14:00:29 <glozow> #startmeeting 14:00:30 <b10c> hi 14:00:37 <glozow> #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 sr_gi theStack TheCharlatan vasild 14:00:38 <fjahr> hi 14:00:41 <instagibbs> hi 14:00:42 <brunoerg> hi 14:00:44 <dzxzg> hi 14:00:44 <hebasto> hi 14:00:47 <furszy> hi 14:00:48 <lightlike> Hi 14:00:50 <ajonas> hi 14:00:50 <jonatack> hi 14:00:56 <cfields> hi 14:01:02 <glozow> I see 2 topics proposed by fjahr, any last-minute ones to add? 14:01:07 <dergoegge> hi 14:01:12 <josie> hi 14:01:20 <sdaftuar> hi 14:01:29 <tdb3> hi 14:01:44 <glozow> #topic package relay updates (glozow) 14:01:56 <darosior> hi 14:01:57 <glozow> #30110 is the priority PR - it's a lot of commits, but mostly just moving things out of net_processing, and then around 800 lines test code at the end. I've also rebased #20831 on top of it. 14:01:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30110 | refactor: TxDownloadManager by glozow ÷ Pull Request #30110 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:01:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20831 | Cannot generate change address on descriptor wallets. ÷ Issue #20831 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:02:24 <glozow> #topic cluster mempool updates (sdaftuar, sipa) 14:02:44 <sdaftuar> cluster mempool is moving along. #30126: merged. next up: #30285! 14:02:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30126 | cluster mempool: cluster linearization algorithm by sipa ÷ Pull Request #30126 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:02:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30285 | cluster mempool: merging & postprocessing of linearizations by sipa ÷ Pull Request #30285 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:02:58 <sdaftuar> please review :) 14:03:04 <glozow> yay! and then #30286? 14:03:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30286 | cluster mempool: optimized candidate search by sipa ÷ Pull Request #30286 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:03:07 <sdaftuar> yep 14:03:17 <glozow> ð 14:03:42 <glozow> #topic legacy wallet removal updates (achow101) 14:03:42 <sipa> hi 14:03:47 <instagibbs> do you expect the mainline cluster mempool PR ready after the postlin/merge PR? 14:03:49 <sipa> (nothing to add, carry on) 14:03:55 <Murch[m]> hi 14:04:17 <sdaftuar> instagibbs: not quite; we still need a reimplementation if the txgraph module before i take that out of draft 14:04:34 <instagibbs> k 14:04:40 <fanquake> "legacy wallet update since I won't be at the meeting tomorrow: Main PRs to review are #30328 and https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/824. I will address the current review comments next week." from the scrollback 14:04:41 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30328 | wallet: Remove IsMine from migration code by achow101 ÷ Pull Request #30328 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:05:34 <glozow> Ah, should I replace #27677 with #30289 in the project board? https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/1/views/2 14:05:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27677 | Proposal for a new mempool design ÷ Issue #27677 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:05:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30289 | Cluster mempool tracking issue ÷ Issue #30289 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:05:40 <sr_gi[m]1> Hi 14:06:05 <glozow> fanquake: thanks 14:06:17 <sdaftuar> glozow:yes i think so? 14:06:53 <glozow> done 14:06:59 <sipa> i'll add new references to design etc in #30289 14:07:00 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30289 | Cluster mempool tracking issue ÷ Issue #30289 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:07:58 <glozow> #topic Testnet 4 in v28 (fjahr) 14:08:13 <fjahr> Hi, so the Testnet 4 BIP and PR (#29775) seem pretty much final except for two remaining questions, I will post both because they are somewhat connected: 14:08:16 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29775 | Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix by fjahr ÷ Pull Request #29775 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:08:21 <abubakarsadiq> hi 14:08:26 <fjahr> 1. Can we embed interesting scripts in the chains initial blocks and add a checkpoint? We can and I have been working on it but I think I wonâÂÂt be able to finish it before the feature freeze due to travelling etc. I am still developing the tooling for this and will use it to put scripts into the chain, just not at the start of Testnet 4. But it will make it possible and ease the launch for an eventual Testnet 5. Do people 14:08:26 <fjahr> think this is absolutely necessary and should delay merging Testnet 4? My opinion is clearly no and I have heard similar feedback but I wanted to make sure this has been brought up. 14:08:33 <pablomartin> hey 14:08:40 <fjahr> And 2. Do we need another reset before merging? I would say here the feedback is split. Had we gotten 1. done this would have made the reset necessary but some might still want it nonetheless. Personally I donâÂÂt see an issue with the âÂÂpre-mineâ of 40k blocks. Many of these coins seem to be available through free faucets which makes it easier for anyone to get some right from the start. There is some distribution among 14:08:40 <fjahr> several miners and itâÂÂs not clear to me if a more public re-launch gives us a fairer result. Maybe someone invests a bit more hashrate in order to get all of those first 40k blocks. And not resetting allows us to also set a min chain work as sjors mentioned on the PR. So I see more upside on not resetting personally but happy to discuss it. 14:08:47 <bitcoin-git> [qa-assets] murchandamus opened pull request #194: Add ten initial corpora and new seeds (main...2024-08-add-seeds) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/qa-assets/pull/194 14:09:48 <vasild> hi 14:09:49 <sipa> I don't see the issue with "pre-mine". If testnet4 coins have no value, this is irrelevant. If they do, it has failed and we shouldn't continue with it anyway. 