16:00:10 <achow101> #startmeeting 
16:00:10 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-05-01T16:00+0000
16:00:11 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
16:00:12 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:13 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:14 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:20 <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
16:00:21 <rkrux> hi
16:00:22 <TheCharlatan> hi
16:00:23 <stickies-v> hi
16:00:24 <johnny9dev> hi
16:00:25 <jonatack> hi
16:00:25 <instagibbs> hi
16:00:28 <hodlinator> hi
16:00:28 <cfields> hi
16:00:30 <pinheadmz> Hi
16:00:34 <kevkevin_> hi
16:00:37 <achow101> There are 2 pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:00:39 <sr_gi[m]> hi
16:00:45 <kanzure> hi
16:00:46 <willcl-ark> hi
16:00:49 <lightlike> Hi
16:00:57 <Murch[m]> Hi
16:00:58 <marcofleon> hi
16:01:09 <achow101> #topic Erlay WG Update (sr_gi, gleb)
16:02:26 <sr_gi[m]> I've been moving forward with Warnet simulations, small-scale on my local setup for now. Now that the experiments are design I should be moving to bigger scale experiments SoonTM. Nothing substantial to report so far.
16:03:20 <laanwj> hi
16:03:39 <sr_gi[m]> That's it on my end
16:03:44 <achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
16:03:47 <TheCharlatan> Still looking for review on #40595 and #31382
16:03:48 <corebot> TheCharlatan: Error: That URL raised <HTTP Error 404: Not Found>
16:03:50 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31382 | kernel: Flush in ChainstateManager destructor by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #31382 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:03:57 <TheCharlatan> Woops #30595 :P
16:03:59 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30595 | kernel: Introduce initial C header API by TheCharlatan · Pull Request #30595 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:04:06 <TheCharlatan> Over the past week I have been working on replacing the BlockTreeDB's leveldb with a flat file store.
16:04:13 <TheCharlatan> This is possible, because we don't ever delete from that data structure.
16:04:18 <TheCharlatan> I am working on PRing this soon to gather comments and completed the migration code today.
16:04:27 <TheCharlatan> The change was mostly motivated by kernel applications having to shutdown a node first before being able to read from its block store.
16:04:40 <TheCharlatan> This is not possible currently because leveldb does not allow different processes to read/write while the db is open on another.
16:04:45 <TheCharlatan> It does also bring some storage improvements and allows nodes to startup a bit faster.
16:04:49 <brunoerg> hi
16:04:57 <sipa> hi
16:05:35 <TheCharlatan> that's all
16:05:37 <cfields> nice :)
16:05:40 <willcl-ark> cool!
16:05:43 <darosior> hi
16:05:46 <achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
16:05:46 <theStack> hi
16:06:02 <Sjors[m]> hi
16:06:15 <sipa> Not much to report.
16:06:29 <sipa> Hopefully the mining/eviction PR goes in soon.
16:06:30 <vasild> hi
16:06:54 <glozow> hi
16:06:55 <sipa> Mostly doing more research on better linearization algorithms.
16:09:22 <achow101> #topic Stratum v2 WG Update (sjors)
16:09:22 <sipa> Nothing from sdaftuar.
16:12:46 <achow101> Sjors[m]: ?
16:13:18 <Sjors[m]> yes
16:13:23 <Sjors[m]> Not much to report
16:13:31 <Sjors[m]> Please keep reviewing multiprocess stuff
16:14:05 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101, rkrux)
16:14:15 <achow101> #31243 was merged, the next PR to review is #31244
16:14:20 <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
16:14:22 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31244 | descriptors: MuSig2 by achow101 · Pull Request #31244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:14:37 <achow101> #topic Legacy Wallet Removal WG Update (achow101, furszy)
16:14:43 <achow101> #31250 was merged so legacy wallets can finally no longer be created or loaded
16:14:45 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31250 | wallet: Disable creating and loading legacy wallets by achow101 · Pull Request #31250 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:14:51 <achow101> The next and final major PR in this project is #28710 to delete (almost) everything
16:14:53 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28710 | Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency by achow101 · Pull Request #28710 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:15:06 <achow101> There are still several things that can be removed after in followups, e.g. GUI watchonly wallet things
16:15:32 <achow101> #topic orphan resolution WG Update (glozow)
16:15:54 <glozow> No updates, have been busy with other things
16:16:23 <achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
16:16:32 <johnny9dev> Fixed remaining issues with bitcoin-core/gui-qml#448 and it is ready to be merged.
