14:00:10 <achow101> #startmeeting 14:00:13 <josie> hi 14:00:18 <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 14:00:19 <hebasto> hi 14:00:26 <brunoerg> hi 14:00:27 <furszy> hi 14:00:36 <lightlike> Hi 14:00:36 <fjahr> hi 14:00:41 <dergoegge> hi 14:00:58 <stickies-v> hi 14:01:03 <achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add? 14:01:13 <abubakarsadiq> hi 14:01:17 <sipa> hi 14:01:38 <glozow> hi 14:01:43 <achow101> #topic package relay updates (glozow) 14:02:03 <glozow> #28948 is the priority. It's looking better than it did last week 14:02:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28948 | v3 transaction policy for anti-pinning by glozow ÷ Pull Request #28948 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:02:09 <Murch[m]> Hi 14:02:39 <glozow> instagibbs do you want to talk about package RBF? 14:02:48 <b10c> hi 14:02:52 <instagibbs> sure 14:03:08 <instagibbs> sdaftuar and I have been going over a limited package rbf design: #28984 14:03:16 <sdaftuar> hi 14:03:18 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28984 | Cluster size 2 package rbf by instagibbs ÷ Pull Request #28984 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:04:02 <Sjors[m]> hi 14:04:04 <instagibbs> we got sidetracked into a bit of a delving conversation, but it mostly is resting on "is it ok if certain cases doesn't strictly improve the mempool", the type of thing cluster mempool is meant to achieve. 14:04:46 <instagibbs> post-cluster mempool this mechanism will be replaced, but we don't want to support behavior now that might be relied upon, then later removed 14:04:51 <instagibbs> sdaftuar anything else to add? 14:04:53 <sdaftuar> instagibbs: i'm working on a modification to your branch that uses the feerate diagram test, which would eliminate that issue altogether i think 14:05:05 <instagibbs> clusterifying eh 14:05:06 <sdaftuar> it's actually not so bad, but ymmv 14:05:30 <instagibbs> I'll wait for a branch ð 14:05:34 <achow101> instagibbs: this mechanism is compatible with cluster mempool? 14:05:50 <instagibbs> achow101 yes, the question is will we sometimes accept something that cluster mempool would reject (see delving post) 14:06:15 <instagibbs> and how bad is that, is it worth literally doing what cluster mempool would do to match up behavior exactly for 2-transaction case 14:06:33 <instagibbs> to make sure we're strictly making mempool better 14:06:38 <sipa> achow101: the idea is that we want the 1p1c scenario now ro be a steict superset of what will eventually be allowed in the full post-clustermempool package-rbf case 14:06:44 <sipa> *subset 14:07:05 <instagibbs> sipa ACK 14:07:14 <sipa> so that we're not enabling behavior that will need to be disallowed later 14:07:19 <achow101> cool 14:07:24 <glozow> so any users of 1p1c would be guaranteed to have their usage stay the same after clustermempool 14:07:43 <sipa> of course, BIP125 is already broken, and permits things that we *should* disallow, but that's a separate discussion 14:07:44 <instagibbs> for that narrow topology/use-case which is useful for LN et al 14:07:49 <glozow> also as an fyi, after v3 I'll be focusing on the 1p1c package relay stuff, while instagibbs continues with package RBF + ephemeral anchors etc 14:08:40 <instagibbs> yep thanks 14:08:48 <sdaftuar> ð 14:09:06 <achow101> #topic silent payments updates (josie) 14:09:21 <josie> #25273 merged (yay!) 14:09:24 <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 14:09:36 <josie> so now priority for review is #28560 14:09:37 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28560 | wallet, rpc: `FundTransaction` refactor by josibake ÷ Pull Request #28560 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:09:55 <josie> pretty small refactor, needed to make sending *much* simpler 14:10:07 <achow101> is there still ongoing bip changes? 14:10:22 <josie> also waiting on a second pair of eyes on the BIP (mainly from real_or_random and benma) for the proposed changes to the hashing step 14:11:41 <josie> ive updated #28122 and the tests locally, just waiting for confirmation 14:11:44 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28122 | Silent Payments: Implement BIP352 by josibake ÷ Pull Request #28122 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:12:12 <josie> will probably just push the changes anyways tomorrow and move forward.. if we end up needing to revert or change to something else for the hashing step, its easy to change 14:12:41 <josie> RubenSomsen, sjors, and I had an in depth review of the changes on monday, feeling pretty confident that its the right step forward 14:13:24 <josie> (as a reminder, the proposed change is to only hash the lowest outpoint and to include the sum of the input pubkeys in the hash) 14:13:54 <josie> thats all i had 14:14:16 <achow101> #topic multiprocess updates (ryanofsky) 14:14:32 <ryanofsky> The main thing I would like is feedback on the design doc #28978. The audience is supposed to be bitcoin core developers, so I want to make sure it sure it understandable to other developers without requiring much background knowledge, and answers any questions. Link is to the doc is https://github.com/ryanofsky/bitcoin/blob/pr/ipcdoc/doc/design/multiprocess.md 14:14:33 <ryanofsky> There are also other PRs that could be reviewed in #28722, but no major changes since last update 14:14:34 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28978 | doc: Add multiprocess design doc by ryanofsky ÷ Pull Request #28978 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:14:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28722 | Multiprocess tracking issue ÷ Issue #28722 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:15:13 <achow101> should we put the doc as the next thing for people to review? 14:16:07 <ryanofsky> That'd be great, sure 14:16:26 <achow101> Any other topics to discuss today? 14:18:57 <achow101> #endmeeting