14:00:28 <achow101> #startmeeting 
14:00:28 <core-meetingbot> Meeting started Thu Nov  2 14:00:28 2023 UTC.  The chair is achow101. Information about MeetBot at https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/ircmeetings.
14:00:28 <core-meetingbot> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
14:00:37 <stickies-v> hi
14:00:37 <pinheadmz> hi
14:00:41 <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
14:00:44 <glozow> hi
14:00:45 <dergoegge> hi
14:00:45 <kanzure> hi
14:00:46 <hebasto> hi
14:00:47 <brunoerg> hi
14:00:49 <cfields> hi
14:00:50 <TheCharlatan> hi
14:00:50 <furszy> hi
14:01:00 <maxedw> hi
14:01:01 <fjahr> hi
14:01:04 <instagibbs> hi
14:01:04 <kanzure> #proposedmeetingtopic mailing list
14:01:07 <RubenSomsen> hi
14:01:08 <achow101> There is 1 preproposed meeting topic this week. Any last minutes ones to add?
14:01:35 <RubenSomsen> I'll be giving the silent payments update this month in josie's absence
14:01:52 <achow101> #topic package relay updates (glozow)
14:01:52 <core-meetingbot> topic: package relay updates (glozow)
14:02:07 <glozow> A few chunks have been split off from #26711. #28764 and #28758 should be reviewable by anyone (ie without knowing everything about mempool/validation)
14:02:10 <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
14:02:11 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28764 | Fuzz: Check individual and package transaction invariants by instagibbs · Pull Request #28764 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:02:13 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28758 | refactors for subpackage evaluation by glozow · Pull Request #28758 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:02:37 <abubakarsadiq> hi
14:02:40 <glozow> #28762 is also very small, hopefully people who are familiar with MiniMiner can take a bit of time to look at it
14:02:41 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28762 | MiniMiner changes for package linearization by glozow · Pull Request #28762 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:03:18 <pablomartin> hi
14:03:33 <glozow> If we want to change the "blocker" PR, I'd say it's #28758
14:03:34 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28758 | refactors for subpackage evaluation by glozow · Pull Request #28758 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:04:12 <stickies-v> i'll look at that next week
14:05:32 <achow101> #topic silent payments updates (RubenSomsen)
14:05:32 <core-meetingbot> topic: silent payments updates (RubenSomsen)
14:05:47 <RubenSomsen> Actively taking review on BIP352 and responding to feedback. Currently reworking how the outpoints are hashed.
14:06:01 <RubenSomsen> #25273 by achow101 is also ready for review
14:06:04 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/25273 | wallet: Pass through transaction locktime and preset input sequences and scripts to CreateTransaction by achow101 · Pull Request #25273 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:07:31 <achow101> #topic multiprocess updates (ryanofsky)
14:07:31 <core-meetingbot> topic: multiprocess updates (ryanofsky)
14:09:55 <achow101> current blocker is #28721
14:09:58 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28721 | multiprocess compatibility updates by ryanofsky · Pull Request #28721 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:10:19 <achow101> #topic Ad-hoc high priority for review
14:10:19 <core-meetingbot> topic: Ad-hoc high priority for review
14:10:24 <achow101> Anything to add or remove from https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1/views/4
14:12:04 <achow101> #topic contents of the 26 testing guide (maxedw)
14:12:04 <core-meetingbot> topic: contents of the 26 testing guide (maxedw)
14:13:13 <stickies-v> if maxedw is not here i'm happy to cover this for him, he sent me his proposal yesterday
14:13:18 <stickies-v> maxedw are you here?
14:13:25 <sipa> hi
14:13:34 <maxedw> after reading the release notes, these topics struck me as potentially good candidates: V2 Transport (BIP 324), assumeutxo, Submit packag, Wallet loading /migration, Importmempool rpc
14:15:10 <stickies-v> so i think you're looking for feedback about whether or not these topics make sense, or if anyone has topics they think would benefit well from being in the testing guide?