16:16:34 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/448 | Introduce Coin Selection page by johnny9 · Pull Request #448 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:19:01 <johnny9dev> That's all for now
16:19:04 <achow101> #topic moving the repo to bitcoin-core (achow101)
16:19:11 <achow101> After last week's meeting, I opened #32340 for further discussion
16:19:12 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32340 | Moving this repo to bitcoin-core · Issue #32340 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:19:20 <achow101> It doesn't seem like any new discussion really happened there
16:19:29 <achow101> Now that it has been a week, how do people feel about moving the repo?
16:20:32 <vasild> did anything happen with the bip repo in the meantime, e.g. did bip people decide to move it away from bitcoin/bips?
16:20:50 <achow101> nope
16:20:53 <jonatack> vasild: no
16:21:11 <instagibbs> does crickets mean ack/nack or pure indifference
16:21:15 <darosior> achow101: i wanted to chime in but didn't get to it. Can we punt for another week?
16:21:23 <achow101> darosior: you can chime in now :)
16:21:31 <jonatack> ACK for me, as i commented in that issue
16:21:44 <stickies-v> not necessarily opposed but doesn't feel important pushing this through atm, let's just move bips and move on for now?
16:21:49 <willcl-ark> I think a little more time might be prudent here
16:21:57 <darosior> The perspective of "this is unnecessarily risky" is growing on me
16:22:01 <fanquake> optics-wise, I don't think it's a good time to move anything around
16:22:13 <achow101> one thing I want to point out is that the recent temp bans being issued do affect the bips repo too
16:22:14 <glozow> I would like more time
16:22:20 <TheCharlatan> yeah, great timing ^^
16:22:29 <achow101> okay, punt for another week
16:22:47 <stickies-v> i don't think next week is going to be significantly different
16:23:00 <furszy> +1 on moving the bips repo only - if that's needed due to the recent temp bans
16:23:02 <TheCharlatan> what will be the name of the repo in the bitcoin-core org?
16:23:05 <stickies-v> if the bips ban issue is fixed, there's no real urgency here?
16:23:17 <achow101> TheCharlatan: we can bikeshed that.. I like bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core
16:23:28 <Murch[m]> Some BIP Editors appear to think that the bitcoin org is the correct place for BIPs while Bitcoin Core should move out. Others seem fine with the move.
16:23:29 <achow101> moving the bips repo is up to the bip editors decide
16:23:41 <cfields> it's unclear to me on the issue if the org will transfer ownership or retain the current owners? As that was brought up las week, that's the bigger concern to me.
16:23:49 <stickies-v> Murch[m]: but the bip editor's can't get ban permissions in the bitcoin org?
16:23:55 <jonatack> achow101: agree with your naming suggestion
16:24:07 <cfields> s/will/would/
16:24:12 <achow101> cfields: I think the general sentiment is that the current owners of bitcoin/ will remain so, and no new ones will be added, regardless of any moves
16:24:18 <Murch[m]> stickies-v: I have mentioned that, yes
16:24:44 <cfields> achow101: ok, thanks. I'd suggest updating the issue to make that explicit.
16:24:50 <laanwj> bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core sgtm
16:24:58 <Murch[m]> stickies-v: We also have had less brigading in the past
16:25:02 <TheCharlatan> I'd like to keep /bitcoin. It would also make easier to maintain any existing cloning documentation, i.e. no need to handle the renamed dir.
16:25:06 <glozow> I thought it was quite clear we wouldn't transfer ownership of the org
16:25:17 <laanwj> yes
16:25:22 <jonatack> I agree the project owners in bitcoin/ would not need to be changed.
