16:00:32 <achow101> #startmeeting 
16:00:32 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-03-06T16:00+0000
16:00:33 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
16:00:34 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:35 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:36 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:40 <jarolrod> hi
16:00:40 <stickies-v> hi
16:00:42 <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
16:00:46 <vasild> hi
16:00:48 <darosior> hi
16:00:48 <dergoegge> hi
16:00:48 <abubakarsadiq> hi
16:00:54 <shiza> hi
16:00:59 <sr_gi[m]> hi
16:01:04 <dzxzg> hi
16:01:08 <achow101> There is 1 preproposed meeting topic this week, any last minute ones to add?
16:01:29 <TheCharlatan> hi
16:01:30 <lightlike> hi
16:01:33 <rkrux> hi
16:01:54 <achow101> #topic Erlay WG Update (sr_gi, gleb, marcofleon)
16:02:51 <vasild> #here 
16:03:34 <sr_gi[m]> I've been running the last set of planned simulations this week. I'm currently moving to implementing the changes on the open PR so we can test this with real nodes
16:03:59 <sr_gi[m]> Will be trying this on Warnet as soon as we have a working version, and then proceed with the PR
16:04:18 <sr_gi[m]> The results on simulation look promising :)
16:04:47 <sr_gi[m]> That's it on my end
16:04:55 <achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
16:05:06 <b10c> hi
16:05:09 <TheCharlatan> We discussed some ways forward towards getting the kernel API merged during the recent dev meeting.
16:05:34 <TheCharlatan> The consensus was that the current API is not likely to get shipped in the upcoming release
16:06:07 <TheCharlatan> Especially its reliance on assumeutxo mechanics and inflexibility towards other validation models are painpoints
16:06:34 <TheCharlatan> At the same time, building out applications a bit more to inform design decisions, as well as getting better feedback on how the API changes as validation code evolves would be easier to do if the API were merged sooner than later.
16:07:40 <achow101> "not likely to get shipped in the upcoming release" <-- 29.0 or 30.0?
16:07:58 <TheCharlatan> So the focus in the near term will likely be trying to get it merged over the next months, albeit not slated as a library shipped in the releases quite yet.
16:08:16 <TheCharlatan> achow101: 30
16:08:17 <Sjors[m]> hi
16:08:43 <furszy> hi
16:09:53 <TheCharlatan> I will also try to work on a separate "big branch" with many of the desired changes to get the API into shape similarly to what Carl did to initially get a library together.
16:10:03 <TheCharlatan> that's all from me :)
16:10:36 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101)
16:10:46 <achow101> I've addressed recent reviews on #31622
16:10:51 <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
16:10:57 <achow101> I had to add a check that signatures are valid DER since one of the recent pushes caused a fuzz test failure
16:11:15 <achow101> This is possibly a breaking change, although I don't expect it to actually impact anyone
16:11:21 <achow101> The other current PRs to review are #31247 and #31243.
16:11:24 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31247 | psbt: MuSig2 Fields by achow101 · Pull Request #31247 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:11:26 <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
16:11:30 <achow101> #31243 seems rfm once we branch
16:11:31 <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
16:11:54 <achow101> #topic Legacy Wallet Removal WG Update (achow101)
16:12:03 <achow101> Sjors opened #31961 which pulls out the commit the makes sqlite required when the wallet is enabled.
16:12:05 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31961 | Require sqlite when building the wallet by Sjors · Pull Request #31961 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:12:12 <achow101> I've rebased #31250 and #28710 to on top of it.
16:12:14 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31250 | wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets by achow101 · Pull Request #31250 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:12:16 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28710 | Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency by achow101 · Pull Request #28710 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:12:41 <achow101> As was mentioned at CoreDev, these PRs are primarily deletions and it would be great to get these in to help reduce scope :)
16:12:41 <jon_atack> hi
16:13:04 <jarolrod> oh we're reducinngggg
16:13:33 <achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
16:13:41 <glozow> achow: \o/
16:13:41 <jarolrod> No substantial update this week, several of us were traveling last week or currently are
16:13:48 <jarolrod> Progress on the activity and send work should be wrapping up soon, and a lot of what you guys saw at the core dev should be in the repo by the next meeting.
16:13:54 <jarolrod> And more to show at the next meeting!
16:14:17 <jarolrod> fin
16:14:17 <achow101> #topic orphan resolution WG Update (glozow)
16:14:18 <vasild> next IRC or coredev meeting?
