16:00:07 <achow101> #startmeeting 
16:00:07 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-05-08T16:00+0000
16:00:08 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
16:00:09 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:10 <Murch[m]> Hi
16:00:11 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:12 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:12 <instagibbs> hi
16:00:13 <kanzure> hi
16:00:14 <sipa> hi
16:00:19 <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
16:00:20 <hebasto> hi
16:00:22 <dzxzg> Hello
16:00:22 <cfields> hi
16:00:23 <johnny9dev> Hi
16:00:24 <pinheadmz> hi
16:00:25 <abubakarsadiq> hi
16:00:30 <fjahr> hi
16:00:30 <dzxzg> *hi
16:00:34 <_aj_> hi*
16:00:39 <hodlinator> hi
16:00:41 <achow101> There is one preproposed meeting topic this week, any last minute ones to add?
16:00:46 <sipa> #here FirstLast
16:01:04 <furszy> hi
16:01:13 <stickies-v> hi
16:01:27 <kevkevin> hi
16:01:38 <achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
16:01:52 <sipa> wow, again this topic"
16:02:12 <lightlike> Hi
16:02:14 <Murch[m]> Yeah, when are y’all gonna finally wrap that up?
16:02:22 <rkrux> hi
16:02:28 <sipa> not much to say since last update, though i did a talk about the topic yesterday at bitcoin++
16:02:55 <sr_gi[m]> hi
16:02:55 <sipa> as most of the more active reviewers are here too, i expect more progress next week (hint hint)
16:03:11 <sipa> not much else to say
16:03:21 <dzxzg> what's next to review?
16:03:25 <darosior> hi
16:03:44 <sipa> dzxzg: see the tracking issue #30289
16:03:46 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30289 | Cluster mempool tracking issue · Issue #30289 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:03:55 <sipa> #31444 is next to review
16:03:57 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31444 | cluster mempool: add txgraph diagrams/mining/eviction by sipa · Pull Request #31444 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:04:11 <theStack> hi
16:04:18 <dzxzg> sipa: thanks
16:05:09 <achow101> #topic Erlay WG Update (sr_gi, gleb)
16:05:43 <sr_gi[m]> No update this week on my end, still working on Warnet simulations
16:06:09 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101, rkrux)
16:06:17 <achow101> The PRs to review are #31622 and #31244 which I have been responding to comments to and rebasing as needed
16:06:21 <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
16:06:22 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31244 | descriptors: MuSig2 by achow101 · Pull Request #31244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:06:46 <achow101> #topic Legacy Wallet Removal WG Update (achow101, furszy)
16:06:54 <achow101> #28710 was merged
16:06:56 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28710 | Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency by achow101 · Pull Request #28710 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:07:01 <achow101> While there are still several additional cleanups that can be done, I think this project has reached its completion point and it can be removed from the updates list
16:07:01 <darosior> achow101: gg
16:07:21 <achow101> #topic orphan resolution WG Update (glozow)
16:07:29 <glozow> no updates. I hope to get back to it soon.
16:07:41 <achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
16:07:42 <glozow> achow101: \o/
16:07:49 <johnny9dev> bitcoin-core/gui-qml#448 is complete and just waiting for one last validation and merge
16:07:49 <johnny9dev> I opened up the first draft of sending to multiple recipients at bitcoin-core/gui-qml#450
16:07:49 <johnny9dev> Contributor Gee has un-drafted AssumeUTXO snapshot loading bitcoin-core/gui-qml#424 and is looking for review. Related to that, he is also looking to contribute this work to the Qt widgets gui at bitcoin-core/gui#870
16:07:50 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/448 | Introduce Coin Selection page by johnny9 · Pull Request #448 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:07:51 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/450 | Add Multiple Recipients option to the Send form by johnny9 · Pull Request #450 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:07:54 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/424 | QML Load Snapshot Signet (160,000 height) by D33r-Gee · Pull Request #424 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:07:55 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/issues/870 | [DRAFT] Expose AssumeUTXO Load Snapshot Functionality To The GUI by D33r-Gee · Pull Request #870 · bitcoin-core/gui · GitHub
16:08:26 <johnny9dev> That's all for this week
16:08:34 <achow101> #topic Script Validation WG Update (fjahr)
16:08:41 <fjahr> Received some feedback and new benchmarks on the batch validation PR, I am addressing these shortly, nothing else from me
16:09:10 <achow101> #topic moving the repo to bitcoin-core (take 3) (achow101)
16:09:21 <achow101> Last week, a couple people said they wanted more time to formulate opinions, so we had punted another week
16:09:27 <achow101> Any new opinions on moving the repo?
