16:00:07 <stickies-v> #startmeeting 
16:00:07 <corebot> stickies-v: Meeting started at 2026-07-02T16:00+0000
16:00:08 <corebot> stickies-v: Current chairs: stickies-v
16:00:09 <corebot> stickies-v: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:10 <corebot> stickies-v: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:11 <corebot> stickies-v: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:13 <marcofleon> hi
16:00:15 <sedited> hi
16:00:16 <stickies-v> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: _aj_ abubakarsadiq achow101 andrewtoth b10c brunoerg cfields danielabrozzoni darosior dergoegge dzxzg eugenesiegel fanquake fjahr furszy hebasto hodlinator instagibbs janb84 jarolrod johnny9dev jonatack josie jurraca kanzure kevkevin laanwj lightlike l0rinc maflcko marcofleon maxedw Murch pinheadmz provoostenator pseudoramdom ryanofsky sdaftuar sedited sipa sliv3r__ sr_gi stickies-v
16:00:16 <stickies-v> stringintech theStack vasild willcl-ark
16:00:18 <brunoerg> hi
16:00:19 <yuvicc> hi
16:00:20 <sliv3r__> hi
16:00:21 <cfields> hi
16:00:21 <danielabrozzoni> hi
16:00:23 <stringintech> hi
16:00:23 <jurraca> hi
16:00:24 <andrewtoth> hi
16:00:27 <b10c> hi
16:00:28 <lightlike> Hi
16:00:29 <dergoegge> hi
16:00:32 <maxedw> hi
16:00:35 <eugenesiegel> hi
16:00:49 <janb84> hi
16:00:51 <dzxzg> hi
16:00:53 <stickies-v> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:01:36 <darosior> hi
16:02:06 <stickies-v> #topic Fuzzing WG Update (dergoegge, marcofleon)
16:02:09 <furszy> hi
16:02:19 <marcofleon> no update
16:02:20 <marcofleon> jk
16:02:26 <sedited> :D
16:02:32 <marcofleon> For in repo stuff, we have three recently merged harnesses related to LevelDB and our CDBWrapper, #34866 and #34887. These should help give some confidence to the changes in #35295 (formerly known as #31132)
16:02:36 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34866 | fuzz: target concurrent leveldb reads by andrewtoth · Pull Request #34866 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:02:39 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34887 | fuzz: target CDBWrapper by andrewtoth · Pull Request #34887 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:02:41 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35295 | validation: fetch block input prevouts in parallel during ConnectBlock by andrewtoth · Pull Request #35295 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:02:44 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31132 | validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads by andrewtoth · Pull Request #31132 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:02:56 <marcofleon> I think #35118 is pretty much good to go, so now we have some IPC fuzzing. And then wrt to fuzz PRs, I’ll probably focus on #34651 and #34895 next, if anyone is interested.
16:02:58 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35118 | fuzz: add ipc round-trip fuzz target by enirox001 · Pull Request #35118 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:03:01 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34651 | fuzz: Block connection and chain reorganization fuzzing harnesses by RobinDavid · Pull Request #34651 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:03:02 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/34895 | fuzz: Fuzzing harnesses for ActivateBestChainStep and ActivateBestChain by RobinDavid · Pull Request #34895 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:03:17 <marcofleon> dergoegge wrote this exceptional blog post on Bedrock and determinism in the hypervisor: https://brink.dev/blog/2026/06/25/bedrock-deterministic-hypervisor/. Fuzzing with Bedrock found a cheeky bug in our new http server, so that's very cool
16:03:42 <marcofleon> nkaretnikov is helping out with Bedrock, specifically https://github.com/oss-garage/bedrock/issues/20. Nice, thank you
16:03:55 <marcofleon> And then eugenesiegel is also making moves in Bedrock with https://github.com/oss-garage/bedrock/pull/54
16:04:29 <marcofleon> They can elaborate more on the work if they'd like to. I think that's pretty much all I got for now. I can do semi regular updates from now on
16:04:38 <dergoegge> lfg
16:04:40 <andrewtoth> awesome!
