16:00:14 <achow101> #startmeeting 
16:00:14 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-05-29T16:00+0000
16:00:15 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
16:00:16 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:17 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:18 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:23 <achow101> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: abubakarsadiq achow101 _aj_ ajonas b10c brunoerg cfields darosior dergoegge fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto hodlinator 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
16:00:26 <stickies-v> hi
16:00:27 <hebasto> hi
16:00:28 <cfields> hi
16:00:30 <TheCharlatan> hi
16:00:32 <instagibbs> hi
16:00:34 <jonatack> hi
16:00:34 <b10c> hi
16:00:35 <abubakarsadiq> hi
16:00:50 <lightlike> Hi
16:00:55 <achow101> There is one preproposed meeting topic this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:02:19 <achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
16:02:37 <TheCharlatan> nothing to report this week
16:03:08 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101, rkrux)
16:03:15 <achow101> No major updates, #31244 is still the PR to review and has been getting some review
16:03:18 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31244 | descriptors: MuSig2 by achow101 · Pull Request #31244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:03:23 <johnny9dev> hi
16:03:39 <achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
16:03:45 <johnny9dev> Since last meeting, The QR code component was merged in bitcoin-core/gui-qml#454, Initial loading animations were merged in (bitcoin-core/gui-qml#455 and bitcoin-core/gui-qml#459), and a minor compile error fixed bitcoin-core/gui-qml#458.
16:03:45 <johnny9dev> I also undrafted the multiple recipients PR as the core functionality is working now (bitcoin-core/gui-qml#450)
16:03:45 <johnny9dev> I decided to implement the fee selection menu next before doing validation and will have a PR for that before the weekend.
16:03:46 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/454 | Add QRImageProvider by goqusan · Pull Request #454 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:03:48 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/455 | Add Skeleton loading animation to the Wallet selector by johnny9 · Pull Request #455 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:03:49 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/459 | Disable forms when loading by johnny9 · Pull Request #459 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:03:50 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui-qml/issues/458 | Add missing <cstdint> declarations by davidgumberg · Pull Request #458 · bitcoin-core/gui-qml · GitHub
16:03:51 <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
16:04:37 <johnny9dev> thats all for now. I have a couple more weeks of QML work i want to complete and then I plan on shifting my efforts to deployment/packaging/depends research
16:05:25 <achow101> not many wg updates this week it seems..
16:05:27 <achow101> sipa: are you here?
16:05:33 <sipa> achow101: half
16:05:43 <achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
16:06:48 <sipa> Getting some review on the 3rd txgraph PR, #31553
16:06:51 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31553 | cluster mempool: add TxGraph reorg functionality by sipa · Pull Request #31553 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:06:55 <sipa> hopefully it can get in soon
16:07:02 <instagibbs> 🤞
16:07:51 <sipa> the PR to replace the linearization algorithm, #32545, is also ready for review if people are interested, but it's not a blocker for.anything, just a drop-in replacemrnt
16:07:53 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32545 | Replace cluster linearization algorithm with SFL by sipa · Pull Request #32545 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:08:01 <sipa> that's it for me
16:08:05 <achow101> #topic Statement on transaction relay policy (sipa)
16:08:20 <sipa> so repeating what i said before the meeting
16:08:30 <sipa> I think it's good to discuss this again, I made some changes in response to comments (https://gist.github.com/sipa/2521731e65ba779e3ce9f9305c6a538c), but I may also not be around during the meeting to bring it up. I guess my questions are (a) any further comments (b) do people agree on posting it on the website *without* explicit signatures (c) who would sign it if we put it on the website with
16:08:36 <sipa> explicit signers
16:09:43 <sipa> if no comments here, feel free to leave them on the gist
16:09:52 <sipa> lots of conferences so not everyone is here
16:10:14 <achow101> reading through it quickly
16:10:21 <sipa> thanks!
16:11:59 <achow101> I would be ok with posting this to the website, with or without signatures.
