19:00:12 <laanwj> #startmeeting 
19:00:13 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Jul  7 19:00:12 2022 UTC.  The chair is laanwj. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings.
19:00:13 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
19:00:16 <achow101> hi
19:00:19 <brunoerg> HI
19:00:21 <fanquake> hi
19:00:25 <furszy> hi
19:00:27 <hebasto> hi
19:00:30 <dunxen> hi
19:00:46 <laanwj> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 _aj_ amiti ariard b10c 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
19:00:48 <laanwj> moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild
19:00:51 <lightlike> hi
19:00:58 <sipa> hi
19:01:04 <ariard> hi
19:01:07 <jarolrod> hi
19:01:08 <laanwj> one proposed meeting topic this week: two short announcements (sipa)
19:01:29 <glozow> hi
19:01:39 <jeremyrubin> hi
19:01:42 <b10c> hi
19:01:44 <instagibbs> hi
19:01:51 <laanwj> any last minute topics?
19:01:53 <Murch> hi
19:02:10 <kanzure> hi
19:03:05 <jamesob> hi
19:03:06 <dongcarl> hi
19:03:14 <willcl_ark> Hi
19:03:19 <laanwj> hi
19:03:36 <laanwj> okay, let's start with the announcements
19:03:43 <laanwj> #topic Two short announcements
19:03:44 <core-meetingbot> topic: Two short announcements
19:03:44 <sipa> ok
19:04:03 <sipa> the first is that i've come to realize it's time for me to step down as maintainer
19:05:04 <sipa> i'm not intending to change anything about what i do or work on, but the reality is that i haven't used my maintainer privileged for almost two years, but also more in general my interests have shifted and i'm not as closely involved with the codebase anymore
19:06:20 <laanwj> sad to see you go
19:06:35 <laanwj> but if you're hardly using commit access it definitely makes sense to drop it
19:06:35 <kanzure> will you still be a contributor even if periodic or incidentally?
19:06:46 <gleb745438685291> hi
19:06:55 <sipa> and with the discussions the past week i realized there is no need to keep my privileges if i don't use them
19:07:21 <dunxen> Thanks, Pieter! glad to know you’ll continue working on what you do now!
19:07:33 <laanwj> yes!
19:07:47 <sipa> kanzure: Yes, definitely - nothing changes there. Though lately the projects I work on are more research-oriented, like miniscript, bip324, and various other things. I plan to keep writing code and reviewing.
19:07:47 <jeremyrubin> Thanks for all the hard work over the years sipa!
19:08:00 <jeremyrubin> Do you intend to stay a maintainer of libsecp256k1?
19:08:09 <brunoerg> thanks, pieter!
19:08:10 <sipa> jeremyrubin: yes!
19:08:22 <josibake___> hi
19:08:41 <willcl_ark> Thanks for your noteworthy and numerous contributions Pieter!
19:08:53 <jeremyrubin> sipa: fantastic :)
19:08:54 <sipa> In fact that's the second short announcement: libsecp256k1 now has IRC meetings too, every two weeks, 15:00 UTC on mondays; the next one is the 18th.
19:09:15 <jarolrod> sipa: on this channel or another channel?
19:09:42 <luke-jr> this one is quiet enough I'd almost suggest combining it in ;)
19:09:50 <sipa> I've had this lingering guilt about not being to spend as much time with the codebase and doing review... and I still plan to at some point get back to doing more of that, but I also have lots of other things going on.
19:10:01 <sipa> jarolrod: on the #secp256k1 channel
19:10:18 <jarolrod> sipa: don't think you have anything to apologize for :D
19:10:43 <josibake___> sipa: thanks for your work as a maintainer and glad to hear you will still be coding/reviewing :)
19:10:45 <cfields_> late hi
19:10:46 <jeremyrubin> luke-jr: personally I think separate channels are really great as they make logs much more easily searched
19:11:14 <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: "almost" ;)
19:11:17 <sipa> That's it for me, unless people have more questions.
19:12:14 <cfields_> sipa: thanks for your time as maintainer, glad to hear that your contributions won't be changing much :)
19:12:49 <jeremyrubin> oh one other q
19:13:02 <jeremyrubin> do you intend to retain status as PoC for security issues?
19:13:53 <ariard> i think PoC for security issues can be dissociated from maintenance, at least we do that for LDK
19:13:53 <instagibbs> point of contact(tried for 5 seconeds to figure out what that was)
19:14:20 <jarolrod> ^^^ i guess on that note, there's also the question on elevated privileges, such as being able to ban spammers
19:14:55 <jeremyrubin> jarolrod: i think a lot of people have those github bits as a convenience, already separate from maintainership
19:15:19 <gleb1> from some brief interactions with those security communication channels, i remember sipa did good job at handling them
19:15:22 <achow101> iirc the security email has multiple non-maintainers on it
19:15:28 <instagibbs> banning is only done for egregious spamming afaik
19:15:54 <achow101> jeremyrubin: banning requires admin perms, which only a few of the maintainers have
19:15:58 <sipa> I'm in no rush to change anything, so if it's helpful to stay on as security PoC, or even keep privileges to ban people, I'm happy to do that.
