16:00:21 <achow101> #startmeeting 
16:00:21 <corebot> achow101: Meeting started at 2025-08-14T16:00+0000
16:00:22 <corebot> achow101: Current chairs: achow101
16:00:23 <corebot> achow101: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:24 <corebot> achow101: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:25 <corebot> achow101: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:34 <darosior> hi
16:00:36 <fjahr> hi
16:00:41 <sipa> hi
16:00:43 <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
16:00:46 <instagibbs> hi
16:00:52 <furszy> hi
16:00:53 <purpleKarrot> #here 
16:00:55 <maxedw> hi
16:00:56 <TheCharlatan> hi
16:00:57 <purpleKarrot> hi
16:00:58 <johnny9dev> hi
16:01:09 <achow101> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:01:17 <dzxzg> hi
16:01:19 <sr_gi[m]1> hi
16:01:20 <lightlike> hi
16:01:58 <achow101> #topic Erlay WG Update (sr_gi, gleb)
16:02:04 <brunoerg> hi
16:02:07 <stickies-v> hi
16:02:09 <l0rinc> hi
16:02:45 <laanwj> hi
16:03:07 <eugenesiegel> hi
16:03:13 <cfields> hi
16:03:24 <sr_gi[m]1> I've been cleaning up and redesigning some parts of the full Erlay implementation so it's easier to follow, using txdownloadman as reference. I've also been adding all the missing unit tests and expanding part of the functional
16:03:51 <sr_gi[m]1> Review keeps being needed on the initial PR
16:04:33 <sr_gi[m]1> Nothing more to add on my end
16:04:49 <achow101> #topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
16:04:57 <TheCharlatan> Steady progress on the API side, lots of discussions happening there, but seems like we are slowly coalescing on a common approach.
16:05:03 <TheCharlatan> Hunting for ACKs in #33078 - should be close to merge now
16:05:05 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33078 | kernel: improve BlockChecked ownership semantics by stickies-v · Pull Request #33078 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:05:10 <TheCharlatan> ^ it simplifies some of our API code a little bit.
16:05:17 <TheCharlatan> Also had a steady stream of new contributors over the past few weeks, both looking to help flesh out the API, and write some new applications.
16:05:36 <sipa> 
16:06:13 <TheCharlatan> that's all :)
16:06:34 <kevkevin> hi
16:06:48 <achow101> #topic Benchmarking WG Update (josie, l0rinc)
16:06:53 <l0rinc> Since we have added a warning for large dbcache flushes in previous release in #31534, it would be good if we could add a related optimization for speeding up the slow flushes, see #31645.
16:06:59 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31534 | coins: warn on shutdown for big UTXO set flushes by l0rinc · Pull Request #31534 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:07:03 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31645 | [IBD] flush UTXO set in batches proportional to `dbcache` size by l0rinc · Pull Request #31645 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:07:09 <l0rinc> The change is only adjusting the already-configurable defaults, but has a measurable effect on a critical part of IBD performance.
16:07:16 <l0rinc> Could we include it in v30?
16:08:01 <achow101> we have less than a week to feature freeze and there's already a bunch of stuff in the milestone
16:08:06 <achow101> how easy is it to review?
16:08:33 <l0rinc> reveiw is trivial, basically just a value change, but reproducing it would take a few hours in the background
16:09:39 <achow101> is there any urgency for it to be in 30?
16:09:59 <l0rinc> no, just a preference since this release already contains 6 other IBD related optimizations
16:10:38 <achow101> i don't think it should go into the milestone, but if it gets enough review before feature freeze, it can still go in
16:10:39 <l0rinc> and slow flushing is a common complaint, users think the app is frozen
16:10:45 <l0rinc> k, thanks
16:11:36 <l0rinc> that's it from me
16:11:54 <achow101> #topic Cluster Mempool WG Update (sdaftuar, sipa)
16:12:56 <sipa> opened what i think is the last txgraph pr for now
16:13:20 <sipa> then time to review cluster mempool PR itselr
16:14:08 <sipa> nothing for 30.0 for sure
16:14:13 <sipa> that's it
16:14:51 <achow101> #topic MuSig2 WG Update (achow101)
16:15:18 <achow101> No updates this week, please review #29675
16:15:21 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29675 | wallet: Be able to receive and spend inputs involving MuSig2 aggregate keys by achow101 · Pull Request #29675 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:15:40 <achow101> #topic QML GUI WG Update (jarolrod, johnny9dev)
16:15:54 <johnny9dev> was away on family vacation for the last week so getting caught up again. before I left there were a few PRs added for getting the new branch up to the feature set that I have in my personal fork.
