16:00:10 <fjahr> #startmeeting 
16:00:10 <corebot> fjahr: Meeting started at 2026-07-30T16:00+0000
16:00:11 <corebot> fjahr: Current chairs: fjahr
16:00:12 <corebot> fjahr: Useful commands: #action #info #idea #link #topic #motion #vote #close #endmeeting
16:00:13 <corebot> fjahr: See also: https://hcoop-meetbot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
16:00:14 <corebot> fjahr: Participants should now identify themselves with '#here' or with an alias like '#here FirstLast'
16:00:23 <fjahr> #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 stringintech theStack
16:00:23 <fjahr> vasild willcl-ark
16:00:24 <pseudoramdom> #here 
16:00:27 <pseudoramdom> hi
16:00:27 <sliv3r__> hi
16:00:28 <eugenesiegel> hi
16:00:31 <maxedw> hi
16:00:41 <lightlike> hi
16:00:50 <brunoerg> hi
16:00:54 <fjahr> There are no pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
16:01:41 <darosior> hi
16:02:07 <darosior> re last minutes topics i'd like to ask about / discuss the progress on tesnet5
16:02:13 <stringintech> hi
16:02:22 <theStack> hi
16:02:22 <andrewtoth_> hi
16:02:41 <Murch[m]> Hi
16:02:50 <fjahr> Let's start with the WGs
16:02:55 <fjahr> #topic QA WG Update (brunoerg)
16:03:33 <darosior> multi bugs on multi index?
16:04:07 <brunoerg> hi, working on the parallelization of the mutants analysis, got a huge speed up, will share more infos next week
16:04:15 <brunoerg> that's all
16:04:29 <fjahr> #topic Benchmarking WG Update (l0rinc, andrewtoth)
16:04:36 <andrewtoth_> no update this week
16:05:28 <fjahr> Looks like every other WG is at the swimming pool
16:05:42 <fjahr> #topic ask about testnet5 progress (darosior)
16:06:41 <darosior> So my understanding is that progress was blocked on my BIP 54 PR, which is now open. So i'm curious what people working on testnet5 are planning
16:07:13 <darosior> In particular regarding the genesis block, since that's probably the real "release" of the new testnet
16:07:24 <fjahr> I have a branch prepared with all the manual stuff that was needed for testnet4, so I think I can open a draft by the end of the week, I was just travelling and busy with publishing CISA stuff which I wanted to get out in time for a conference
16:08:01 <darosior> One challenge i see is that if the testnet5 PR is based on top of my BIP 54 PR, it will probably not make it in before feature freeze
16:08:38 <darosior> fjahr: cool
16:08:50 <fjahr> Someone volunteered to mine the genesis block already, I guess we will put that in the pull at the last minute when it has been reviewed, when it's out things will probably take a life of their own as was the case with Testnet 4, I think the release isn't really that imporatant in this case
16:09:33 <darosior> Ok, so are we fine with starting testnet5 even if the option to use it doesn't make it in a release before something like 8 months?
16:10:38 <darosior> Anybody else has opinions on this? I pinged Fabian and Pol before the meeting but i wanted to bring it up to the group here too
16:10:45 <sliv3r__> If we are ok with that, what happens if people start mining on top of the T5 genesis block a chain that is BIP54 invalid?
16:10:48 <Murch[m]> Sorry, I don't understand the problem
16:11:25 <darosior> sliv3r__: i was assuming you'd base the T5 PR on top of the BIP 54 implementation, since that what you previously told me you'd prefer
16:11:29 <Murch[m]> Why can't we ship support for testnet5 in v32, even if bip54 support only ships in v33?
16:11:32 <sliv3r__> would we release it enforcing it from genesis thus Core invalidating the whole chain and making miners start again?
16:11:37 <fjahr> I guess we can discuss that further in the draft pull before it has the genesis block included. If reviewer turnaround is quick maybe we can still make it, I don't have a strong opinion because with T4 people just started using it before the release
16:12:00 <darosior> Murch[m]: i think sliv3r__ and fjahr strongly prefer to have bip 54 activated from genesis on testnet5, because that is what the BIP prescribes
16:12:13 <fjahr> The review should be pretty straight forward because it builds on the Testnet 4 changes and is mostly identical
16:12:42 <andrewtoth_> so if there's a dependency on the BIP54 PR then there's no chance the testnet5 PR will make it for v32
16:12:44 <Murch[m]> Ah, I see, the point being the activation of bip54 from block 1
16:13:00 <sliv3r__> darosior: That was my idea, but if the genesis block is released before we release bip54 they might start mining invalid blocks. Obviously they still can mine invalid blocks even if we release bip54, but at least we provide software to follow it.