16:25:30 <achow101> TheCharlatan: the url will still redirect
16:25:36 <cfields> 👍
16:25:37 <Murch[m]> The Ordinals proposal had some, and there is a tiny bit on BIP 177, but we have so far done fine with just hiding a few comments
16:25:42 <glozow> TheCharlatan: +1
16:25:58 <jonatack> Banning hasn't been needed over the past year, until recently
16:25:58 <TheCharlatan> yeah, but you end up with either bitcoin or bitcoin-core on your machine.
16:26:03 <jonatack> in a single event
16:26:07 <glozow> that's not true, banning happens all the time
16:26:08 <jonatack> in the BIPs
16:26:14 <Murch[m]> glozow: Yeah, I think the ownership being retained by Bitcoin Core maintainers is understood
16:26:34 <darosior> Yeah it was a single event, and wasn't really effective anyways
16:26:40 <achow101> jonatack: I've definitely banned several spammers from the bips repo over the past year
16:27:01 <Murch[m]> Sure, but Spam is a clear-cut issue
16:27:14 <darosior> For low value spam ban can be effective, but in this case they can just be banned from the whole org
16:27:22 <jonatack> right
16:27:56 <achow101> yes, just saying that there have been bans issued for obvious spam in the bips repo, without the bips editors asking
16:28:53 <Murch[m]> It is my impression that the BIP Editors would be fine with remaining in the current org/repo at this time.
16:28:59 <jonatack> achow101: yes, and it's helpful. only referring to the fortunately very rare non-trivial bans.
16:29:42 <Murch[m]> There was a little bit of a debate about the bans in the past days affecting the BIPs repo as well, but I don’t think any of the affected parties were actively contributing to the BIPs repo at the time and the bans were short…
16:30:35 <jonatack> I think the BIPs case is separate from the bitcoin core one.
16:30:45 <achow101> ok, so i'll add this as a topic again next week, and if anyone has thoughts, please comment in the issue
16:31:13 <achow101> #topic let's decide a direction on OP_RETURN policy (instagibbs)
16:31:19 <instagibbs> hi
16:31:26 <instagibbs> The recent OP_RETURN policy discussion has been heated and has many viewpoints.
16:31:26 <instagibbs> I'm not going to recapitulate all background to the topic, that's DYOR stuff.
16:31:33 <instagibbs> Unfortunately, we have to make a choice and we need input from regular contributors who have put thought into relay concerns. Letting the topic linger with no clear direction just breeds resentment and saps the project's energy by wasting time and attention on what otherwise is a smaller problem.
16:31:44 <instagibbs> That said I see roughly four options of varying credulity ahead of us:
16:31:53 <instagibbs> 0) Decide as a project that we will not modify this relay policy, close PRs indefinitely
16:32:01 <instagibbs> 1) Decide that OP_RETURN expansion results in too much arbitrary data publishing, and double-down on transaction filtering. Make it a project priority. (to be clear, this was rejected as a group repeatedly with 0 volunteers)
16:32:06 <instagibbs> 2) Decide to adjust priority "dial" minimally to something we find "appropriate" for known uses to reduce harm we are aware of, and ship it. Likely to be revisited in future.
16:32:15 <instagibbs> 3) Remove limits entirely (~Peter Todd's PR)
16:32:22 <instagibbs> Regardless of my biases for one or the other, as a project we should actively pick one, and we need consistent contributors to speak up if they disagree with the direction. Once direction is set, the rest of the details are straight forward and we can get back to real business.
16:32:29 <instagibbs> That's it. Thanks for listening to my ted talk
16:32:58 <Sjors[m]> I think anything short of (3) will just keep bringing back the drama.
16:33:14 <vasild> I guess the most liberal is to have this configurable in Bitcoin Core so users can set whatever mempool policy they wish. This way Bitcoin Core developers will not be perceived as imposing their views on the node operators.
