16:00:29 <achow101> #startmeeting 
16:00:29 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-02-20T16:00+0000
16:00:30 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
16:00:31 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:32 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:33 <glozow> hi
16:00:33 <cfields> hi
16:00:33 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:36 <achow101> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: abubakarsadiq achow101 _aj_ ajonas b10c brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto instagibbs jarolrod jonatack josibake kanzure laanwj LarryRuane lightlike luke-jr maflcko marcofleon maxedw Murch pinheadmz provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK stickies-v sipa sr_gi tdb3 theStack TheCharlatan vasild willcl-ark
16:00:38 <jonatack> hi
16:00:41 <sipa> hi
16:00:42 <hebasto> hi
16:00:47 <abubakarsadiq> hi
16:00:50 <dzxzg> hi
16:00:52 <achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:01:01 <lightlike> hi
16:01:02 <pinheadmz> yo
16:01:04 <jarolrod> hi
16:01:08 <brunoerg> hi
16:01:09 <fjahr> hi
16:01:11 <Murch[m]> hi
16:01:14 <_aj_> what? it's daytime
16:01:27 <glozow> achow101: we should talk about 29.0?
16:01:35 <achow101> glozow: yes, after wg updates
16:01:43 <glozow> 👍
16:01:51 <sr_gi[m]> hi
16:01:55 <achow101> #topic Erlay WG Update (sr_gi, gleb, marcofleon)
16:02:17 <kevkevin_> hi
16:02:27 <vasild_> hi
16:02:41 <stickies-v> hi
16:02:50 <sr_gi[m]> We have been exploring a recent idea from @sipa for when to send out, and respond to reconciliation requests. The preliminary results looked promising on my end, and @gleb have also double checked this on his. I think this is a good enough approach to start moving into testing this with real nodes, either in a small deployment or using Warnet, so we are likely to start moving towards implementing this now
16:02:54 <vasild_> #here 
16:03:53 <sr_gi[m]> That's me, i'll be sharing more concrete results once I have them written down
16:04:17 <achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
16:04:27 <TheCharlatan> hi
16:04:44 <kanzure> hi
16:05:08 <sipa> not much to report; i'm addressing review comments (mostly by abubakarsadiq) on #31363, which remains the thing to review, but i'm starting to think it's unlikely to make it in for 29.0 ;)
16:05:12 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31363 | cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph by sipa · Pull Request #31363 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:05:33 <instagibbs> 30.0, I can feel it
16:06:02 <sipa> that's it for me
16:06:29 <achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
16:07:34 <TheCharlatan> had some conceptual discussions in the relationship of assumeutxo and the kernel lib, other than that looking for review in #31382
16:07:37 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31382 | kernel: Flush in ChainstateManager destructor by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #31382 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:08:02 <TheCharlatan> that's all :)
16:08:04 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101)
16:08:22 <achow101> The BIP test vectors have been merged.
16:08:27 <achow101> The three current PRs (can go in any order) are #31622, #31243, and #31247. They have all been getting review, and all seem possibly close to being merged, but probably after branch off.
16:08:32 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31622 | psbt: add non-default sighash types to PSBTs and unify sighash type match checking by achow101 · Pull Request #31622 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:08:33 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31243 | descriptor: Move filling of keys from `DescriptorImpl::MakeScripts` to `PubkeyProvider::GetPubKey` by achow101 · Pull Request #31243 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:08:35 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31247 | psbt: MuSig2 Fields by achow101 · Pull Request #31247 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:08:40 <achow101> #topic Legacy Wallet Removal WG Update (achow101)
16:08:53 <achow101> #31495 was merged, we're quite close to finally killing the legacy wallet
16:08:58 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31495 | wallet: Utilize IsMine() and CanProvide() in migration to cover edge cases by achow101 · Pull Request #31495 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:09:03 <cfields> 🎉
16:09:04 <achow101> There's only 2 main PRs remaining in this project, #31250 is next and it disables the legacy wallet. The last PR is #28710 which deletes the legacy wallet and BDB.
16:09:07 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31250 | wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets by achow101 · Pull Request #31250 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:09:09 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28710 | Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency by achow101 · Pull Request #28710 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:09:18 <b10c> hi
16:09:29 <achow101> I think we'll probably miss 29.0 for this.
16:09:37 <sipa> A recurring theme.