16:10:46 <Murch[m]> Still seems like a good idea to me. Maybe we should check with Bitcoin Twitter, though. They seem to think that we should run everything by them. :p
16:11:04 <glozow> lol
16:11:19 <laanwj> hehe
16:11:24 <glozow> I mean, I do think public perception is relevant for this
16:11:26 <fjahr> The danger of moving the repo seems extremely limited but I guess since we discussed them at length last time I am leaning to just moving the bips because that's the safest option. But not a strong opinion.
16:12:05 <achow101> I still think we should move both
16:12:08 <jonatack> hi
16:12:45 <laanwj> same
16:13:14 <furszy> I'm concerned about moving the repo, giving up ownership of /bitcoin due to some public drama in the future, and then the new /bitcoin owners recreating the repo with different source code.
16:13:28 <furszy> that's my only concern..
16:13:42 <achow101> why would bitcoin/ be given up?
16:13:48 <laanwj> having all code repositories under one org would be great and has been the plan pretty much since bitcoin-core org was created
16:13:49 <kanzure> if it is purely a perception problem then by what metric would we determine whether there is any perceptual advantage or improvement by moving or not moving
16:13:51 <Murch[m]> I thought it was pretty unanimous that control over the bitcoin org would not be given up
16:13:55 <sr_gi[m]> I think given the latest drama, we should no be making a move like right now, it may just add more fuel to the fire
16:14:01 <laanwj> no, we're not giving up the bitcoin org
16:14:02 <glozow> first pwuille is given up, then bitcoin... chaos
16:14:06 <sr_gi[m]> Independently of what we decide
16:14:21 <glozow> yeah seems like very bad timing
16:14:45 <laanwj> i mean maybe, on the other hand it's always bad timing, there is always some drama in bitcoin
16:15:03 <abubakarsadiq> leanwj I always wonder why do we have the two orgs
16:15:37 <achow101> kanzure: it's not purely about perception, there are some tangible organizational and moderation benefits that moving would give us
16:15:53 <sipa> abubakarsadiq: bitcoin-core was always intended to move everything bitcoin-core-specific to, but the bitcoin/bitcoin repo just never got around to it
16:16:03 <laanwj> abubakarsadiq: good question, it's just how it's historically grew, there is no deep reason behind it
16:16:11 <kanzure> not urgent at the moment but is there a way i could subscribe to bitcoin-core/ gh bans to auto-ban on the bips org to not duplicate that work
16:16:39 <achow101> sr_gi[m]: otoh, if there's already drama, what could a little more do to make it worse?
16:16:43 <achow101> kanzure: afaik, you can't
16:17:00 <pinheadmz> isnt the whole point to separate bans between bips and bitcoin core ?
16:17:33 <achow101> yeah
16:17:39 <sipa> yes, they're different organizations, they should make independent conclusions
16:17:48 <sipa> that doesn't mean they can't come to the same conclusion :p
16:18:10 <_aj_> if bips is going to auto-ban everyone bitcoin-core does, what's the point?
16:18:12 <jonatack> moving bitcoin/bitcoin to bitcoin-core/bitcoin or bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core seems the most philosophically correct
16:18:16 <kanzure> my esteemed bip editor colleagues may have different opinions, but i don't see why i should want to duplicate any gh ban work; any gh-banned user can simply email an editor or any other BIP contributor anyway.
16:18:33 <jonatack> probably best not waiting for the stars to align to do it
16:18:55 <jonatack> i don't have a strong opinion about moving the bips repo
16:18:58 <laanwj> jonatack: right; "bitcoin core" is a particular implementation, "bitcoin" is the network and block chain
16:19:02 <jonatack> it may indeed be a good idea
16:19:10 <jonatack> laanwj: yes
16:19:56 <achow101> kanzure: and currently it is duplicated work for bitcoin core to have the bans be the same on both orgs, if we actually did that
16:20:02 <jonatack> "may indeed be a good idea" -> bips migration to bitcoin-bips
16:20:28 <achow101> jonatack: shall we bikeshed the name of the repo? I prefer bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core
16:20:31 <kanzure> there are already two orgs anyway, so the duplicative work is an issue as-is
16:20:33 <fanquake> The tangible benefits are certainly minor. The team syncing thing is negligable. i.e a handful of actions a year, across multiple people (think I've added a couple people in the last few months). Essentially the same in regards to ban management across repos. Aside from obvious spam, which requires no coordination, I think we've banned a handful of people?