16:04:42 <eugenesiegel> stonks
16:04:45 <stickies-v> big update, delivered
16:04:50 <brunoerg> great!
16:04:51 <dzxzg> sick
16:05:25 <l0rinc> hi
16:06:04 <stickies-v> #topic Kernel WG Update (sedited)
16:06:23 <sedited> A bunch of review went into #32427, it now supports external readers.
16:06:24 <cfields> very cool, nice work fuzzers :)
16:06:27 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32427 | kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with WAL and .dat file based store by sedited · Pull Request #32427 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:06:39 <sedited> More discussion going on in #35569 . I'd like to encourage reviewers to keep commenting, since this might set the direction to a bunch of further work.
16:06:41 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35569 | Encapsulation for CTransaction by purpleKarrot · Pull Request #35569 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:06:58 <sedited> I opened #35641 for introducing callback hooks exposing traces of the script interpreter state during script verification. This is useful for both debugging scripts and testing. This is surprisingly fun to hack on, since it allows for visualization of script interpreter operations.
16:06:59 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35641 | kernel: Add script execution tracer by sedited · Pull Request #35641 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:08:06 <marcofleon> lfg
16:08:26 <sedited> There are also a bunch of pull requests waiting for another ACK or two before merge on the project board: https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/projects/3
16:09:02 <yancy> hi
16:09:47 <sedited> that's all
16:10:00 <stickies-v> #topic Benchmarking WG Update (l0rinc, andrewtoth)
16:10:02 <l0rinc> Pushed #35634 to save one byte per entry in txospenderindex in a backwards compatible way. This trick was also applied to the new txindex format.
16:10:04 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35634 | txospenderindex: use zero-byte entry values by l0rinc · Pull Request #35634 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:10:47 <l0rinc> i.e. #35531 - I think we should apply what we learned here to the new index as well
16:10:50 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35531 | txindex: hash keys and pack positions to reduce disk usage by andrewtoth · Pull Request #35531 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:10:51 <l0rinc> that's it from me
16:11:41 <andrewtoth> Thanks for all review in #35295. Nothing else from me.
16:11:44 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/35295 | validation: fetch block input prevouts in parallel during ConnectBlock by andrewtoth · Pull Request #35295 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:12:00 <stickies-v> we haven't had updates from the silent payments WG in a while, so I'm moving that to the archive for now. if anyone wants to pick it up again, ping me and i'll add it back to the rotation
16:12:37 <stickies-v> johnny9dev wrote the QML GUI WG updates before the meeting, you can read them here: https://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2026-07-02.html#l-218
16:12:47 <stickies-v> #topic QA WG Update (brunoerg)
16:12:57 <brunoerg> Hi, about mutation testing for PRs, I'm trying a new setup where it uses an LLM to generate a human-readable report based on the mutation analysis results. The first experiment was in the Erlay impl's PR - you can see the report here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/35591#pullrequestreview-4593554791.
16:13:11 <brunoerg> feedbacks are welcome, that's all
16:15:44 <stickies-v> seems pretty verbose, might be useful to hyperlink instead or put it in details?
16:16:20 <brunoerg> yes, I intend to hyperlink
16:17:03 <stickies-v> if all the recommendations are important it's fine, but i find llms tend to not be great at estimating priorities/impact etc, so i tend to not be interested in most such assessments
16:19:11 <dergoegge> They can be quite good if they don't just go off their own reasoning. If the estimate is result backed (e.g. mutation tests) then I've seen them to be better
16:20:14 <stickies-v> Anything else to discuss?
16:20:36 <sedited> forgot to mention that we now have a CI job (introduced in #31425) tracking whether the script verification code can be compiled and linked for a bare metal riscv target. This has surfaced bugs before, and is also a first step towards making a consensus library available for such a target, since it prevents future portability regressions.
16:20:38 <corebot> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31425 | CI: Add Riscv bare metal job by sedited · Pull Request #31425 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
16:20:42 <brunoerg> yes, to become shorter I intend to not inform "What the current tests do well" and focus on what could/should be improved
16:22:30 <stickies-v> alright, looks like that's it for today. see you next week folks
16:22:32 <stickies-v> #endmeeting