16:16:18 <johnny9dev> short term, the focus is just to catch up the send and payment request features
16:16:52 <johnny9dev> another contributor, deer-gee is looking to upstream some events so he can complete his assumeutxo interface as well so that will likely start soon
16:17:13 <johnny9dev> thats all for now
16:17:28 <achow101> #topic Script Validation WG Update (fjahr)
16:17:39 <fjahr> There was some further development on the batch validation secp PR (review still welcome) but it still lacks pippenger support, I will probably wait a bit with rebasing the core PR until that’s the case. That’s it from me.
16:18:07 <achow101> #topic 30.0 feature freeze
16:18:14 <achow101> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/72
16:18:22 <achow101> Anything to add or remove from the mileston?
16:18:37 <achow101> And please review things in the milestone. Feature freeze is in 6 days
16:20:20 <achow101> Anything else to discuss this week?
16:20:24 <l0rinc> I have a different question about dbcache: given that we don't have fine-grained cache invalidation (we clear the cache, when full), has anyone investigated if we could reseed it with the past ~10 blocks after clearing?
16:21:24 <willcl-ark> hi
16:21:26 <sipa> we don't always wipe completely anymore all the timr
16:21:49 <sipa> it's worth experimenting with, i think
16:21:53 <sipa> also at startup
16:22:13 <l0rinc> yes, we already read 6 blocks for validation at the beginning, we could use those to seed the cache
16:22:21 <l0rinc> thank you
16:23:18 <cfields> I think Sjors[m]1 had a topic to discuss?
16:23:49 <achow101> I don't see it?
16:23:58 <Sjors[m]1> On mobile, so can't contribute much.
16:24:11 <Sjors[m]1> Basically the request to add to milestone above
16:24:12 <cfields> Ah, he just threw it out, not specifically for this meeting:
16:24:14 <cfields> <Sjors[m]1> I'd like to propose #31802 for the v30 milestone, if only to discuss if it needs to be punted to the next release again.
16:24:17 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31802 | Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC by Sjors · Pull Request #31802 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:25:04 <Sjors[m]1> I'd like to propose #31802 for the v30 milestone, if only to discuss if it needs to be punted to the next release again.
16:25:06 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31802 | Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC by Sjors · Pull Request #31802 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:25:22 <sipa> my very 10000-mile view: i think it'd be nice if we had IPC enabled in from-source builds by default for a while before we add it to releases
16:25:54 <achow101> does it need to be in this release?
16:26:06 <Sjors[m]1> Although that makes sense the only people who currently want to test this prefer binaries over source builds.
16:26:21 <sipa> Sjors[m]1: that's a good point
16:26:31 <achow101> I agree with sipa
16:26:59 <Sjors[m]1> And if I have to keep shipping a custom build anyway then I probably won't use the IPC variant because it's extra complexity.
16:27:15 <Sjors[m]1> Compared to just integrating sv2 directly.
16:27:32 <Sjors[m]1> So not sure how much we'll learn from waiting another six months.
16:27:59 <sipa> Sjors[m]1: that seems like a false dichotomy; over time, i do expect we'll add it to release binaries
16:28:10 <Sjors[m]1> Though maybe I'll ship a v30.0 + IPC patch binary myself.
16:29:02 <stickies-v> "The initial main use case for IPC is to enable experimental support for the Mining IPC interface." this doesn't seem like a very strong reason to ship ipc binaries imo, i don't think we should rush it in
16:29:14 <darosior> pinged Russ, fwiw
16:29:41 <Sjors[m]1> Compared to six months ago it does seem much likely that eventually this will make it in, meaning that me maintaining an IPC binary won't be a dead end.