16:20:47 <sr_gi[m]> achow101: some people love to see hidden agendas in all we do, so why give them more stuff to keep making noise for longer? Given there is no real rush for this, I think we should exercise some caution
16:21:38 <sipa> i agree there is no rush
16:21:41 <kanzure> important to remind non-github users that github is simply a platform that some of us choose to use to work together. before github and sourceforge people used to actually email each other to discuss code or send patches. you can email anyone you want in the whole world! any contributor, as maintainers do not have a monopoly on email address namespace.
16:21:41 <furszy> yeah.. I just don't see any value in jumping straight into another public debate right now. There's risk involved in moving the main repo, but no risk in moving only the BIPs repo. Maybe we could start with that for now?
16:21:45 <jonatack> achow101: bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core sgtm too
16:21:47 <pinheadmz> agreed, punt
16:21:53 <_aj_> "bitcoin org is the network, not an implementation" doesn't really match the "but we'll keep bitcoin/bitcoin pointing at bitcoin-core/whatever forever"
16:22:28 <laanwj> in a way moving bips is more controversial than moving bitcoin core, as bips does belong with the global network/blockchain and is shared between implementations
16:22:47 <darosior> I did not think it through more since last time, in the middle of a conference currently. I still believe it makes sense ideologically but in practice it's unnecessary risk and burden. In addition right now it is pretty bad timing and i don't see the rush.
16:22:48 <achow101> _aj_: sure, but that's more a practical thing because there's 15 years of links that would be broken or could end up pointing to a scam
16:22:57 <jonatack> FWIW, I don't see how anti-core sentiment would be further fueled by moving to bitcoin-core
16:23:01 <stickies-v> exponential backoff? discussing this every week might be a bit inefficient
16:23:10 <hodlinator> I think it might help perception to "concede" that bitcoin-core is not bitcoin, but it's hard to predict.
16:23:12 <fjahr> I think if we explain that this is actually a move that means people get less widely banned it should not cause too much drama, but unsure if people listen...
16:23:13 <kanzure> _aj_: unfortunately gh namespace 'bitcoin' owners have essentially a moral obligation to not abandon it to the wolves due to long-term security issues, such as release spoofing, tag spoofing, issue rewriting, comment rewriting... etc.
16:23:31 <laanwj> in any case, i don't think bringing this back every week is going to help, if there is no broad agreement to do anything then let's just not do it, or maybe in another 10 years
16:23:47 <darosior> stickies-v: +1 i don't really see what's the rush here
16:23:59 <abubakarsadiq> +1 darosior
16:24:13 <jonatack> the current anti sentiment seems to be as much or more fueled in any case by *how* than by *what*
16:24:33 <achow101> alright, we can punt for another decade lol
16:24:40 <darosior> :)
16:24:46 <achow101> any other topics to discuss?
16:24:50 <fjahr> why not move the bips then?
16:24:50 <stickies-v> kanzure: we could purposefully break the redirect in x years to ensure any people still relying on bitcoin/bitcoin move, almost entirely eliminating the hostile takeover risk
16:24:55 <Murch[m]> Maybe bring it up in a month?
16:25:06 <sipa> fjahr: that's out of scope for this meeting, imo
16:25:12 <achow101> Murch[m]: I was thinking coredev actually
16:25:19 <sipa> bip editor can decide to do that, if they want
16:25:20 <fjahr> it would fix the problem we have...
16:25:27 <achow101> fjahr: that's for the bip editors to decide
16:25:28 <darosior> Yeah Coredev seems like a good fit to discuss this
16:25:32 <laanwj> tbf i dono't htink sentiment is ever going to be better, there's always new drama
16:25:37 <Murch[m]> fjahr: Only one of three problems by my count
16:26:03 <stickies-v> thank you to everyone who’s hosted review clubs in recent weeks! next week we have a kernel review club coming up (https://bitcoincore.reviews/32317, notes up tomorrow)
16:26:12 <Murch[m]> It would fix that bans by Bitcoin Core affect BIPs, but it would not fix the org split that Bitcoin Core has currently, nor disclaim that Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin
16:26:16 <stickies-v> we have free slots available in the next weeks, so if you’re down to represent your WG pls dm myself or glozow
16:26:42 <laanwj> stickies-v: good to know!
16:27:56 <achow101> #endmeeting