16:09:45 <achow101> #topic orphan resolution WG Update (glozow)
16:10:02 <glozow> I've been selling #31829 as a "bug fix" after seeing https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/stats-on-orphanage-overflows/1421. But it's not a regression (orphanage has just always been bad). Also, over the past week, I've been finding some concerning bounds related to worksets and block handling, which is why it has a few extra commits now. This makes me feel like it'd be too rushed for v29 so I have removed it from the milestone.
16:10:05 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31829 | p2p: improve TxOrphanage denial of service bounds and increase -maxorphantxs by glozow · Pull Request #31829 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:10:29 <glozow> Also, I've been discussing some other approaches with sipa - maybe we can huddle on it at coredev. So perhaps the extra time will lead to a neater solution. I've also been told the iterators are massively confusing, heh.
16:10:49 <glozow> Sorry to add it to the "missed v29" pile
16:11:03 <sipa> 30.0 will be a banger
16:11:10 <glozow> sipa: yes
16:11:12 <jonatack> PR salesmanship FTW
16:12:20 <achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod)
16:12:30 <jarolrod> We set up the working group and have had pretty interesting conversations over there, energy all over the place :D
16:12:34 <jarolrod> (again message me if you want in)
16:12:50 <jarolrod> First week of convos led to the realization that a few key points should be made clear:
16:12:58 <Murch[m]> #proposedmeetingtopic BIP3
16:12:58 <corebot> Murch[m]: Unknown command: #proposedmeetingtopic
16:13:05 <jarolrod> 1. The QML GUI is being developed as a drop in replacement for the Qt Widgets GUI first and foremost, that means the intention is that (after Qt6), the QML GUI could be dropped in and the Qt Widgets GUI removed as a clean swap. That’s the only goal for when it’s ready to be included into the main repo.
16:13:14 <jarolrod> This comparison table has features from the Qt Widgets GUI mapped to support in the QML GUI; note that this table also has some future ambitions in it (such as silent payments, android): https://bitcoincore.app/features/
16:13:31 <jarolrod> 2. We’ve obviously been pretty vocal about other future ambitions such as the GUI on Android, which already had been the case with the Qt Widgets GUI (minus stability and persistence that we’ve added with an android specific file https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/blob/main/src/qt/android/AndroidManifest.xml), but it would actually be useful like a smartphone app is with the QML GUI thanks to the design work and
16:13:31 <jarolrod> the QML framework.
16:13:42 <jarolrod> This is a future ambition, but as an ambition the design work and some code begins to reflect that future ambition. This doesn’t influence the main goal of getting this in as a replacement for the Qt Widgets GUI, and if there is strong objection to supporting android, this ambition can be clipped.
16:13:56 <jarolrod> Josie put together a gist with some thoughts of core on Android, which is a good place to put any hard objections to this ambition: https://gist.github.com/josibake/b4743867d15765c83da1c62d23557699
16:14:09 <jarolrod> (I would note you want to think about android as a diverse computing platform, its not only phones)
16:14:24 <jarolrod> And also check out this prototype for how the wallet would look on mobile: https://lively-kashata-cfde7e.netlify.app/screen/send
16:14:34 <jarolrod> so think of qml gui just replacement for qt widgets gui!
16:14:45 <jarolrod> Johnny has an update on dev
16:15:09 <jarolrod> johnny9dev: ^
16:15:58 <jarolrod> he's having issues with is irc lol
16:16:04 <achow101> he's not logged in
16:16:05 <jarolrod> johnny9dev: Hi guys, I’m Johnny. I’ve been contributing to the qml project for sometime now working with the designers to translate their designs into our QML views. The last week I was focused on the PR “Introduce Send pages for singlesig, sigle input/output send” (https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/pull/445). There are still some UX pieces to address with this PR before merging but the core components and
16:16:05 <jarolrod> modules are in place for it to complete the feature
16:16:29 <jarolrod> we also had discussions on the website redesign, so join the wg if you have any opinions on that
16:16:31 <jarolrod> fin!
16:16:50 <achow101> big update, thanks!
16:16:53 <glozow> by website design, which website do you mean?
16:17:00 <jarolrod> bitcoincore.org
16:17:12 <achow101> #topic 29.0 feature freeze
16:17:42 <glozow> jarolrod: is that related to the gui? I'm confused by that
16:18:02 <glozow> I didn't know we were redesigning bitcoincore.org :O
16:18:37 <jarolrod> glozow: I posted a video before here, it's not related to the gui, its adjacent, we got good feedback on how the website could better help current contributors from Murch[m]
16:19:00 <achow101> The schedule says that today is feature freeze. Are the 5 PRs remaining in the milestone all bug fixes?