16:12:03 <achow101> although my preference is to have signatures
16:12:56 <gmaxwell> There was a view expressed that having a name on it may target attacks, but that I think can be mitigated by putting in an effort to collect many.
16:13:16 <TheCharlatan> fwiw leaning towards explicit signers
16:14:47 <achow101> Any other comments on this? Or any other topics to discuss?
16:15:36 <fanquake> If there are ~50 people in the core orgs. How many do we want for posting? I have somewhat of a concern about a too small amount being a poor framing
16:15:47 <stickies-v> I think it's a great write-up and would be okay with both b) and  c)
16:15:47 <jonatack> i think it's a reasonable statement (nit, would drop the italics used for emphasis, unneeded imo)
16:15:54 <fanquake> *There are roughly 50 people
16:16:07 <jonatack> i don't believe it will make a difference at this point, however
16:16:20 <jonatack> i don't believe we should request or post signatures either
16:16:24 <stickies-v> I think we need probably at least 15 or so signatures?
16:16:37 <jonatack> either there are "too few" and they may face targeting
16:17:13 <jonatack> or there are "many" and those who don't sign, not necessarily out of opposition, may face "you're either with us or against us" ostracization
16:17:23 <gmaxwell> just sort recent commit authors, and go obtain the top N or something. On the order of two dozen names probably avoids targeting.
16:19:06 <gmaxwell> I mean also if anyone actually doesn't agree with what the document says it would be useful to learn.  It would be fairly surprising to me.
16:19:14 <gmaxwell> (I mean any regular contributors)
16:19:27 <cfields> erm, that makes it opt-out rather than opt-in for those devs. And opting out doesn't necessarily mean disagreement. I don't love that.
16:19:42 <jonatack> cfields: same
16:19:51 <gmaxwell> wait what would be opt out?
16:19:58 <cfields> gmaxwell: some of us have learned the hard way against signing agreements :p
16:20:30 <gmaxwell> cfields: haha, though its not an agreement.
16:21:04 <cfields> Heh, yes, of course it's different.
16:21:14 <cfields> <gmaxwell> just sort recent commit authors, and go obtain the top N or something.
16:21:24 <gmaxwell> "go obtain" I mean go ask people.
16:21:28 <gmaxwell> Sorry for confusion.
16:21:39 <cfields> ^^ implies that those authors would need to opt out.
16:22:02 <achow101> cfields: i get not wanting to put your name on it for fear of being attacked, but also I'm concerned that without signatures people will perceive this as a small group enforcing their will onto everyone else
16:22:53 <achow101> if the altnerative is to point people to the pr and tell them to count the acks, I think that is also fairly equivalent to putting your name on it, and I would expect those who fear being attacked would not ack in public either
16:23:08 <gmaxwell> As in send them an email "Project is planning on publishing this, because you're recently the author of X commits, can we put your name on it?"
16:24:16 <achow101> if the concern is that many people sign and someone not signing for fear of being attacked is instead construed as not agreeing, then, idk. it might help in that case to make your org membership private though
16:25:08 <cfields> achow101: has nothing to do with being attacked (what, they gonna ping me here? :p), I just haven't been engaged with the issue and don't feel the need to weigh in on it. Maybe I'm alone there?
16:26:09 <jonatack> achow101: re the perception, that ship sailed long ago, and would require much more than a statement to change course
16:26:26 <achow101> cfields: that's totally fine, what does that have to do with attaching people's names?
16:26:28 <gmaxwell> cfields: hm. well this statement is not even so much about 'the issue' -- except inso far as it's laying out the project's collective thinking in a way that also answer the recent drama.
16:27:40 <cfields> No need for me to monopolize time here.
16:27:41 <jonatack> gmaxwell: for some the drama is about the op_return change, but afaict for many more it's larger
16:28:09 <jonatack> yes, same for me, no intent to monopolize here
16:28:31 <achow101> Anything else to discuss?
16:28:44 <gmaxwell> jonatack: fair enough.
16:29:18 <jonatack> gmaxwell: https://x.com/jonatack/status/1922814114482532833
16:30:11 <achow101> #endmeeting