16:33:15 <glozow> I don't think (1) makes any sense. (0) is giving in to drama
16:33:21 <Sjors[m]> (though avoiding drama isn't necessarily a good criterion)
16:34:02 <glozow> vasild: it is mostly configurable already. But long term I think it's a footgun to give options for users to... reject transactions that will likely be mined
16:34:19 <darosior> Storm in a tea pot. I don't think we should give in to bullies and do what we believe is good for actual Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin network users, ie the silent majority. I think we should merge Todd's PR and call it a day.
16:34:34 <achow101> configurability here is basically just a placebo
16:34:46 <instagibbs> vasild fwiw going forward we don't add these kinds of arguments if it doesnt achieve its aims and causes block prop to suffer
16:34:47 <Sjors[m]> vasild: except the documentation would have to list the downsides of not using the default, such as interfering with compact block relay
16:35:06 <instagibbs> from scratch I'd argue heavily against an argument
16:35:08 <darosior> I don't think keeping the option makes any sense once we switch the default to be no restriction.
16:35:09 <glozow> configurability at the cost of compact block reconstruction is irresponsible on our part imo
16:35:58 <eugenesiegel> I don't have much to add, but I agree with glozow
16:36:07 <instagibbs> I'm fine enough with 2, but prefer 3 out of humility of not knowing the next zk proof size people want to use, and do not want to revisit this again
16:36:28 <Sjors[m]> Also - as someone argued recent - it's arguably dishonest to ship an option knowing it doesn't work, i.e. a placebo.
16:36:34 <sipa> my belief is: you should only provide configuration knobs when you can give advice on when someone should use it
16:36:37 <achow101> I prefer 3 or 0, don't want to revisit this ever again
16:36:47 <instagibbs> ^ fair
16:37:01 <darosior> sipa: +1. And i don't think it holds in this case.
16:37:13 <TheCharlatan> is the reality that if configuration options are removed, a significant portion of the user base will switch to another implementation? Then I'm not sure if it is entirely irresponsible.
16:37:35 <achow101> TheCharlatan: a loud minority will, but they probably already have
16:37:39 <Sjors[m]> TheCharlatan: I doubt it
16:37:46 <sipa> or they don't run a node at all
16:38:07 <jonatack> perhaps consider spending time exlaining the issues involved to the outer community, if perception of bitcoin core is a criteria
16:38:09 <glozow> I wrote a comment about splitting out the option-removal part of Peter's PR. I think it's been buried  though
16:38:14 <Sjors[m]> We don't collect network metrics, but I suppose you could find out with some well crafted transaction broadcasts.
16:38:20 <darosior> If default is no restriction we can't expect providing a knob to have any global effect (defaults are sticky). So the user setting it would just shoot themselves in the foot: either blinding them to unconfirmed transactions they compete with for block space, harming block reconstruction, or both. Therefore i don't think the knob should exist.
16:38:43 <instagibbs> jonatack we should communicate whatever the result is for sure
16:38:53 <jonatack> beforehand, in a way that doesn't disenfranchise people
16:38:55 <darosior> jonatack: spent some time this week doing just that, see https://antoinep.com/posts/relay_policy_drama
16:39:06 <glozow> can you explain on what "disenfranchise" means?
16:39:14 <achow101> Sjors[m]: with mempoolfullrbf, it didn't take particularly long or especially well crafted broadcasts to get txs to relay, even when a majority of the network hadn't turned it on/upgraded yet
16:39:15 <willcl-ark> I've yet to see a well-reasoned/data-driven arguement as to why having these transactions arrive to your node in a block, vs via your mempool, makes anything better. Having a knob to twiddle that setting does seem pretty pointless to me, so would also prefer 0 or 3.