16:14:22 <jarolrod> next irc meeting
16:14:29 <vasild> :)
16:14:29 <instagibbs> slight difference
16:14:34 <jarolrod> BIG
16:14:52 <glozow> hi! i wrote an update on the PR, but won’t get to it in the next couple weeks
16:15:52 <instagibbs> 👍
16:17:01 <glozow> update being https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31829#issuecomment-2698920711
16:20:48 <achow101> #topic 29.0 Milestone
16:21:04 <glozow> Ok not sure if my connection is strong enough but:
16:21:05 <glozow> There are a few small things left before we can do branch-off, e.g. #31960 which needs some review.
16:21:05 <glozow> Please also remember to add release notes and check your name in the credits https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/29.0-Release-Notes-draft
16:21:05 <glozow> In particular I'm waiting on a CMake note from hebasto and a -O3 note from sipa
16:21:05 <glozow> I think we are aiming for a RC testing guide meeting on March 19
16:21:07 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31960 | seeds: add signet/testnet4, update makeseeds regex, minblocks, fixed seeds by jonatack · Pull Request #31960 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:21:18 <dergoegge> you skipped the fuzzing wg
16:21:36 <achow101> dergoegge: oops, didn't see you. will do after this topic
16:22:13 <achow101> The milestone is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/69
16:22:37 <achow101> The only non-procedural pr is #31161
16:22:39 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31161 | cmake: Set top-level target output locations by hebasto · Pull Request #31161 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:23:21 <achow101> Was there a resolution to that? IIRC it was discussed by a few people at CoreDev.
16:24:29 <achow101> There's also still a bunch of build system issues open. Are they being fixed or punted to the next release?
16:24:58 <achow101> glozow: still planning to branch today?
16:25:32 <glozow> We can wait a few days
16:25:37 <jon_atack> glozow: achow101: I'll update the seeds pull shortly, might ping here if any questions
16:25:38 <brunoerg> hi
16:26:18 <glozow> I'd rather wait than backport
16:26:20 <glozow> jon_atack: thanks
16:26:26 <achow101> indeed
16:27:02 <glozow> might be dropping off now, sorry
16:27:11 <achow101> #topic Fuzzing WG Update (dergoegge)
16:27:21 <dergoegge> For those that didn't attend the "functional fuzz test" spark session at coredev, I briefly summarized the idea here: https://gist.github.com/dergoegge/3036796551095a9ce7535fb5d74e6656
16:27:37 <dergoegge> I'll occasionally give updates on this effort here or in the fuzzing wg
16:29:41 <achow101> #proposedmeetingtopic review club (stickies-v)
16:29:41 <corebot> achow101: Unknown command: #proposedmeetingtopic
16:29:48 <achow101> #topic review club (stickies-v)
16:30:10 <stickies-v> we had a brief in-person discussion last week about reviewing the review club (https://bitcoincore.reviews/ )
16:30:31 <stickies-v> one suggestion with good support was to give space to working groups to host PRs that they’d like more discussion or transparency on
16:30:58 <stickies-v> so, are there any WGs interested in proposing (and ideally hosting) a PR review club?
16:31:41 <sipa> hi
16:31:52 <stickies-v> if it's okay with everyone, i'll make this a semi-recurring topic on this meeting, but you can always leave a request/suggestion on our newly pinned issue: https://github.com/bitcoin-core-review-club/website/issues/791
16:32:31 <achow101> stickies-v: feel free to propose it as a topic whenever you want to
16:32:49 <stickies-v> thank you! that's all for me
16:32:57 <achow101> sipa: would you like to give a cluster mempool update?
16:33:04 <jon_atack> stickies-v: there seems to be support for returning to a weekly format
16:33:15 <sipa> achow101: sure
16:33:35 <jon_atack> ofc that is load mostly on you two unless the same people are willing to host
16:33:37 <stickies-v> jon_atack: so far we have 0 people offering to host, though :D
16:33:57 <achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
16:34:35 <jon_atack> yes. hosting twice a year by a dozen or two people would move the dial on that. I would do that if you need.
16:34:47 <sipa> not that much to report, #31363 has started getting reviews (thanks, abubakarsadiq and instagibbs!), looks to make good progress
16:34:49 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31363 | cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph by sipa · Pull Request #31363 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:35:36 <sipa> on the research side, i've been having good discussions with aj and others about a min-cut linearization algorithm, i hope to have a prototype to experiment with soon
16:36:33 <sipa> that's it for me
16:36:42 <achow101> Any other topics to discuss this week?
16:38:30 <abubakarsadiq> @jon_atack I think it may be due to a lack of interest in hosting that it is only once a month. If I recall correctly, there have been multiple review clubs in the past after we switched to a monthly schedule when there was interest
16:38:41 <achow101> #endmeeting