14:15:35 <maxedw> yes, any feedback on if these are good topics or if I've missed an important one
14:15:36 <achow101> since assumeutxo and 324 are disabled by default, I'm not sure how useful it is to test those in the release candidates
14:16:02 <sipa> at least 324 is testable on mainnet even
14:16:07 <fjahr> I would say it makes even more sense to advertise testing them because of that
14:16:12 <stickies-v> achow101: wouldn't we especially want to test those, given that they're new?
14:16:47 <stickies-v> we'll also be hosting a review club around the testing guide btw, so what we have done before is let attendees peer with each other (e.g. for CJDNS)
14:16:56 <achow101> stickies-v: isn't the purpose of the testing guide to test the release candidates prior to the final release?
14:16:57 <sipa> it depends what kind of testing we want... things relating to how an end user will interact with them, probably not
14:17:35 <stickies-v> well yes but the functionality is there, so we'd want to make sure there are no bugs, even if disabled by default
14:18:00 <sipa> achow101: that's a fair point; issues discovered through testing of features that aren't actually usable in production wouldn't really affect whether we promote an RC to final
14:19:11 <maxedw> so are we thinking drop assumeutxo and 324?
14:19:11 <fanquake> We still need to do some testing / sanity checking though. Otherwise we might ship bins with a broken 324 impl and then it won't work for all the power users that want to turn it on
14:19:31 <maxedw> I don't mind making a separate testing guide on those things for review club if that's a best of both situation?
14:20:00 <stickies-v> achow101: wdyt about the wallet loading PR (#24914)? is that worth testing? my initial view was no, but i'm not familiar with the PR
14:20:03 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/24914 | wallet: Load database records in a particular order by achow101 · Pull Request #24914 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:20:28 <achow101> there isn't anything use facing to test
14:20:32 <achow101> *user
14:20:39 <sipa> i think there's a difference between BIP324 and assumeutxo still; the former will probably end up being enabled by some, on mainnet, following 26.0 release, while assumeutxo is actually not usable on mainnet
14:20:49 <achow101> other than your wallet loads, which it will because we have functional tests for that
14:21:21 <stickies-v> okay yeah thx that was my assumption as well, would drop that from the guide then
14:21:24 <sipa> but also, all testing results are welcome of course, even if they just result in changes in master that don't make it to 26.0
14:21:33 <sipa> it's more a question of priority i think
14:21:49 <sipa> the closer a feature is to being usable the more important it is that it works well
14:22:04 <maxedw> sipa: there is a new RPC for assumeutxo `loadtxoutset`
14:22:07 <stickies-v> we've previously also had a bonus section in the testing guide near the end, so could put assumeutxo there? still useful feedback, but won't block 26 final
14:22:19 <sipa> maxedw: yes, but you can't use it on mainnet IIRC?
14:22:31 <lightlike> I think that bip324 has sufficient "hype" in the wider community that many users will turn it on on mainnet - so it should be included in the testing.
14:22:53 <glozow> I think 324 should be included
14:23:56 <achow101> TapMiniscript could be included
14:24:21 <sipa> oh yes!
14:24:37 <stickies-v> hmm good point, it's not in the release notes https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/26.0%E2%80%90Release%E2%80%90Notes%E2%80%90Draft
14:24:47 <fanquake> cc darosior
14:25:01 <achow101> For MacOS users, the packaging change to use a zip instead of dmg?
14:25:02 <fanquake> I think he was going to write rel notes
14:25:11 <darosior> Will do
14:26:06 <stickies-v> achow101: yeah i think the macos packaging stuff would be good to add indeed, very quick to test too
14:26:31 <fjahr> IMO BIP324 should definitely be included, there are a lot of people excited about turning it on in mainnet. For assumeutxo I would really like it if there would still be some encouragement still to test it. Bonus section sounds good to me.
14:26:45 <maxedw> I was unsure about importmempool RPC as it sounded like it was the same mechanism as what was available before, now just available via RPC
14:27:09 <stickies-v> fyi maxedw the macos packaging stuff is PR #28432
14:27:11 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28432 | build: Produce a `.zip` for macOS distribution by hebasto · Pull Request #28432 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:28:58 <maxedw> so are we thinking: BIP324, Submit package, MacOS packaging, TapMiniscript
14:29:16 <maxedw> and importmempool RPC?