14:10:03 <fjahr> sipa: yepp 14:10:09 <glozow> fwiw I don't think reproducing interesting scripts should be necessary for starting a new testnet 14:10:09 <darosior> i have not been following the work on testnet4 but regarding the first question, it doesn't seem crucial to me for weird scripts to be specifically at the very beginning of the chain 14:10:33 <sipa> also agreed on not treating the interesting scripts thing as a blocker 14:10:35 <instagibbs> darosior +1 14:10:44 <stickies-v> 1. no I don't think this should hold up testnet4, this shouldn't be an inherent quality of a testnet, even though it'd be nice if they get added at some point 14:10:55 <sipa> because once testnet4 is "active" it'll be much easier for people to contribute "interesting scripts" themselves 14:11:09 <darosior> Yes good point 14:11:36 <jonatack> fjahr: I agree with your suggestion on each point. 14:12:03 <tdb3> same 14:12:05 <b10c> where are you working on the "interesting script" part? I ran into a few recently that I might want to contribute/have in there 14:13:04 <fjahr> the repo is here: https://github.com/fjahr/test_chain_init but I have done more that I haven't pushed yet, so please give me a bit of time, I can announce when it's ready for contributions 14:13:46 <b10c> sure, will open an issue 14:13:57 <fjahr> b10c: cool, thanks! 14:14:36 <glozow> fjahr: should we move on to your next topic? 14:14:45 <fjahr> sure 14:14:53 <glozow> #topic AssumeUTXO mainnet in v28 (fjahr) 14:15:10 <fjahr> Here, I would like to ask for conceptual feedback on #30516 if others agree with maflcko that the metadata needs to be changed once more. 14:15:12 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30516 | Assumeutxo: Sanitize block height in metadata by fjahr ÷ Pull Request #30516 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:15:24 <fjahr> And also I would like to ask for review of #29519 again 14:15:27 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29519 | p2p: For assumeutxo, download snapshot chain before background chain by mzumsande ÷ Pull Request #29519 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:15:38 <fjahr> Unless there are questions I think there isnâÂÂt much to discuss. A lot has been done on AssumeUTXO (see #29616) and I think we can add the mainnet params next week with a little more help. Thanks! 14:15:40 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29616 | AssumeUTXO Mainnet Readiness Tracking ÷ Issue #29616 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:17:15 <maflcko> fjahr: I'd say it doesn't need to be changed, but once the bug is fixed, the unused field seems clearer to remove, no? 14:17:30 <furszy> fjahr: q: guess the time in which the interesting scripts are included is important due to feature activations? e.g. pre/post taproot activation. 14:18:19 <luke-jr_> fjahr: #28598 shouldn't be considered optional 14:18:19 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28598 | assumeutxo: Ensure transactions are not presented as confirmed until background sync is complete ÷ Issue #28598 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:18:38 <maflcko> furszy: Everything is active since block 1, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1601/files#diff-b1dfc6b3d29248b595d00c195cf1432deac01b23f04b1cacbb22def5a264223fR87 14:18:42 <fjahr> furszy: taproot is activated from the start in testnet 4, so I don't think this is relevant 14:19:20 <fjahr> luke-jr_: I addressed this here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29616#issuecomment-1997399080 14:20:03 <darosior> luke-jr_: the feature is opt-in, if you are opting into using an "assumed and trusted utxo set" in the first place it doesn't seem critical 14:20:49 <fjahr> maflcko: We added it without critical use initially and it got conceptual acks and review just a few months ago. The idea was that we could use it for something interesting later. I don't want to remove it unless more people agree with you that we don't want these future/uncritical uses anymore 14:22:55 <glozow> Should we move on? 14:23:03 <fjahr> yepp, thanks all! 14:23:11 <Murch[m]> Oh, on the Testnet topic: the BIP is also close to getting merged, if you want to take a look 14:23:30 <fjahr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1601 14:23:31 <glozow> #topic 28.0 release priorities 14:23:48 <glozow> Feature freeze is scheduled for August 12. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29891 14:24:16 <glozow> Does anyone have anything to add to the milestone? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/66 14:25:25 <darosior> Can i get achow101's #22838? I think it's very close. 14:25:28 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/22838 | descriptors: Be able to specify change and receiving in a single descriptor string by achow101 ÷ Pull Request #22838 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:26:36 <glozow> Sure. Wow, seems very popular. 14:27:25 <glozow> Ok. Anything else to discuss? 14:27:30 <sipa> #28280 is already on the list, and seems pretty close too (there are some open review comments, but none seem blockers) 14:27:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28280 | Dont empty dbcache on prune flushes: >30% faster IBD by andrewtoth ÷ Pull Request #28280 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 14:27:54 <pinheadmz> quick moderation reminder, https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta has issues and PRs if anyone is interested in contributing to policy 14:28:07 <pinheadmz> also chatGPT bot reviewing every comment: https://t.me/s/bitcoincoregithubmoderation 14:28:31 <pinheadmz> some amusing false positives in there but you can also see how im getting my notifications if someone misbehaves 14:28:37 <pinheadmz> be nice! <3 youre being watched ;-) 14:29:06 <glozow> pinheadmz: thanks for moderating! :) 14:29:19 <glozow> sipa: will take a look 14:29:27 <vasild> chatgpt :-O I think the last 3 comments here, marked as off-topic: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29759 are not off-topic 14:29:43 <pinheadmz> yeah like i said, lots of false positives 14:30:02 <pinheadmz> the bot just helps out, its not the moderator 14:30:24 <pinheadmz> but if someone is rude and bot doesnt pick it up thats something i need to adjust 14:30:43 <pinheadmz> it usually thinks "crack <hash>" is some kind of threat :-P 14:30:48 <sipa> vasild: i think the comments are marked off-topic on github due to the author having received a temporary ban, not because the ai bot thought they were offtopic 14:30:52 <pinheadmz> s/ crACK 14:31:59 <glozow> #endmeeting