16:19:02 <johnny9dev> hi
16:19:39 <glozow> achow101: from what I can tell, those 5 should stay for 29
16:19:43 <achow101> #31161 #31407 #30861 #31662 #31884
16:19:45 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31161 | cmake: Set top-level target output locations by hebasto · Pull Request #31161 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:19:46 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31407 | guix: Notarize MacOS app bundle and codesign all MacOS and Windows binaries by achow101 · Pull Request #31407 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:19:49 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30861 | build: Enhance Ccache performance across worktrees and build trees by hebasto · Pull Request #30861 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:19:51 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31662 | cmake: Do not modify `CMAKE_TRY_COMPILE_TARGET_TYPE` globally by hebasto · Pull Request #31662 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:19:52 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31884 | cmake: Make implicit `libbitcoinkernel` dependencies explicit by hebasto · Pull Request #31884 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:19:55 <achow101> Basically all build system stuff
16:20:00 <hebasto> and https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/milestone/14
16:20:19 <Murch[m]> just to reiterate, my feedback was that one of the main objectives should be that it continues to be low maintenance, and yeah, the RPC docs being easier to navigate would be cool
16:20:34 <glozow> Is https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/843 a bugfix?
16:20:39 <sipa> i wouldn't call 31161 a bug fix, but it is something we should decide to do or not for 29.0
16:21:21 <glozow> 31161 seems very close
16:21:53 <achow101> #31916 was just opened for the upnp issue
16:21:54 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31916 | init: Handle dropped UPnP support more gracefully by laanwj · Pull Request #31916 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:22:09 <hebasto> glozow: I think so
16:22:11 <cfields> The fact that it's mostly buildsystem stuff remaining not really surprising imo as it's for sure an artifact of CMake going in for v29. It should calm way down for v30.
16:23:01 <sipa> yeah
16:23:02 <sipa> we may also see increased reports/issues after release candidates due to the build system change
16:23:27 <cfields> Yeah, and I expect rc1 may be a bit bumpy.
16:23:31 <achow101> For 31161, it's not symlinking the old binary locations?
16:24:10 <glozow> Not surprised by the list, CMake is probably the biggest change for this release
16:24:27 <hebasto> achow101: that commit was reverted as not quite portable
16:24:47 <glozow> Who is available to review #31916?
16:24:48 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31916 | init: Handle dropped UPnP support more gracefully by laanwj · Pull Request #31916 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:24:58 <cfields> achow101: hebasto removed the symlinking as it had issues (multi-config, windows), and fanquake didn't like the idea of supporting back-compat forever.
16:25:31 <dzxzg> I can take a look at 31916 (davidgumberg)
16:25:42 <glozow> Is there anything that is close to merge but not on the milestone? Let's get those in today.
16:25:42 <jarolrod> glozow: 🧤
16:25:48 <sipa> dzxzg: you are david gumberg?
16:25:58 <dergoegge> #31649 
16:26:01 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31649 | consensus: Remove checkpoints (take 2) by marcofleon · Pull Request #31649 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:26:19 <dzxzg> sipa Yes :)
16:26:31 <sipa> dzxzg: ah, good to know!
16:26:41 <stickies-v> i can also look at 31916
16:26:47 <dergoegge> Or if not I would like to understand why it's not being considered
16:26:56 <achow101> dergoegge: the intention is to merge after branching
16:27:02 <dergoegge> yea but why?
16:27:42 <dzxzg> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31649#issuecomment-2663967294
16:27:56 <achow101> fundamentally, it changes the security model, and so it should require additional testing in master
16:28:26 <achow101> we're removing checks, and even though we think they're redundant, they might not be
16:28:30 <instagibbs> if it were costly to maintain until branch off I may be persuaded, but I don't see the rush
16:28:42 <glozow> It would be nice to see more testing of IBD with 31649
16:28:48 <dergoegge> it has acks, how is this rushed?
16:28:56 <dergoegge> pre-sync has been merged for 2.5 years
16:29:07 <abubakarsadiq> glozow: I think #29278 is close can you take a look, it closes an issue you opened last year ?
