14:00:21 <achow101> #startmeeting 
14:00:31 <gleb> Hi
14:00:32 <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
14:00:36 <hebasto> hi
14:00:36 <pinheadmz> hi!
14:00:39 <darosior> hi
14:00:39 <stickies-v> hi
14:00:45 <brunoerg> hi
14:00:47 <laanwj> hii
14:00:49 <achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
14:00:52 <dergoegge> hi
14:00:53 <Sjors[m]> Hi
14:00:55 <Murch[m]> Hi
14:00:56 <glozow> hi
14:00:59 <gleb> I have something on erlay
14:00:59 <luke-jr> hi
14:01:01 <_aj_> hi
14:01:02 <lightlike> Hi
14:01:07 <furszy> hi
14:01:16 <achow101> #topic package relay updates (glozow)
14:01:19 <fjahr> hi
14:01:29 <sipa> hi
14:01:32 <sdaftuar> hi
14:01:50 <glozow> #26711 is the blocker PR. I've been trying to address feedback very quickly
14:01:53 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26711 | validate package transactions with their in-package ancestor sets by glozow · Pull Request #26711 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:02:15 <glozow> If people are interested in #27609 for 26.0, please review
14:02:18 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27609 | rpc: allow submitpackage to be called outside of regtest by glozow · Pull Request #27609 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:02:53 <glozow> I've also been working on the p2p changes, making progress on TxDownloadMan fuzzing. But as discussed at coredev, waiting until the mempool stuff is finished before opening
14:03:13 <theStack> hi
14:03:45 <josie> hi
14:03:53 <glozow> Same thing with v3 stuff - waiting until after 26711 is in
14:04:19 <glozow> That's it for my updates
14:04:28 <Murch[m]> glozow: I’ll start reviewing that today
14:04:39 <glozow> Murch: awesome thanks :D
14:04:57 <achow101> #topic BIP 324 updates (sipa)
14:05:16 <sipa> hi!
14:05:23 <sipa> big stuff done
14:05:33 <glozow> \o/
14:05:34 <achow101> what's left to do? a few followups and the tests?
14:05:53 <laanwj> congrats!
14:06:03 <sipa> indeed
14:06:08 <sipa> and enabling by default
14:07:59 <laanwj> what's the plan for that? will the first release with it will have it disabled by default?
14:08:48 <sipa> laanwj: i think so
14:09:10 <achow101> The tests pr is #28374? are there any open followup prs (I know the 16 byte prefix stuff was merged yesterday)?
14:09:13 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28374 | test: python cryptography required for BIP 324 functional tests by stratospher · Pull Request #28374 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:09:22 <laanwj> makes sense
14:09:27 <sipa> there is work to be done with functional tests among other things, and we shouldn't enable things by default before that
14:09:34 <cfields> hi
14:09:49 <achow101> laanwj: 26.0 (in a few weeks) will have it disabled. hopefully we can enable it for 27.0?
14:09:56 <sipa> yeah, exactly
14:09:58 <fanquake> the tests pr is #24748
14:10:01 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24748 | test/BIP324: functional tests for v2 P2P encryption by stratospher · Pull Request #24748 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:10:28 <sipa> there are no open PRs beyond that, i think
14:10:41 <lightlike> #28374 first I think (which has the crypto part of the tests)
14:10:42 <sipa> and #28374
14:10:43 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28374 | test: python cryptography required for BIP 324 functional tests by stratospher · Pull Request #28374 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:10:44 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28374 | test: python cryptography required for BIP 324 functional tests by stratospher · Pull Request #28374 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:10:47 <achow101> cool
14:11:41 <achow101> #topic libbitcoinkernel updates (TheCharlatan)
14:11:51 <laanwj> @achow101 yea imo, it's good to have it in 26.0 so enthousiasts can test it, then when there's confidence in it (likely enough to be in another 6 months) it makes sense to enable it by default
14:12:26 <theStack> laanwj: +1
14:13:18 <achow101> I think nothing has really changed for kernel this week, and TheCharlatan appears to not be here
14:13:42 <achow101> #topic assumeutxo updates (jamesob)
14:14:04 <fjahr> Not sure if jamesob is here for his victory lab ;) The big one was merged here too.
14:14:12 <fjahr> There is a list of follow-ups in #28562 I will address feedback and rebase shortly.
