14:00:20 <achow101> #startmeeting 
14:00:33 <provoostenator> hi
14:00:35 <josie> hi
14:00:35 <achow101> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 _aj_ amiti ariard aureleoules b10c BlueMatt brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge dongcarl fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto instagibbs jamesob jarolrod jonatack josibake kallewoof kanzure kouloumos kvaciral laanwj LarryRuane lightlike luke-jr MacroFake Murch phantomcircuit pinheadmz promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK stickies-v sipa theStack TheCharlatan vasild
14:00:52 <brunoerg> hi
14:00:55 <LarryRuane> hi
14:01:11 <achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Are there any last minute topics to add to the list?
14:01:16 <fjahr> hi
14:01:19 <dergoegge> hi
14:01:19 <furszy> hi
14:01:28 <josie> not really a topic, but I have a few updates about silent payments
14:01:31 <sipa> hi
14:01:37 <glozow> hi
14:01:48 <Murch> Hi
14:01:50 <achow101> let's start with the usual
14:01:51 <achow101> #topic assumeutxo updates (jamesob)
14:02:12 <fjahr> I just have a small new write-up on asmap for people that are hesitant on the current approach.
14:02:37 <fjahr> (my message was delayed, not related to assume)
14:02:57 <provoostenator> No updates, but I have some things on my read and review list.
14:03:00 <achow101> looks like #27596 has been rebased, so just review that?
14:03:03 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27596 | assumeutxo (2) by jamesob · Pull Request #27596 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:03:25 <fjahr> achow101: yes, james would like to keep everything in one pr now
14:03:46 <achow101> #topic package relay updates (glozow)
14:03:57 <instagibbs> fjahr should that PR be moved to blocker then?
14:04:42 <achow101> instagibbs: it's both the tracking issue and the blocker, can't do both in the projects thing
14:05:13 <glozow> not much different. glad to get some reviews on the big branch
14:05:47 <achow101> haven't had much time recently, but hoping to get to reviewing that soon
14:05:54 <glozow> thanks :)))
14:06:31 <achow101> #topic libbitcoinkernel updates (TheCharlatan)
14:06:41 <TheCharlatan> hi :)
14:07:28 <achow101> looks like there's been some discussion on #27711, so i guess we're still making progress there?
14:07:31 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27711 | kernel: Remove shutdown globals from kernel library by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #27711 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:07:36 <TheCharlatan> Theres been more dicsussion on the shutdown PR yeah
14:08:00 <TheCharlatan> The other one is waiting to be merged afaict :)
14:08:19 <achow101> TheCharlatan: other one?
14:08:39 <josie> "there can only be one"
14:08:52 <TheCharlatan> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27576
14:09:07 <sipa> please don't make these project immortal
14:10:07 <achow101> cool
14:10:28 <TheCharlatan> I laid down some options for next steps in the shutdown, will follow through on that next week.
14:10:50 <achow101> #topic BIP 324 updates (sipa)
14:11:12 <stickies-v> hi
14:12:29 <achow101> looks like https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1129 still, waiting for more review
14:14:00 <provoostenator> .
14:14:38 <achow101> #topic Ad-hoc high priority for review
14:14:51 <achow101> anything to add or remove https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1/views/4
14:16:04 <josie> can I add #27827 to chasing concept ACK?
14:16:06 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27827 | [Silent Payments]: Base functionality by josibake · Pull Request #27827 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:16:30 <josie> or WIP / Approach ACK, not sure which is more relevant
14:17:00 <achow101> josie: added
14:17:20 <josie> achow101: ty
14:17:38 <achow101> #topic silent payments news (josie)
14:18:00 <josie> we've got a BIP proposal open here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1458
14:18:32 <sipa> no BIP324 updates, i expect there'll be progress on ellswift secp next week
14:18:42 <josie> attempted to incorporate all the feedback from coredev, so if you were someone who gave feedback, would appreciate some eyes on the BIP
14:19:00 <josie> not sure what the process for getting a BIP number assigned is, I'm assuming its just waiting on a few concept ACKs?
14:19:27 <achow101> josie: open to the bips repo and you'll get a number
14:19:37 <josie> cool, its open :)
14:19:40 <instagibbs> I think you need to explicitly ask for a number to be assigned?
14:19:50 <sipa> The bar for getting a number is having had discussion, and having one of the BIP editors notice.
14:20:36 <sipa> ACKing a BIP is meaningless, it's just a mechanism for publishing ideas.
14:20:52 <josie> the mailing list post has been pretty quite, so maybe I'll give it another week for discussion and then start pestering about a BIP number
14:21:45 <achow101> any other topics to discuss?
14:21:47 <josie> the PR I mentioned is a slimmed down version of the draft from w0xlt. It's been updated to implement the most current version of the BIP, and it works :) there's still some implementation specific things that I'll be cleaning up
14:22:09 <fjahr> achow101: another asmap write-up
14:22:32 <achow101> #topic another asmap write-up (fjahr)
14:22:35 <fjahr> Ugh, another ASMap write-up ;) https://gist.github.com/fjahr/55811cb265b12b58da16d287b187d8ec
14:22:45 <fjahr> The topic of validation of ASMap file kept coming up in Dublin and I didn’t really have a great answer to the question “But how do we really know the file we ship is safe?”. The simple answer is “we don’t” because we can not be 100% sure there are absolutely no issues, so I don’t feel comfortable saying anything that may suggest otherwise. But the real answer is much more complicated of course since we have
14:22:45 <fjahr> done a lot to make sure the ASMap file creation is as safe as it can be under the current state of internet routing security and I firmly believe that this is good enough (TM) and still a great improvement against \16s.
14:22:56 <fjahr> In this write-up I try to lay out the attack scenarios on the ASMap file creation process, which ones are a big or small problem and how we try to mitigate each of them when possible. Part of this thought process led to the health check PR #27581 so it was at least useful to me.
14:22:58 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27581 | net: Continuous ASMap health check by fjahr · Pull Request #27581 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:23:08 <fjahr> Let me know if there are questions, if I missed/miss-represented scenarios and if there are more ideas for mitigations. But I hope there is nothing surprising in there for the people that have thought about this in depth already. It’s just another helper to get people on board conceptually.
14:23:13 <fjahr> That's it :)
14:24:26 <achow101> cool, will give that a read
14:25:19 <achow101> any other topics?
14:26:19 <achow101> #endmeeting