16:13:01 <darosior> andrewtoth_: yes that's my point
16:13:03 <fjahr> well we discribed it in the bip because we preferred it :p but it was also what people seemed to prefer it at coredev
16:13:18 <andrewtoth_> So I don't understand fjahr's optimism :/
16:13:54 <andrewtoth_> I mean even if there's quick review turnaround, there's a hard blocker
16:13:55 <darosior> I'm happy with whatever, to be clear, just wanted to make sure everyone's on the same page
16:14:51 <darosior> sliv3r__: sorry i don't understand, i'm still assuming there is no T5 PR without enforcement of BIP 54 from genesis
16:15:07 <fjahr> andrewtoth_: why? we would only activate bip54 for testnet5, if we want to activate it later we could also try to do it on Testnet4
16:15:14 <yancy> hi
16:15:40 <andrewtoth_> but to activate bip54 we would need the bip54 implementation PR merged, right?
16:16:01 <darosior> andrewtoth_: the T5 PR would be based on top of the 54 one, i think?
16:16:22 <sliv3r__> imho it should be based on top of the 54 one
16:16:52 <darosior> So as far as i understand, current plan is: release testnet5 support in v33, but mine testnet5 genesis block in a (couple) month(s) from now?
16:16:54 <_aj_> fjahr: any reason not to start testnet5 from source in your repo or a similar fork? it's a testnet, so no need to gate on bitcoin core per se?
16:17:01 <fjahr> yes and the rules would be only applying to T5, just like the difficulty exception is now on T4
16:17:22 <fjahr> _aj_ true, that is also an option
16:17:26 <andrewtoth_> so then we review a t5 PR on top of bip54, and decide on parameters, but don't merge it and allow community to take it from there?
16:17:37 <andrewtoth_> Leave the t5 pr as a draft for reference until 33?
16:18:01 <andrewtoth_> sorry if I'm misunderstanding
16:18:31 <darosior> I think what AJ says makes sense
16:18:37 <fjahr> yeah, that would work IMO, just based on experience from T4
16:19:04 <sliv3r__> _aj_: I like that option, just publish a software to use T5 following bip54 even if the bip54 code is not perfect yet thus not ready for Core, at least usable for people to start mining
16:19:20 <fjahr> If I maintain the PR without merging then that should be just as good as having it in master but unreleased for miner testing purposes
16:19:49 <andrewtoth_> i see makes sense, thanks
16:19:50 <fjahr> Well, or we can even release a patched release of v32
16:20:07 <darosior> fjahr: yes that's what i'm thinking
16:20:08 <_aj_> we could maybe setup a solo-mining ckpool for people to point to in order to start mining almost immediately the genesis block is available perhaps
16:20:45 <darosior> _aj_: yeah, happy to help with that. Also have a couple S9's i can contribute to that
16:22:03 <sliv3r__> yep, we can just publish the endpoint in the PR description at the same time as the genesis block
16:23:01 <fjahr> Ok, then let's aim for that if nobody disagrees, first stop is the pull minus the genesis block either way, let's see if more feedback come in then. I will describe the plan in the pull description to raise some more awareness
16:23:08 <_aj_> should be able to advertise the endpoint in advance of the genesis block being available even, i think; have it be 404 or mine testnet4 blocks beforehand
16:23:43 <sliv3r__> fjahr, sounds good
16:24:06 <darosior> fjahr: sounds good, thanks
16:24:29 <fjahr> Anything else to discuss?
16:24:34 <andrewtoth_> darosior: re: multi bugs on multi index? - what is this referring to?
16:24:51 <fanquake> https://github.com/theuni/tmi2/pull/4
16:24:58 <andrewtoth_> ty
16:25:01 <darosior> andrewtoth_: Bruno starting diff fuzzing multi index :)
16:25:10 <andrewtoth_> nice!
16:25:15 <brunoerg> Yes
16:25:17 <fjahr> PSA: There is another ASMap run in exactly a week https://github.com/bitcoin-core/asmap-data/issues/63
16:26:18 <fjahr> Anything else?
16:27:23 <fjahr> #endmeeting