16:00:03 <stickies-v> #startmeeting 
16:00:03 <corebot> stickies-v: Meeting started at 2026-06-04T16:00+0000
16:00:04 <corebot> stickies-v: Current chairs: stickies-v
16:00:06 <corebot> stickies-v: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:07 <corebot> stickies-v: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:08 <corebot> stickies-v: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:08 <sedited> hi
16:00:10 <stickies-v> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: abubakarsadiq achow101 _aj_ ajonas b10c brunoerg cfields danielabrozzoni darosior dergoegge dzxzg eugenesiegel fanquake fjahr furszy gleb glozow hebasto hodlinator instagibbs janb84 jarolrod jonatack josibake kanzure kevkevin laanwj LarryRuane lightlike l0rinc luke-jr maflcko marcofleon maxedw Murch pinheadmz provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar S3RK stickies-v sipa sliv3r__ sr_gi tdb3 theStack
16:00:10 <stickies-v> TheCharlatan vasild willcl-ark
16:00:13 <purpleKarrot> hi
16:00:14 <b10c> hi
16:00:16 <janb84> hi
16:00:16 <hebasto> hi
16:00:17 <stringintech> hi
16:00:17 <jurraca> hi
16:00:20 <eugenesiegel> hi
16:00:21 <maxedw> hi
16:00:22 <fjahr> hi
16:00:23 <lightlike> hi
16:00:24 <Murch[m]> Hi
16:00:30 <hodlinator> hi
16:00:43 <darosior> hi
16:00:43 <abubakarsadiq> hi
16:00:45 <sliv3r__-> hi
16:00:47 <dzxzg> hi
16:00:51 <jarolrod> Hi
16:00:53 <stickies-v> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:01:12 <cfields> hi
16:01:37 <stickies-v> #topic Fuzzing WG Update (dergoegge)
16:01:51 <dergoegge> no update
16:01:54 <stickies-v> #topic Kernel WG Update (sedited)
16:02:07 <sedited> #32427 has been getting a bunch of review over the past week and has accrued a few ACKs
16:02:10 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32427 | kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store by sedited · Pull Request #32427 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:02:22 <sedited> For a change that will break backwards compatibility and completely changes one of our persistence layers, I think it requires still more buy-in.
16:02:40 <jon_atack> hi
16:02:48 <l0rinc_> hi
16:03:12 <johnny9dev> hi
16:03:13 <willcl-ark> yes would be nice to see more Concept ACK-ers (and others!) review that one
16:03:16 <sedited> So I'd like to invite more people to come review it.
16:04:22 <stickies-v> anything else?
16:04:23 <sedited> that's all
16:04:28 <stickies-v> #topic Benchmarking WG Update (l0rinc, andrewtoth)
16:04:58 <l0rinc_> I pushed a tiny optimization to https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1859 resulting in up to ~12% signature validation speedup by force-inlining int128 mul/sqr helpers.
16:05:12 <l0rinc_> Reproducers and Windows/MSVC experts are very welcome.
16:05:18 <marcofleon> hi
16:05:38 <l0rinc_> adndrewtoth's https://github.com/bitcoin-core/leveldb-subtree/pull/61 was also merged and cherry-picked to previous releases.
16:06:14 <l0rinc_> A followup was just pushed to #35465 - it does the compaction at the assumevalid boundary to guarantee uniqueness. It's similar to darosior's suggestion last week, just easier to implement and explain.
16:06:15 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35465 | validation: compact chainstate after connecting assumevalid block by l0rinc · Pull Request #35465 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:06:47 <l0rinc_> that's it from me
16:06:51 <stickies-v> #topic QML GUI WG Update (johnny9dev)
16:07:24 <johnny9dev> Nothing major to report. Making a lot of progress with 4 actively contributing now
16:07:46 <johnny9dev> only a few more items to get merged before we want to start getting feedback
16:07:47 <johnny9dev> https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin-core/projects/1/views/2
16:08:33 <johnny9dev> still on track to have unsigned builds before the end of June
16:08:42 <johnny9dev> that is all for now
16:09:07 <stickies-v> #topic Libevent removal (pinheadmz, fjahr)
16:09:32 <fjahr> pinheadmz isn’t here today but full focus is on review of #35182. IMO it’s getting very close and it would be great if we can get it in early in the release cycle.
16:09:36 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35182 | Replace libevent with our own HTTP and socket-handling implementation by pinheadmz · Pull Request #35182 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:09:38 <fjahr> That’s it.
16:10:59 <stickies-v> Anything else to discuss?
16:11:18 <sedited> Might talk about #35465?
16:11:19 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35465 | validation: compact chainstate after connecting assumevalid block by l0rinc · Pull Request #35465 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:12:59 <darosior> I don't think compacting is particularly important in the first place, so take my nit with a grain of salt, but using assumevalid instead of minchainwork means that people actually validating the historical chain won't benefit from the compaction?
16:13:42 <instagibbs> that was my concern too
16:13:58 <darosior> From a quick skim through the commits, it seems that this check would never be true for people running with -assumevalid=0 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35465/changes/dbf076273476d121a6d04c8a05dfcc5492e68b98#diff-97c3a52bc5fad452d82670a7fd291800bae20c7bc35bb82686c2c0a4ea7b5b98R3418
16:14:34 <l0rinc_> the compaction doesn't necessarily result in a measurable speedup - except maybe smaller files, so a few more can fit into the OS memory. But without compaction (especially on HDD) we were about ~15% faster
16:16:08 <sipa> hi
16:16:14 <l0rinc_> "it seems that this check would never be true for people running with -assumevalid=0" - good point, it's why originally this was triggered by getting out of IBD mode. I'll find something, thanks for the hint.
16:17:49 <stickies-v> looks like we're done here? thanks for the conversation, folks
16:17:50 <l0rinc_> I want to avoid on events that can happen multiple times, e.g. when someone starts their node weekly - we don't want every one of these resulting in a compaction
16:17:50 <stickies-v> #endmeeting