19:00:14 <laanwj> #startmeeting 
19:00:14 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Aug 25 19:00:13 2022 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
19:00:46 <provoostenator> hi
19:00:49 <hebasto> hi
19:00:54 <dongcarl> hi
19:01:00 <kouloumos> hi
19:01:05 <lightlike> hi
19:01:10 <theStack> hi
19:01:23 <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
19:01:25 <laanwj> moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild
19:01:29 <Zaidan> hi, observing this for the first time
19:01:33 <sipa> hi
19:01:35 <achow101> hi
19:01:49 <laanwj> one topic has been proposed: full-rbf maximalism vs gentle phase-out of opt-in RBF (ariard)
19:01:51 <furszy> hi
19:02:01 <vasild> hi (semiasleep)
19:02:02 <laanwj> i also think the 24.0 feature freeze is to be discussed
19:02:09 <kanzure> hi
19:02:40 <laanwj> any last minute topics?
19:03:38 <laanwj> #topic 24.0 feature freeze / milestone
19:03:38 <core-meetingbot> topic: 24.0 feature freeze / milestone
19:04:13 <laanwj> the feature freeze was moved forward by 7 days but that date (2022-08-22) has passed as well
19:04:20 <laanwj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24987
19:04:35 <laanwj> are we ready to feature freeze now?
19:05:00 <laanwj> 24.0 milestone: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/54
19:05:13 <sipa> I'm just going over #25717 again, it's gotten a lot of review nits lately, but very close I think.
19:05:50 <luke-jr> ..
19:06:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25717 | p2p: Implement anti-DoS headers sync by sdaftuar · Pull Request #25717 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:16 <provoostenator> It's pretty ambitious PR so late in the release cycle.
19:06:23 <achow101> #19602 has been getting a lot of review now and I'm not sure that it will make it. I've found a somewhat
19:06:23 <provoostenator> (as much as I'm a fan of it)
19:06:25 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19602 | wallet: Migrate legacy wallets to descriptor wallets by achow101 · Pull Request #19602 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:30 <achow101> somewhat major bug today
19:06:34 <lightlike> #25355 has several ACKs too
19:06:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25355 | I2P: add support for transient addresses for outbound connections by vasild · Pull Request #25355 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:06:37 <vasild> provoostenator: +1
19:07:05 <provoostenator> achow101: that RPC is marked experimental anyway, so it might be good to get it in to see if any wallets in the wild don't work with it.
19:07:49 <laanwj> ok, so it seems the answer is 'feature freeze needs to be postponed further', as i've heard mention of three PRs now
19:09:31 <provoostenator> Seems so, unless there's any reason we want to ship 24.0 real soon?
19:09:41 <laanwj> not that i know of
19:10:16 <laanwj> it is a slightly uncommon way of working, we've never really delayed the feature freeze for non critical features, it was 'what makes it in makes it in'
19:10:55 <luke-jr> maybe make 1 week from today a hard deadline for enforcing that then?
19:10:56 <vasild> I am ok to drop #25355 from 24 if people think it is rushed or needs more time/review.
19:10:58 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25355 | I2P: add support for transient addresses for outbound connections by vasild · Pull Request #25355 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:11:01 <laanwj> those PRs have been close to merge for quite a time now and there has to be a cut-off point, bu there's no reason why it'd need to be today
19:11:21 <glozow> +1 25717 is my priority rn
19:11:49 <laanwj> luke-jr: sgtm, if others agree
19:12:54 <vasild> the i2p one is a "nice to have", not "must have"
19:13:18 <luke-jr> arguably features are always "nice to have" - there's always 25.x :P
19:13:27 <vasild> :P
19:13:30 <laanwj> fwiw i'll be traveling next week so i'll not be here
19:13:39 <luke-jr> o
19:13:49 <laanwj> not that it matters someone else can easily pick up the meeting
19:15:20 <dongcarl> last minute topic: libbitcoinkernel update
19:16:10 <laanwj> dongcarl: noted
19:16:35 <laanwj> #topic full-rbf maximalism vs gentle phase-out of opt-in RBF (ariard)
19:16:36 <core-meetingbot> topic: full-rbf maximalism vs gentle phase-out of opt-in RBF (ariard)
19:18:00 <lightlike> when suggesting that topic, ariard added he wasn't sure if he could make it to the meeting.