14:14:14 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28562 | AssumeUTXO follow-ups by fjahr · Pull Request #28562 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:14:22 <fjahr> And there is #28590 from ryan which we should try to get into 26. It changes the RPC
14:14:24 <luke-jr> still needs something so it doesn't display transactions as confirmed prematurely, right?
14:14:24 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28590 | assumeutxo: change getchainstates RPC to return a list of chainstates by ryanofsky · Pull Request #28590 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:14:38 <luke-jr> or did that get in somewhere already?
14:15:14 <fjahr> luke-jr: I don't think so, I don't know what PRs we have open on that off the top of my head
14:15:49 <Sjors[m]> luke-jr: it can't be used on mainnet without recompile
14:16:00 <fanquake> fjahr: were you planning on including all the post-merge review from 27596 in that PR? Or will be following up with other changes?
14:16:10 <fanquake> Quite a lot of post-merge review comments have been left
14:16:52 <fjahr> Yeah, I will comment in 27596 and not keep adding more stuff afterwards, so it says reviewable
14:16:53 <Sjors[m]> I plan to continue reviewing the original PR and then look at the followup PRs.
14:17:37 <fjahr> *so that 28562 stays reviewable, it already has 9 commits, I don't want to grow it much further
14:17:55 <Sjors[m]> Seems fine to have multiple followup PRs.
14:18:14 <luke-jr> Sjors[m]: I assume that's the goal, though, right?
14:18:21 <fjahr> There will surely be more follow-ups
14:18:25 <achow101> luke-jr: can you open an issue for that problem?
14:18:48 <fanquake> I think we also need to follow up with the release notes/rpc helps, and comparison to assumevalid etc Decide on exactly how this is presented.
14:18:55 <luke-jr> ok
14:19:03 <Sjors[m]> I haven't really tested GUI behavior for assumeutxo recently, but we should - at least before this becomes easier to use.
14:19:16 <fanquake> Multiple followups is fine, as long as we don't make post-branch-off changes to things like the rpc interface
14:19:57 <fanquake> Lets make sure most of that is done, if we're going to keep changing it
14:20:18 <abubakarsadiq> Hi
14:21:06 <achow101> #topic Ad-hoc high priority for review
14:21:13 <achow101> Anything to add or remove from https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1/views/4
14:22:12 <cfields> last minute topic proposal: cmake pings
14:22:16 <achow101> Also reminder that 26.0 feature freeze is this Sunday.
14:22:26 <achow101> I don't think there's any need to push it back again
14:22:50 <sipa> i'm continuing to review #27255
14:22:53 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27255 | MiniTapscript: port Miniscript to Tapscript by darosior · Pull Request #27255 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:23:12 <darosior> 🚀
14:23:18 <fanquake> I can't see a reason to. Most stuff on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/60 will likely get in
14:23:19 <willcl-ark> hi
14:23:27 <achow101> sipa: hoping to get that in this weekend too
14:24:02 <fanquake> Not sure about #28037. We seem to keep finding bugs in the migration code
14:24:03 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28037 | rpc: Drop migratewallet experimental warning by achow101 · Pull Request #28037 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:24:45 <fanquake> but we do need to get the wallet upgrade path open
14:25:08 <achow101> fanquake: no money losing bugs, just weird wallets that aren't migrating
14:25:43 <sipa> by "aren't migrating", you mean migration gives a error code, and the migration doesn't happen?
14:26:02 <achow101> at least it's in the gui now so more people will be using it
14:26:14 <fanquake> more like a segfault
14:26:18 <achow101> sipa: more like hitting an assert
14:26:29 <fanquake> i.e #28057
14:26:30 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28057 | migratewallet crashes (wallet/scriptpubkeyman.cpp:1915: std::optional wallet::LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::MigrateToDescriptor(): Assertion `IsMine(desc_spk) != ISMINE_NO failed.) · Issue #28057 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:26:31 <luke-jr> fanquake: it's still open, even with a warning
14:26:48 <sipa> fanquake: i guess that qualifies as an error code!
14:26:49 <_aj_> an assert in the gui is a bit obnoxious?
14:27:15 <_aj_> (or is it caught?)