16:39:16 <glozow> explain/expand
16:39:28 <jonatack> darosior: i read that, and it was very good until the last 3 sections imo
16:39:46 <jonatack> then it reverted to a tone that imo doesn't reach across the aisle effectively
16:39:48 <Sjors[m]> achow101: I don't mean that the filtering would work, just that we could measure how many nodes actually encorce an OP_RETURN limit
16:39:53 <Murch[m]> jonatack: I have already spent several hours explaining this week, there are a lot of misconceptions being spread by popular social media participants, though
16:40:05 <Sjors[m]> As a proxy for churn away from Core
16:40:26 <jonatack> Murch[m]: yes, i've been swamped with private questions by users and the community as well
16:40:34 <instagibbs> Pick a direction, draft a reasoning for it, PR can do normal review for implementation details only, remove any comments about direction since they're off topic.
16:41:08 <glozow> I do think we can do more on the outreach part of this PR, but don't think it's productive to try to convince all of the twitter people. Particularly ones who are clearly not interested in engaging productively.
16:41:17 <sipa> ^
16:41:48 <glozow> In general, I don't think popular opinion should stop us from doing what is right. And I don't even think this is a popular opinion tbh, more of a loud one
16:41:54 <Murch[m]> glozow: 💯
16:42:06 <darosior> glozow president
16:42:40 <jonatack> it's more effective beforehand, but now that it's become widespread drama, i think reaching out with a tone like willcl-ark's recent meta comment is a good approach
16:42:51 <instagibbs> We can workshop the reasoning
16:42:54 <jonatack> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/meta/issues/19#issuecomment-2844984370
16:42:55 <sr_gi[m]> willcl-ark: +1. I think the argument that people against removing the limit are "ok" with transactions over the limit being included in blocks, but they are completely against them ever touching their mempool doesn't make sense. Specially when the alternative storing the same type of data in unspendable transactions that needs to live on the UTXO set potentially forever
16:43:15 <darosior> jonatack: i dispute that "reaching out" wasn't done. I explained the rationale on the mailing list. Todd only opened the PR days after that.
16:43:44 <BlueMatt[m]> glozow: Not only right, but *important*. Sitting around and watching people fill the utxo set with garbage isn’t really acceptable.
16:43:55 <darosior> And if "reaching out" means appeasing people who are motivated by hurting the project and its contributors, then sorry but no i won't do that.
16:44:16 <instagibbs> You don't have to love Citrea's design, but actively reducing harm should be the default where possible.
16:44:42 <glozow> Currently the PR is locked for cooldown (fanquake what is the expiry for that?). I think that should be respected by everyone and we should never merge PRs that are locked. But afterward we should treat it like any other PR. Weigh in with your technical opinions and we'll decide; the garbage brigading can be ignored.
16:44:52 <jonatack> darosior: i mean reaching effectively across the aisle rathen than preaching to the choir, in a way that connects
16:45:03 <achow101> glozow: the expiry is when someone unlocks it (there is no expiry on locking issues/prs)
16:45:16 <glozow> ok. when should we unlock it then?
16:45:18 <pinheadmz> There needs to be more effective educational outreach
16:45:19 <Murch[m]> It sounds to me that there a) appears to be a majority for 0 or 3, and a bunch of proponents for dropping the limit. Is there anyone arguing for the opposite (0)?
16:45:28 <pinheadmz> I think before the PR is reopened
16:45:45 <pinheadmz> Or, counter propaganda ie why utxo bloat is worse
16:45:58 <Sjors[m]> glozow: I do think it's better to merge it with some open nits, and improve those later.
16:46:02 <achow101> glozow: the request was for a day, so basically after this meeting. unless it should be locked for longer
16:46:02 <instagibbs> pinheadmz I think drafting the "we're doing this and here's why" before unlocking is a good idea
16:46:23 <Sjors[m]> Not a huge rush either, but it touches a lot of tests, so might end up needing a rebase.
16:46:28 <TheCharlatan> +1 instagibbs
16:46:38 <Murch[m]> instagibbs: How is this different from the posts in the mailing list and the PR explaining all that exactly?