19:18:58 <laanwj> ok, that seems the case
19:19:49 <laanwj> let's postpone it for another meeting then?
19:20:12 <vasild> is there a problem with the current state of rbf?
19:21:30 <luke-jr> devs need to stop trying to dictate policies for users. if some users want "full RBF", they should be able to have it. Likewise, opt-in RBF.
19:21:32 <glozow> this is a signaling question, though the answer to your question is yes, there’s room for improvement
19:22:34 <lightlike> Can't speak for him, but I think he probably wanted to discuss different possibilities to transition to full-rbf:
19:22:36 <lightlike> Support for preferential peering (#25600) vs changing the default vs doing nothing (having it as an option that is off per default)
19:22:39 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25600 | p2p: Advertise `NODE_REPLACE_BY_FEE` and connect to 1 outbound full-rbf peer if `mempoolfullrbf` sets by ariard · Pull Request #25600 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
19:23:52 <glozow> sure, i run a full rbf node, 🤷🏻‍♀️ but merging full rbf default or preferential peering is a different question. agree to postpone this topic for when ariard is here.
19:24:28 <laanwj> ok, let's move to dongcarl's topic then
19:24:46 <laanwj> #topic libbitcoinkernel update (dongcarl)
19:24:47 <core-meetingbot> topic: libbitcoinkernel update (dongcarl)
19:24:57 <dongcarl> Hi all, I’ll be leaving Chaincode Labs next week and will no longer be contributing full time to Bitcoin Core. I won’t be entirely gone, just contributing within the restriction of my leftover bandwidth (IIRC fjahr has been doing this).
19:25:06 <dongcarl> I’ve tapped TheCharlatan as the point person for driving forward libbitcoinkernel (although I see all contributors, reviewers, and PR authors whose PRs we depend on as part of the libbitcoinkernel effort).
19:25:15 <dongcarl> I strongly believe that he has the right skillset and drive for completing what’s left of phase 1 of libbitcoinkernel and making phase 2 happen. I’m currently ramping him up, and he is set to be able to devote full-time attention starting November and I will assist in helping him find full-time sponsors (there are parties who have indicated
19:25:15 <dongcarl> interest already).
19:25:22 <dongcarl> TheCharlatan: Perhaps you’d like to introduce yourself, what you’ve done in the past, what your interest is in libbitcoinkernel?
19:26:08 <vasild> :(
19:26:28 <Zaidan> well thank you for your contributions carl
19:26:47 <glozow> 😭
19:27:39 <dongcarl> I will still be an alive human though! (at least I expect to be)
19:28:06 <dongcarl> nudges TheCharlatan
19:28:14 <laanwj> phew!
19:28:33 <TheCharlatan> carl's are big shoes to fill, but he's been super helpful in getting men up to speed so far
19:28:40 <sipa> I was hoping for a bit more than "alive".
19:28:46 <luke-jr> lol
19:29:12 <luke-jr> libbitcoinkernel aside, is anyone going to be actively maintaining the guix stuff? :x
19:29:29 <fanquake> yes?
19:29:47 <dongcarl> luke-jr: Oh I think fanquake and hebasto have been doing more than an excellent job
19:30:06 <luke-jr> ok, sorry, I don't mean to downplay their work, I don't pay close attention to the "who" on PRs
19:30:10 <laanwj> but yes it was a bit of a shock to me as well to hear you're moving to something else, I fully understand of course. Hopefully TheCharlatan can take it over the finish line.
19:30:41 <dongcarl> TheCharlatan: Perhaps you can speak a bit about your past work?
19:30:49 <sipa> Will he turn into TheCarlatan?
19:30:54 <dongcarl> OH NO
19:31:12 <TheCharlatan> I've been lurking here since a long time, and am keen to keep carl's work alive. Im also a guix user, so over time I hope to keep at it as well. I'll slowly ramp up my contributions over the next months.
19:31:12 <dongcarl> You have uncovered my ploy
19:32:33 <dongcarl> The current plan is to have TheCharlatan do chainparams<->ArgsManager circular dependency decoupling as the first PR, we'll see as we go along!
19:32:59 <dongcarl> Thanks for listening all :-)
19:33:39 <laanwj> thanks for the update
19:34:28 <laanwj> any other topics for today?
19:35:48 <laanwj> #endmeeting