14:27:33 <luke-jr> I don't think it's caught at least
14:27:39 <achow101> it's at least an attended process (the user had to be there to start it, and is presumably still there)
14:28:23 <achow101> for the vast majority of people, it should work correctly
14:28:33 <fanquake> luke-jr: yea, i just assume some people are going to avoid it with real funds, while it's still marked experimental
14:30:28 <achow101> #topic erlay (gleb)
14:30:41 <gleb> I wanted to share that i'm back to work after some absence. Amiti told me she saw some interest in Erlay at core dev, so that makes sense to continue moving it forward
14:31:01 <sipa> gleb: great to hear!
14:31:02 <gleb> It is already reviewable (#26283 and 21515), and a couple places with data and benchmarking results. I intend to make reviewing it easier. One thing is a tracking issue with FAQ.
14:31:05 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26283 | p2p: Fill reconciliation sets and request reconciliation (Erlay) by naumenkogs · Pull Request #26283 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:31:12 <gleb> Do you have any initial thoughts on it? Anything particular that prevents you from reviewing to be covered?
14:31:25 <achow101> tracking issue would be good
14:31:33 <gleb> esp. sipa dergoegge brunoerg aureleoules ariard glozow mzumsande — those who already looked at the current PR piece.
14:31:46 <josie> gleb: welcome back!
14:32:01 <sipa> gleb: i'll review again after 26 branch-off
14:32:20 <cfields> 👋
14:32:41 <gleb> Thank you.
14:33:10 <gleb> For others — It’s not to late to jump on this train. Later on it might be harder to start following it
14:33:11 <glozow> Nice that you're back gleb! Yeah I think a tracking issue would be great
14:33:29 <luke-jr> harder in what sense?
14:34:03 <gleb> Luke-jr you’ll have to review previous pr parts which are already merged.
14:34:08 <glozow> I suppose a tracking issue would help with that too - people would be able to review the merged PRs if they need to catch up
14:34:55 <gleb> Yeah
14:35:02 <lightlike> same - I plan to get back to reviewing it in the next weeks!
14:35:20 <brunoerg> same here
14:36:12 <gleb> Alright, we can move on if there are no comments. Feel free to text me later on — say if you need a call to discuss the code or whatever
14:36:26 <gleb> Thank you for your commitments to review.
14:36:27 <achow101> #topic cmake pings (cfields)
14:36:44 <cfields> Hi all. Sorry for being away for the last 2 weeks, I'll be back at my computer starting tomorrow.
14:36:49 <cfields> A quick CMake announcement: At coredev we discussed pinging people individually to test CMake before merge (still a few weeks away at minimum). Not necessarily to get individual ACKS, but to do a rough check to see if your build setup will have any problems post-merge.
14:37:00 <cfields> So, once hebasto and I suspect that things are in decent shape, we'll start doing pings for feedback. This is in addition to the PR review itself.
14:37:14 <cfields> The goal here is to try to address developers' concerns specifically, since we tend to build with the most non-standard configs. As a random example, if you're building libbitcoinkernel on FreeBSD x86-64 for Linux risc-v, you might run into an edge-case we haven't seen yet.
14:37:25 <cfields> tl;dr: if you get a ping request to try your day-to-day workflow with CMake, via IRC, Github, Signals, whatever, please please try to do so. That is a good chance to complain, not after merge :)
14:37:29 <luke-jr> cfields: my build system is quite abnormal now, so I'll plan on it (might need a reminder)
14:37:48 <cfields> luke-jr: ack, you'll get a ping for sure :)
14:38:22 <luke-jr> where is the current codebase btw?
14:38:23 <cfields> still a few weeks out. Just wanted to everyone to know it's coming.
14:38:43 <sipa> cfields: what is the minimum supported cmake version (assuming there are no additional build dependencies or changes to minimum versions of existing one)?
14:39:16 <hebasto> 3.13
14:39:29 <cfields> luke-jr: review is currently happening at hebasto's repo. There's an ubrella PR open in the core repo, but i'm not sure if it's current (sorry, I've been away this week)
14:39:32 <cfields> current: https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/31
14:39:43 <sipa> hebasto: cool
14:39:46 <fanquake> If branch of is Sunday, do we have a cut off for how long we are willing to wait, before merging something? i.e 1 month post, then we push it again?
14:39:55 <hebasto> however, I will suggest 3.16 considering the time of merging
14:40:01 <fanquake> We don't want to do this too deep into the new release cycle.
14:40:12 <cfields> sipa: ^^.  Definitely up for discussion if it turns out a newer vers would have big benefits though.