16:46:50 <darosior> instagibbs: +1
16:46:52 <instagibbs> If you have something to sign off on, I'll sign off on it
16:46:56 <pinheadmz> Murch those media are not properly formatted for all the users
16:47:17 <pinheadmz> Users don't read ML they read tweets
16:47:23 <darosior> I'm annoyed that it makes it bigger of a deal than it is, but hey
16:47:28 <achow101> Sjors[m]: the conflict list appears to be quite small. there may be silent conflicts though
16:47:42 <instagibbs> darosior ship has sailed my man
16:47:44 <Sjors[m]> Maybe also point out the v30 branch-off is many months away. A well reasoned argument on the mailinglist could convince us to revert even months later.
16:48:23 <Murch[m]> pinheadmz: okay sure, but there do seem to be some people here that don’t seem to support dropping the limit, so I’m not sure Bitcoin Core can put out a blog post. Where would this be posted and by whom?
16:48:51 <Murch[m]> Sjors: I would not make that argument in public after seeing how that discussion went with mempoolfullrbf
16:49:15 <Sjors[m]> Murch: it takes the urgency away
16:49:21 <pinheadmz> Maybe instagibbs idea is more fitting. "We made this call and here's why"
16:49:29 <pinheadmz> But make sure it lists tradeoffs too
16:49:33 <Sjors[m]> But might make life for mailinglist moderators annoying.
16:49:43 <Murch[m]> I think I’d rather leave the PR open a few more weeks to collect more input than to offer reverting it later
16:49:45 <jonatack> My guess is the most diplomatic and humble approach would be to close it for now and begin engaging constructively, with the option to try a bit later.
16:49:49 <pinheadmz> Most importantly the users seem to think big opreturn means bigger blocks which means harder to run nodes
16:49:55 <instagibbs> pinheadmz no perfect options, but we're picking an options whether wer like it or not
16:49:57 <pinheadmz> That's such an easy thing to teach users about
16:50:01 <glozow> I think we could have a longer discussion about whether a prescriptive "filter" for good/bad practices still has a place in mempool policy, because this probably isn't the last of this flavor of disagreement. But perhaps for another day.
16:50:06 <Sjors[m]> Murch: that's fine too, if we can announce a specific intented merge-by date
16:50:20 <jonatack> The way it is done matters a lot to the outer community who want to feel heard and listened to. IMO.
16:50:27 <Murch[m]> pinheadmz: Which is funny, because OP_RETURN is not weight-discounted, so makes blocks smaller…
16:50:34 <instagibbs> glozow imo it's one of the last actually useful expansions that is in conflict with "paternalism" of policy
16:50:34 <glozow> I don't think we should give up *again*. That's why we closed it in 2023
16:50:37 <instagibbs> taproot is so relaxed
16:50:43 <pinheadmz> jonatack: +1
16:50:52 <darosior> How about:
16:50:52 <darosior> 1. PR gets re-opened
16:50:52 <darosior> 2. Every regular contributor who thinks this should be merged goes, ACK with rationale
16:50:52 <darosior> 3. After merging maintainers email the mailing list thread with their and everyone's rationale
16:50:57 <pinheadmz> Be mature. Close. Teach. Reopen
16:52:00 <darosior> Comparable to signing off on a blog post or something, without treating it as too exceptional either. Maintainers aren't caught on the spot because they can point to the support of all regular contributors.
16:52:09 <instagibbs> pinheadmz wanna spearhead a doc with me?
16:52:15 <instagibbs> I'll raise my hand
16:52:25 <pinheadmz> Sure
16:52:26 <jonatack> People think it will be merged despite all the nacks and objections. If core shows humility and patience imo it would surprise people and improve things.
16:53:07 <TheCharlatan> instagibbs, I'd be interested too.
16:53:09 <instagibbs> And to be clear, people are allowed to disagree, please speak up if you're just being sheepish. This is for the health of the project more than the feature itself.
16:53:11 <Sjors[m]> I tend to agree with jonatack that a few weeks delay might help, and doesn't hurt given that achow101 pointed out it's unlikely to need many rebased
16:53:33 <lightlike> jonatack: or it would show that brigading works, and therefore invite more of it
16:53:36 <darosior> jonatack: i have yet to see a good technical argument against it. We should weigh objection on their own merit and not give in just because people are harassing us. The count of NACKs is meaningless.