16:29:54 <sipa> i also agree with thr view that we'll likely not learn that much if the use case is primarily people who want binatoes
16:29:57 <sipa> *binaries
16:30:20 <sipa> so, not opposed, but it feels rather unusual compared to how usually do thong
16:30:23 <sipa> things
16:30:41 <fanquake> Not sure I understand why it's extra complexity to ship the IPC binaries When it's either guix build 1 branch, or the other, to produce bins?
16:30:47 <ryanofsky> Trying to catch up. I've open #31756 months ago to ask for feedback on this but haven't gotten much
16:30:49 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31756 | RFC: Adding bitcoin-{node,gui} binaries for IPC in 30.0 release · Issue #31756 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:31:24 <ryanofsky> Would appreciate if people weigh in with any concerns there
16:32:17 <Sjors[m]1> fanquake: having to explain people to use / trust my binaries adds friction.
16:32:43 <Sjors[m]1> Once they overcome that friction, I might as well ship a modified bitcoind that has the whole Template Provider built in.
16:32:45 <fanquake> Can you elaborate on who these people are? Any reason they aren't showing up on GH to champion / review any of the related PRs etc
16:32:50 <Sjors[m]1> So they don't have to bother with IPC.
16:32:56 <fanquake> Or show up to the meeting to advocate for it's inclusion into Core
16:33:12 <Sjors[m]1> Do they have to send an open letter? :-)
16:33:23 <ryanofsky> Sjors[m]1, I'd be nice if they commented on 31756
16:33:25 <Sjors[m]1> https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/issues/98
16:33:31 <sipa> Sjors[m]1: haha
16:33:31 <Sjors[m]1> ^ they report bugs directly to me mostly
16:33:52 <Sjors[m]1> SRI folks are generally not familiar with our codebase.
16:34:22 <Sjors[m]1> Pavlnex left a thumbs up on 31802
16:34:35 <sipa> #31802 
16:34:38 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31802 | Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC by Sjors · Pull Request #31802 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:34:41 <sipa> ah
16:34:59 <fanquake> I think my point is more that you clearly already have a relationship with your existing users
16:35:26 <fanquake> So it seems like you building the bins doesn't actually add much friction, if they are already trusting your software to begin with
16:35:44 <Sjors[m]1> I don't know how far that trust goes though.
16:35:52 <Sjors[m]1> For testing, sure.
16:35:57 <sipa> Sjors[m]1: agree
16:35:59 <Sjors[m]1> Mainnet pools? Maybe.
16:36:16 <Sjors[m]1> Not a position I want to be in once a large amount of money is involved.
16:36:45 <sipa> let's try reviewing/commenting on the PR/issue
16:36:56 <achow101> can they comment in the pr/issue advocating for it then?
16:37:21 <Sjors[m]1> achow101: sure, I'll make a call out...
16:37:30 <achow101> Any other topics to discuss?
16:37:31 <Sjors[m]1> Maybe they're being a bit too polite and quiet.
16:38:31 <ryanofsky> I'd also like to hear concretely about what the fears/downsides of releasing this feature are
16:39:00 <sipa> i don't think there are downsides to doing so, once it's reviewed enough
16:39:03 <TheCharlatan> i've been slow on the ipc review recently, the crash bugs we ran into have made me a bit hesitant over the past few months.
16:39:20 <ryanofsky> Crash bugs?
16:40:02 <darosior> I started to write a fuzz target for those and got diverted into working on other things.
16:41:00 <darosior> Given that i go on vacation in about 2 hours i won't make more progress on that nor review of the PR being discussed, so won't opine.
16:41:01 <TheCharlatan> ryanofsky, i.e. https://github.com/bitcoin-core/libmultiprocess/issues/182
16:43:38 <ryanofsky> IPC code wasn't originally written to handle external clients that disconnected uncleanly but this should be fixed in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32345
16:44:33 <ryanofsky> Misbehaving IPC clients in general can crash the node, IPC is a trusted interface
16:45:11 <sipa> right
16:46:26 <achow101> I think we can further discussion in the pr/issue
16:46:29 <achow101> Any other topics?
16:48:25 <achow101> #endmeeting