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, thereâÂÂs 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, ð¤·ðÂÂȉÂÂâÂÂ︠but 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, IâÂÂll be leaving Chaincode Labs next week and will no longer be contributing full time to Bitcoin Core. I wonâÂÂt be entirely gone, just contributing within the restriction of my leftover bandwidth (IIRC fjahr has been doing this). 19:25:06 <dongcarl> IâÂÂve 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 whatâÂÂs left of phase 1 of libbitcoinkernel and making phase 2 happen. IâÂÂm 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 youâÂÂd like to introduce yourself, what youâÂÂve 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> ð 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