16:53:40 <instagibbs> TheCharlatan 👍
16:53:47 <glozow> I'll join on the doc
16:54:01 <darosior> instagibbs: +100
16:54:09 <achow101> i don't think there's any urgency to merge or close the pr
16:54:11 <darosior> (not to join the doc, for your last statement)
16:54:25 <darosior> Also, to be clear this type of transaction in Citrea is very unlikely to end up onchain
16:54:42 <darosior> I raised the point because it illustrates an issue with our policy, not because there is urgency
16:54:57 <jonatack> lightlike: i think the process hasn't helped in this case, as willcl-ark wrote in bitcoin/meta a couple hours ago
16:55:03 <darosior> But the more we wait the less probable it is that people will use the less harmful way of storing data..
16:55:06 <instagibbs> Maybe this can be spun into positive outreach to app devs too?
16:55:12 <Sjors[m]> As long as the effect of brigading is a mere delay, I'm not too worried about that messaging.
16:55:20 <sipa> darosior: i don't think days or weeks matter here
16:55:22 <sipa> but months may
16:55:30 <instagibbs> sipa +1
16:55:50 <Murch[m]> darosior: EIther  way, it would only go out with the 0.30.0 release in October/November, so whether we merge this week or revisit in two weeks doesn’t really matter much
16:55:57 <TheCharlatan> darosior, we at least have time to the next release, no?
16:56:00 <darosior> Yes. just pointing out that also from their point of view there is a lot of uncertainty. The harmful way of doing it is certain to work for them.
16:56:16 <TheCharlatan> ah
16:56:22 <furszy> darosior: if they don't use the less harmful way (when available) it means they have no incentive to do it?
16:56:31 <Sjors[m]> A few weeks should be enough to get darosior on Joe Rogan and explain it :-)
16:56:32 <darosior> Murch[m]: can get them to start allocating dev resources to take advantage of it. At least they know it will happen
16:56:34 <sipa> darosior: i don't think that's a good reason to let us influence our choices
16:57:04 <sipa> there is very good probability that citrea, or whatever individual project, just doesn't take off
16:57:06 <Sjors[m]> And more practically, it means several rounds of bitcoin podcasts can go through the issue and hopefully convince more people.
16:57:16 <fanquake> instagibbs: Is this doc / write up is going to go up on the website?
16:57:32 <darosior> sipa: yes again i'm not really concerned about Citrea's specific transactions
16:57:41 <Murch[m]> Giving people more time to understand the whole picture before revisiting the PR seems like a good idea and it doesn’t prevent us from doing what we think is right eventually
16:57:42 <sipa> right, likewise
16:57:49 <glozow> furszy: no, it means that our current "best practices" policy rules are prescriptive, but a poor reflection of best practices actually are
16:58:11 <Sjors[m]> It might not take off, but it does we have a six month delay in dealing with it. And once projects like this are deployed, it's harder for them to adjust - and really not worth it.
16:58:31 <Murch[m]> Responding with education to brigading and widespread misconceptions doesn’t feel like caving to the brigading to me. Closing the PR would, though.
16:58:40 <BlueMatt[m]> yea, letting this slip into the next release is really not okay, there's very nontrivial cost to the bitcoin system
16:58:41 <darosior> furszy: we should try to make the less harmful way be at least as cheap as the harmful way. We can do that byte-wise (and even better). But uncertainty is a cost too
16:58:47 <glozow> fanquake: I don't really think so tbh. But we'll need to write a release note so we can probably expand a little there?
16:59:05 <instagibbs> fanquake glozow as long as people go on podcasts I think that'll do more ;)
16:59:11 <fanquake> glozow: where will it go then?
16:59:12 <instagibbs> just needs to be public
16:59:22 <darosior> fanquake: release notes?
16:59:32 <pinheadmz> Needs to be treatable
16:59:33 <achow101> can also just be a super long comment in the pr?