14:40:22 <achow101> branch off is scheduled for 2 weeks
14:40:29 <cfields> fanquake: ack.
14:40:42 <hebasto> umbrella pr -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25797
14:40:45 <fanquake> I assume people are also already working on all the downstream intregrations etc. So that we don't end up with broken downstreams for too long.
14:40:46 <sipa> the oldest system i regularly build on is an ubuntu 20.04, which has cmake 3.16
14:41:02 <cfields> at coredev we said ~2 weeks after would be reasonable. That puts us about a month from now.
14:41:19 <hebasto> sipa: exactly!
14:41:22 <fanquake> Ok.
14:42:10 <cfields> That seems reasonable to me, but I must admit I'd hoped to have this week for review and wasn't able, so I'm personally a week behind. But I'll try to catch up next week.
14:42:57 <achow101> Any other topics to discuss?
14:43:02 <fanquake> Yea
14:43:09 <cfields> So say 4 weeks from now we decide to merge, short extension, or punt?
14:43:15 <luke-jr> (on that note, should I just close #28564 or does anyone care to give it a quick review to fix current versions?)
14:43:16 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28564 | Bugfix: configure: Correct check for fuzz binary needing a main function by luke-jr · Pull Request #28564 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:43:30 <achow101> cfields: ack
14:43:40 <fanquake> cfields: that sounds ok, just don't want scope for this to start dragging out
14:43:41 <hebasto> ack :)
14:44:10 <fanquake> luke-jr: all build PRs are still relevant, it's not like cmake fixes the bugs in the branches we have to maintain for the next few years
14:44:30 <fanquake> so changes to the current build system are still needed, and useful
14:44:36 <_aj_> were we going to start polling for priority projects?
14:44:39 <cfields> fanquake: ack.
14:44:48 <cfields> _aj_: ah, right.
14:44:55 <luke-jr> ok, but absent additional changes, this bug amounts to a minor configure output thing IIUC
14:45:08 <luke-jr> shrugs
14:45:12 <achow101> _aj_: next week I think
14:45:24 <achow101> I guess I can put up the issue for collecting possible projects
14:45:45 <_aj_> sounds good; seems like cmake is already a priority project :)
14:46:29 <fanquake> _aj_: if we have to pick 3, I'd kinda hope not. We have bitcoin problems to solve heh
14:47:13 <_aj_> well, if it's finished in four weeks time, nbd :)
14:47:28 <luke-jr> >finished
14:47:29 <luke-jr> o.o
14:47:38 <fanquake> I have one other quick topic
14:48:02 <fanquake> A 25.1rc1 has been tagged: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v25.1rc1
14:48:04 <fanquake> So time to Guix build & test the bins.
14:48:10 <fanquake> Check out the release notes, and if you think there's something missing that should have been backported, let me know.
14:48:20 <luke-jr> I'm still struggling with bootstrapping guix x.x
14:48:23 <fanquake> Ideally 25.1 is released some time not long after feature freeze.
14:48:29 <fanquake> Note there are also PRs for 24.x & 23.x backports open at the moment (both reviewable).
14:49:05 <fanquake> luke-jr: if you can point me to the issues you've opened upstream, I can follow up
14:49:35 <luke-jr> fanquake: upstream just doesn't support it at all
14:49:51 <luke-jr> their answer is that it's impossible
14:49:58 <achow101> #28599 for gathering projects to vote on
14:49:59 <gribble`> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28599 | Gathering Priorities for 27.0 · Issue #28599 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:50:16 <fanquake> luke-jr: ok, can you link me to the issue/mailing list thread where the discussion happned
14:50:26 <luke-jr> fanquake: just IRC
14:50:37 <fanquake> cool, link me to the logs?
14:50:55 <luke-jr> #guix isn't logged ...
14:51:01 <achow101> Any other topics?
14:51:15 <luke-jr> nm, found log link
14:51:18 <dergoegge> achow101: maybe mention that the vote is only relevant for frequent contributors?
14:52:22 <sipa> we could also just do the discussion in a frequent contributor discussion, instead of a public issue
14:52:52 <achow101> sipa: github seems to have removed the feature for team discussions
14:53:06 <sipa> oh!
14:53:40 <sipa> indeed, there is just an json archive dump
14:55:03 <achow101> #endmeeting