connecting out to non-8333 ports, for a number of (preumwed) reasons 19:30:16 <sipa> but i'm of the opinion that those reasons aren't very relevant anymore, and there are potential privacy/censorship gains to permitting arbitrary ports 19:30:24 <sipa> plus, not much code changes are needed 19:30:50 <achow101> what were the presumed reasons? 19:31:38 <sipa> one is DoS resistance... e.g. a concern that someone could rumour a popular existing TCP/IP service on the network, and have the bitcoin nodes DoS it 19:31:49 <michaelfolkson> "The folklore justification (eventually actually added as a comment to the codebase in #20668) is that this is to prevent the Bitcoin P2P network from being leveraged to perform a DoS attack on other services, if their IP/port would get rumoured." 19:31:51 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20668 | doc: warn that incoming conns are unlikely when not using default ports by adamjonas ÷ Pull Request #20668 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:32:10 <michaelfolkson> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23306#issue-761048149 19:32:10 <sipa> michaelfolkson: thanks, exactly that 19:32:37 <sipa> the other reason is a concern about partition resistance (someone could pretend to be 100s of nodes by rumouring their IP with different ports, all listening on the same interface) 19:33:09 <sipa> this latter concern hasn't existed since addrman i think, which buckets per network group already, so limits the impact of many IP addresses in close ranges already 19:33:59 <sipa> there are some open questions i think on how exactly to do that, e.g. which ports to allow, how it interacts with e.g. plans for hiding/encrypting traffic, ... but that can be discussed on the PR, which vasild seems to have opened 19:36:37 <sipa> not sure there's much more to say about it without the PR author here :) 19:37:19 <michaelfolkson> practicalswift's suggestion just to copy browsers' bad ports seems reasonable 19:37:26 <michaelfolkson> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23306#issuecomment-947516736 19:37:38 <michaelfolkson> Anyone else decides on bad ports? 19:37:53 <michaelfolkson> But yeah can be discussed on the PR 19:39:39 <laanwj> ok, i think it was good to discuss this anyhow, so that people are more aware of this potential change to behavior 19:39:50 <sipa> right 19:40:29 <laanwj> #endmeeting