19:01:43 <achow101> #startmeeting 19:01:44 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Fri May 20 19:01:43 2022 UTC. The chair is achow101. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings. 19:01:44 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 19:01:46 <achow101> #bitcoin -core-dev Wallet 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 morcos Murch nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik 19:01:46 <achow101> petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK sipa vasild 19:02:06 <achow101> we haven't had a wallet meeting in a while 19:02:27 <sipa> hi 19:02:32 <achow101> there aren't any pre-proposed wallet meeting topics. Does anyone have anything to discuss? 19:03:15 <Murch> hi 19:04:35 <kanzure> hi 19:04:37 <achow101> or any PRs to shill? 19:04:43 <Murch> I don't have anything from the top of my head 19:04:58 <Murch> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25083 19:05:15 <Murch> I think it's almost ready to go, could use another review or two 19:06:13 <achow101> I think #24649 and #25122 are close as well 19:06:14 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24649 | wallet: do not count wallet utxos as external by S3RK ÷ Pull Request #24649 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:06:15 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25122 | rpc: getreceivedbylabel, return early if no addresses were found in the address book by furszy ÷ Pull Request #25122 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:06:57 <Murch> Oh, I should look at #25122 19:06:58 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25122 | rpc: getreceivedbylabel, return early if no addresses were found in the address book by furszy ÷ Pull Request #25122 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:07:02 <Murch> I have reviewed the other already 19:08:13 <achow101> It looks like there have been a lot of proposed changes to AvailableCoins that conflict with each other, but all look nice to get in 19:08:29 <Murch> Yeah, that's right 19:09:00 <achow101> e.g. #25005 #25118 #25083 #24699 #24584 19:09:01 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25005 | wallet: remove extra wtx lookup in AvailableCoins + several code cleanups. by furszy ÷ Pull Request #25005 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25118 | wallet: unify âÂÂallow/block other inputsâ concept by furszy ÷ Pull Request #25118 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:03 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25083 | Set effective_value when initializing a COutput by ishaanam ÷ Pull Request #25083 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24699 | wallet: Improve AvailableCoins performance by reducing duplicated operations by achow101 ÷ Pull Request #24699 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:06 <achow101> any thoughts on what to prioritize? 19:09:07 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24584 | wallet: avoid mixing different `OutputTypes` during coin selection by josibake ÷ Pull Request #24584 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:09:42 <Murch> I don't think Josi's is close to getting merged. 19:09:54 <Murch> I haven't looked at #25005, so I can't comment on that 19:09:55 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25005 | wallet: remove extra wtx lookup in AvailableCoins + several code cleanups. by furszy ÷ Pull Request #25005 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:10:20 <achow101> 25083 and 25118 both are pretty simple 19:10:20 <Murch> How useful is 24699 now that we use different keys? 19:10:24 <achow101> so I think they can go in soon 19:11:15 <Murch> I'm biased, one of my PRs is building on #25083 ^^ 19:11:16 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25083 | Set effective_value when initializing a COutput by ishaanam ÷ Pull Request #25083 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:11:21 <achow101> I think 24699 is still a worthwhile promovement. it improves more than just the reused addresses case 19:12:02 <achow101> *improvement 19:12:24 <Murch> okay 19:12:33 <Murch> I'll put all of the above on my review list 19:13:27 <Murch> I think just in the order that they're ready is fine 19:13:44 <Murch> I don't think rebasing would get too bad for any 19:14:23 <Murch> You should add josibake to your ping list ^^ 19:14:47 <achow101> I think 24584 might have a larger conflict with the others 19:14:53 <achow101> but it's also not ready imo 19:15:27 <Murch> Yeah, and it is also the biggest one 19:15:49 <achow101> anything else look ready or nearly ready? 19:15:51 <jonatack> hià(...reading up) 19:17:25 <achow101> anything else to discuss? 19:17:43 <Murch> Not from the top of my head. Really curious to see some simulation results for #24584 19:17:47 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24584 | wallet: avoid mixing different `OutputTypes` during coin selection by josibake ÷ Pull Request #24584 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:18:17 <Murch> I'm wondering how splitting the UTXO pool in multiple ways will affect the tx costs 19:18:34 <Murch> Oh one more 19:18:55 <Murch> There is this very tight testing corset that S3RK proposed 19:19:12 <Murch> So far you and I reviewed it, achow101 19:19:41 <Murch> Yours sounded like a soft concept nack or approach nack 19:20:09 <achow101> #24580 ? 19:20:10 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24580 | test: coinselection edge cases by S3RK ÷ Pull Request #24580 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:20:19 <Murch> I think maintaining the test when we start changing the coin selection algos will be annoying, but it's also kinda nice to see the exact boundaries 19:20:26 <Murch> yeah thanks! 19:20:59 <Murch> I think that S3RK might be a bit stuck there, no way forward not really shot down either 19:21:40 <achow101> perhaps more people should look at it 19:21:59 <Murch> Could we perhaps give more input how it should be developed to address maintainability concerns? 19:23:36 <achow101> maybe more programmatic math rather than hardcoded math 19:23:59 <Murch> Yeah 19:24:28 <Murch> Do you know what the status with Bruno's "Prefer changeless" PR is? 19:24:29 <Murch> That also seemed a bit stuck 19:24:29 <instagibbs> woof, lots of magic numbers 19:24:41 <instagibbs> re: #24580 19:24:42 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24580 | test: coinselection edge cases by S3RK ÷ Pull Request #24580 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:26:19 <Murch> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23475 19:26:23 <achow101> Murch: it seems like it needs conceptual review as to whether that's a good idea? 19:27:03 <Murch> achow101: I think I'd be "concept ack, approach nack", wasn't sure whether that came out clearly 19:27:33 <Murch> Is brunoerg here? 19:27:48 <jonatack> having good boundary testing of expected behavior in place before making big changes can be good if the testing is of the right kind... maybe hoist the magic numbers up to constants or derive them programmatically as mentioned 19:28:16 <Murch> jonatack: that sounds like a good idea 19:28:39 <jonatack> might be good for people to weigh in on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25130 19:28:39 <instagibbs> derive please, don't make follow-on contributors hate life 19:29:23 <instagibbs> can even be done and merged piece by piece 19:29:24 <achow101> #23475 would interact pretty poorly with #24752 19:29:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23475 | wallet: add config to prioritize a solution that doesnt create change in coin selection by brunoerg ÷ Pull Request #23475 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:29:27 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24752 | wallet: increase BnB upper limit by S3RK ÷ Pull Request #24752 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:29:45 <Murch> instagibbs, jonatack: I think one issue is also that it sorta depends on the current selection of algorithms we use, and sort of tests whether the outcome was Knapsack, or BnB at times 19:30:09 <instagibbs> Murch, yeah I'm not wading in on the overall thrust, deferring on that 19:30:34 <Murch> Yeah, #23475 needs some sanity limit, similar to the avoid_partial_spend approach 19:30:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23475 | wallet: add config to prioritize a solution that doesnt create change in coin selection by brunoerg ÷ Pull Request #23475 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:31:27 <Murch> Okay, I guess the overall result is, we could all take another glance at these and perhaps be a bit more direct with feedback? ;) 19:31:40 <achow101> yes 19:31:45 <jonatack> instagibbs: Murch: agree, may need more abstraction 19:32:53 <achow101> anything else to discuss? 19:34:11 <Murch> No, just ⦠by the way, I'm of the opinion that Knapsack needs to die 19:34:12 <Murch> :D 19:34:16 <achow101> #endmeeting