14:29:27 <achow101> I think there's a bunch of smaller things that we want testing in the RCs that don't have release notes. you might want to look at the git log since 25.0
14:30:01 <achow101> importmempool seems fine to test
14:30:08 <abubakarsadiq> could be nice to add some RPC test also like #26485
14:30:10 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26485 | RPC: Accept options as named-only parameters by ryanofsky · Pull Request #26485 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:31:16 <maxedw> I wonder if that one can be tested as part of the others
14:31:54 <stickies-v> yup, combining maxes sense 👍
14:32:54 <achow101> couple other ones that might be useful: deprecation of creating new legacy wallets, submitpackage's new restrictions
14:35:38 <maxedw> I can go through the git log, shall I report back in this channel any other suggestions I find?
14:36:05 <sipa> <Murch> @maxedw I wouldn’t mind if Ancestor Aware Funding made the testing guide. Send a few transactions to yourself with unconfirmed inputs at different feerates and see if something unexpected happens.
14:36:05 <lightlike> #27213 (outbound connection management wrt networks) is also a possibility
14:36:09 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27213 | p2p: Diversify automatic outbound connections with respect to networks by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #27213 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:36:28 <sipa> (relaying for Murch who seems to have IRC-Matrix bridge issues)
14:36:39 <achow101> maxedw: sure
14:36:49 <sipa> <Murch> #26152
14:36:51 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/26152 | Bump unconfirmed ancestor transactions to target feerate by murchandamus · Pull Request #26152 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
14:37:31 <stickies-v> i'd say don't let (lack of/slow) feedback hold you back on making progress with the guide though, thank you for working on this!
14:37:45 <ajonas> maxedw: maybe just write up the list on the devwiki (where this will ultimately live) and return back next week with a request for comments
14:38:06 <darosior> Yeah, thanks for doing this maxedw.
14:38:59 <sipa> indeed ^
14:39:06 <maxedw> can do ajonas
14:39:14 <glozow> thank you maxedw!
14:39:15 <maxedw> no probs all!
14:39:23 <achow101> #topic mailing list (kanzure)
14:39:23 <core-meetingbot> topic: mailing list (kanzure)
14:39:27 <kanzure> linuxfoundation.org has decided to stop hosting mailing lists, which includes bitcoin-dev (and btw lightning-dev but i don't know who manages that). they have offered or agreed to continue to preserve/host the email archive urls and content.
14:39:31 <kanzure> see https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2023-10-31.log at "Heads up"
14:39:33 <achow101> again?
14:39:43 <kanzure> there is also ##bitcoin-dev-lists
14:39:49 <kanzure> or https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1720083660815376832
14:40:09 <kanzure> no proposal or answers yet, so that's all i have for this meeting really.
14:40:19 <kanzure> uh, an email should be going out at ~some point, to the mailing list.
14:40:38 <achow101> if the mailing list changes to somewhere else, will the old email still work (autoforward)
14:40:38 <RubenSomsen> Options I've seen thus far are delvingbitcoin.org, groups.io, mailman3.com, or finding someone else to host mailman2
14:41:15 <kanzure> we could ask them about auto-forward. they have either offered or agreed to keep the email archive urls up, but maybe we could ask them to redirect to another location if that's what we want.
14:42:49 <RubenSomsen> Functionality wise I think what's important are easy back-ups, transparency (no stealth edits), and a reliable host
14:43:43 <achow101> I think we can have that discussion on the list
14:43:45 <sipa> This discussion really belongs on the mailinglist.
14:44:04 <sipa> It's good to inform people here about the problem, but this isn't the place to discuss it.
14:44:19 <RubenSomsen> Sure
14:44:20 <achow101> for the bitcoin-core-dev list, it's an announcement's only list, so we really can just move that whereever
14:45:05 <achow101> Any other topics to discuss?
14:46:03 <achow101> #endmeeting