16:59:35 <glozow> can we just post it on social media? does it need to go through official channels?
16:59:38 <pinheadmz> *tweet able
16:59:43 <pinheadmz> With clickbait title
16:59:50 <fanquake> So when it's being distributed, we are going to link to a gh pr, tell people to look at the rel notes in the diff?
16:59:53 <Murch[m]> The upcoming Optech newsletter will cover this debate, anyone want to come on the podcast on Tuesday to talk to me about it?
17:00:09 <darosior> pinheadmz: haha +1
17:00:41 <pinheadmz> Trick twitter users  into learning something
17:00:44 <fanquake> It seems odd that if as a project, we are deciding to do something, we wouldn't want to put that information in the most prominent communication channels we have
17:00:49 <fanquake> i.e the blog on the website
17:00:54 <BlueMatt[m]> Murch[m]: sure, if you want someone who doenst work on bitcoin core i can :)
17:00:55 <fanquake> and then link to if from our twitter
17:01:01 <BlueMatt[m]> oh wait ill be on a plane
17:01:03 <instagibbs> website is fine, did you want it on website
17:01:12 <glozow> a lot of people are not free on tuesday because they're flying to this conference where people are gathering to talk about mempool stuff
17:01:18 <achow101> i think we can decide where to post it after its written. the contents may help to decide the location
17:01:24 <instagibbs> yes we're going to have a mempool bloodbath next week
17:01:32 <instagibbs> should be awesome
17:01:34 <fanquake> instagibbs: I'm trying to figure out why it wouldn't go on the website
17:01:43 <fanquake> Seems like the only & obvious place
17:01:52 <Sjors[m]> glozow: that conference sounds like a good place to record some panels, assuming anyone who opposed this is there
17:02:01 <fanquake> If it's a change related to the software we are shipping from that same website
17:02:06 <darosior> If it's smaller than 1MiB i know where we could post it
17:02:10 <glozow> LOL
17:02:13 <pinheadmz> LOL
17:02:15 <instagibbs> fanquake I think it would be good there, sets the tone for the project
17:02:16 <Murch[m]> fanquake: I have the impression that a few people here are not in favor, but nobody substantiated that when I asked earlier, so maybe not
17:02:36 <glozow> It just kind of feels... too official?
17:02:51 <fanquake> well the code change is going into the official binaries?
17:03:01 <BlueMatt[m]> the website has been used in the past for "~everyone agrees on this statement"
17:03:16 <instagibbs> I think it is official, in that we can disagree and move on.
17:03:18 <darosior> Yeah it seems to me there is much more important topic we could have a stance on, than Twitter nonsense about OP_RETURNs
17:03:20 <glozow> When is the last time we've written a blog post about why we merged a PR that wasn't fixing a vuln?
17:03:35 <darosior> But also i'm not opposed to having on the website, better than nothing
17:03:36 <fanquake> it seems like that is the case here though? Otherwise it wouldn't be merged?
17:03:37 <instagibbs> I'm not sure our past history is good example :)
17:03:40 <lightlike> segwit faq?
17:03:42 <BlueMatt[m]> i mean it can be a more general statement on policy
17:03:50 <BlueMatt[m]> it doesn't have to be *specifically* about the pr here
17:04:07 <Sjors[m]> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/08/18/btc1-misleading-statements/
17:04:08 <achow101> glozow: 2017 i think
17:04:17 <pinheadmz> this is a progressive change
17:04:20 <glozow> yeah
17:04:44 <pinheadmz> and its in response to user feedback, its a win for the users
17:04:58 <darosior> BlueMatt[m]: +1 i think communicating on how we see relay policy as a project would be great
17:05:02 <instagibbs> The people that disagree with this generally think the direction of the last 10 years is wrong, nothing new here
17:05:16 <achow101> anyways, we're past the scheduled end time, so I'll end the meeting here
17:05:19 <instagibbs> BlueMatt[m] I'll work on integrating that 👍
17:05:23 <instagibbs> thanks everyone
17:05:31 <achow101> #endmeeting