19:16:50 <jeremyrubin> achow101: i don't send to the security email precisely because I don't know who is on it, prefer to communicate to a particular developer about an issue with encryption if there is a problem
19:16:54 <jeremyrubin> gleb1: +1 :)
19:17:20 <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: encryption works in email too ;)
19:17:24 <jeremyrubin> sipa: thanks for clairfying, just wanted to be sure such communications were still welcome
19:17:44 <sipa> But I also think over time those functions should move to others.
19:17:51 <real_or_random> jeremyrubin: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/SECURITY.md
19:17:52 <laanwj> tbh the security email mostly only gets spam and support requests anyway
19:17:52 <jeremyrubin> luke-jr: yes, but there's not a key for the security email so it's not clear who i should encrypt it to for that list
19:17:53 <kanzure> jeremy do you have something you're holding
19:18:07 <jeremyrubin> kanzure?
19:18:12 <luke-jr> jeremyrubin: see real_or_random's link
19:18:53 <jeremyrubin> yes im familiar with the link, sipa is listed there, that's all i'm asking about
19:18:59 <real_or_random> you could encrypt to any subset of those three people
19:19:13 <sipa> any non-empty subset
19:19:19 <achow101> encrypting to any of the keys listed for the security email is fine, I expect it get forwarded/put in contact with the appropriate people
19:19:29 <real_or_random> maybe this could be made clearer
19:19:44 <real_or_random> sipa: well, if you don't want to report the vulnerability...
19:20:14 <sipa> it's a bit strange to send a mail to the security list, not knowing who's on it, but then encrypt it to just specific people (for which it's not even explicit that they're on that list)
19:21:10 <jeremyrubin> sipa: yes, exactly. but it's an aside, someone can clean that up out of band of the meeting
19:21:28 <sipa> the security list does indeed mostly get spam ("the email on bitcoincore.org is not properly configured!")
19:22:39 <laanwj> yes, or 'i lost my wallet' or other vague requests like 'i want my spam article to be featured on the site'
19:23:27 <real_or_random> yeah, most of the strangest emails I have received in my life were sent to secp256k1-security@bitcoincore.org
19:24:27 <real_or_random> (for example, a link to a google doc containing nothing but the developer documentation of libjpeg)
19:24:37 <real_or_random> sorry, I don't want to disrupt the meeting here ^^
19:25:58 <luke-jr> real_or_random: perhaps malware intended to exploit a browser 0day ;)
19:26:12 <laanwj> another announcement: welcome glozow as mempool/relay policy maintainer!
19:26:37 <sipa> \o/
19:26:40 <josibake___> glozow: congrats!
19:26:59 <gleb1> great news
19:27:29 <cfields_> 🚀
19:27:40 <jarolrod> glozow: 🎉
19:28:05 <laanwj> congrats glozow
19:29:19 <laanwj> #topic high priority for review
19:29:20 <core-meetingbot> topic: high priority for review
19:29:38 <laanwj> 10 blockers and 2 chasing concept ACK in https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1/views/1
19:29:51 <laanwj> anything to add or remove?
19:30:06 <laanwj> or that looks ready for merge?
19:30:12 <gleb1> #23443 got some new reviewers last week, thank you! I addressed all the comments, and it's ready again :)
19:30:15 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/23443 | p2p: Erlay support signaling by naumenkogs · Pull Request #23443 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:31:45 <laanwj> gleb1: great!
19:32:20 <josibake___> not really "high priority" but #24584 is freshly rebased and ready for review. feels close to ready
19:32:23 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24584 | wallet: avoid mixing different `OutputTypes` during coin selection by josibake · Pull Request #24584 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:32:59 <ariard> #25353 should be near-too, i'm thinking to address the open nits in a follow-up
19:33:02 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25353 | Add a `-mempoolfullrbf` node setting by ariard · Pull Request #25353 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:33:28 <laanwj> ariard: agree, that one's taking long enough for a straightforward change :)
19:35:02 <ariard> if any substantive comments or issues, i'll address them quickly
19:35:29 <laanwj> josibake___: would you like that added?
19:36:51 <josibake___> laanwj: sure! if there are no objections
19:38:28 <laanwj> josibake___: not from me at least, added
19:38:46 <josibake___> ty!
19:40:23 <laanwj> anything else to add/remove? any other topics?
19:42:05 <laanwj> #endmeeting