16:29:10 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29278 | Wallet: Add `maxfeerate` wallet startup option by ismaelsadeeq · Pull Request #29278 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:29:13 <instagibbs> ok, I'll take away my ack and re-ack tomorrow :P
16:29:17 <dergoegge> what additional testing are we expecting?
16:29:41 <achow101> dergoegge: for me, it's not about whether pre-sync works or doesn't, but rather whether checkpoints is catching some issue that we won't realize until its gone
16:29:51 <glozow> has anybody done a full IBD with it?
16:30:06 <glozow> not that that's a sufficient test, just wondering
16:30:24 <achow101> in any case, one of the acks says merge after branching, which means it shouldn't be counted at this time
16:30:26 <sipa> agree with achow101
16:30:32 <lightlike> also, it doesn't have any direct benefit to users, the benefit is more  of a long-term cleanup one, so I see no need to have it in a specific release.
16:30:42 <stickies-v> +1 instagibbs . I don't think anyone needs this urgently, so as long as it doesn't interfere with our maintenance burden too much it seems more careful to do it after branch off
16:31:10 <dergoegge> it's not about urgency just seems weird to have "i have concerns" and "seems good to wait" without elaboration hold it up
16:31:29 <achow101> was that not enough elaboration?
16:31:42 <glozow> It's on 30.0, which means it'll be merged right after branch off.
16:32:32 <sipa> dergoegge: i don't think there is anything wrong with aiming to have big changes merged early in a release cycle, so they get a few months extra testing, whatever that means
16:33:05 <sipa> and "what additional testing are we expecting", well, we don't know, that's the point
16:33:13 <jonatack> for v29, when is the deadline for dns hardcoded seeds updating? i don't recall if it is feature freeze or can be later
16:33:21 <sipa> if we could perfectly reason about all potential impacts this could have, it'd be merged already
16:33:39 <achow101> jonatack: before rc1 generally
16:33:52 <glozow> before branch off would be my preference
16:33:59 <jonatack> ty
16:34:08 <_aj_> is there any benefit to having them removed in 29.0?
16:34:50 <glozow> _aj_: I think no, similar to lightlike's point. I don't think any users would be upset that they don't get this in v29
16:35:15 <glozow> jonatack: can I assume you're opening a PR for it?
16:36:15 <dergoegge> it's just about understanding the acceptance criteria for me here
16:36:15 <dergoegge> no rush or benefit to have it in 29
16:36:15 <dergoegge> I just don't see a reason to wait after all the work that went into it already, but multiple people disagree and that's fine too
16:36:30 <achow101> Murch[m]: is that topic for today?
16:36:34 <Murch[m]> yes
16:36:41 <jonatack> glozow: hardcoded dns seeds, can do if achow101 doesn't. i have a cjdns node that was removed due to it becoming a pruned node, but it's back to full archival now.
16:37:29 <achow101> #topic BIP3 (Murch[m])
16:38:03 <Murch[m]> Hey, I announced a while back that my BIP3, the new BIP Process Proposal is getting somewhere
16:38:10 <Murch[m]> I’m done with my planned work on it
16:38:27 <Murch[m]> So, as Bitcoin developers, if you are interested in the BIP Process, I would like to invite you to review and leave feedback
16:38:51 <glozow> Murch[m]: thanks for working on that!
16:38:53 <sipa> the PR being https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1712 ?
16:38:55 <achow101> neat
16:38:56 <Murch[m]> if you think it’s something you would like to have, I would also appreciate if you left a comment to indicate your support ,since there seems to be some lethargy with getting it merged as draft
16:38:59 <Murch[m]> that’s all
16:39:04 <Murch[m]> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1712
16:39:14 <jonatack> Murch[m]: i'll start reviewing it ;)
16:39:32 <sipa> Murch[m]: do you prefer feedback on the PR, or on the ML?
16:39:45 <Murch[m]> Either is good
16:40:02 <Murch[m]> I anticipate the next step for it to be merged as Draft
16:40:20 <Murch[m]> then it would move to Proposed after addressing any feedback it might get from there
16:40:29 <Murch[m]> then I would like to move to propose activating it
16:41:08 <sipa> great
16:41:20 <achow101> Any other topics to discuss?
16:41:35 <_aj_> 🚀
16:41:48 <cfields> No IRC meeting next week I assume?
16:42:02 <achow101> cfields: I think that's a good assumption
16:42:46 <achow101> #endmeeting