kevkevin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghost43 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghost43 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
magellan has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
magellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
SakshiKasat18 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
SakshiKasat18 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
kevkevin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
kevkevin has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
timbo_xyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
magellan has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
magellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghost43 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
_durandal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
durandal_ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
btsf_1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
magellan has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
btsf_1 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
magellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
magellan has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
magellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
magellan has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
emcy__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] jayvaliya opened pull request #34510: doc: fix broken bpftrace installation link (master...fix-bpftrace-install-link) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34510
_durandal has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] vasild opened pull request #34511: test: fully reset the state of CConnman in tests (master...test_reset_connman_pb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34511
kevkevin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<l0rinc>
Not sure what's up with GitHub lately, I can't edit the title anymore :/
<fanquake>
I can edit it if you've got your PR name
Novo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<l0rinc>
"refactor: enable `move-const-arg` for trivially-copyable types"
<l0rinc>
thanks. Did we change that or is GitHub just acting weird?
abubakarsadiq has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<fanquake>
I'm not aware of any changes
kevkevin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Novo>
I can't edit my PR title as well
l0rinc has quit [Quit: l0rinc]
nanotube has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
eugenesiegel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
nanotube has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<andrewtoth>
Same, but I can edit in other repos
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] janb84 opened pull request #34515: doc: Extend Windows build msvc doc to use winget for VS 2022 install (master...windows_build_documentation_improvement) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34515
<fjahr>
Anything to add or remove? Not that I could do that but I hope somebody will ;)
<andrewtoth>
#34329 - we are releasing silent payments, but there are no debug logs. Without this it will be difficult to help users troubleshoot. It will also let us collect statistics.
<andrewtoth>
furszy: thanks yes that's what i meant
<willcl-ark>
hi
<marcofleon>
hi
<marcofleon>
I have a late proposed meeting topic
<marcofleon>
what's the hashtag again? #proposetopic...
<fjahr>
marcofleon: noted
<fjahr>
Anyone else want to add something to the v31 milestone or has other comments on the release?
btsf_1 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<fjahr>
marcofleon: I think it doesn't work during the meeting, I am the bot you have to talk to now
bomb-on has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
bomb-on has quit [Client Quit]
<marcofleon>
haha deal
<sipa>
[6~[6~[6~[5~[6~OAOAOAOAOAOA
<furszy>
yes sipa, agree
<fjahr>
ok...
<marcofleon>
are we moving on to next topic?
<fjahr>
#topic late proposed meeting topic (marcofleon)
<marcofleon>
ah there it is. Sorry in advance for the wall of text
<sipa>
(kartograf made the machine with my irc client on swap trash...)
<marcofleon>
I’ve been thinking about erlay quite a bit and want to see what others think. I’m leaning toward a NACK, with the information I have. I’m not convinced that the tradeoffs are worth it. As far as I understand:
<marcofleon>
Pros: More tx relay (full relay) outbound connections for a less than proportional increase in data sent/received. We could double the full relay outbound connections from 8 to 16 without doubling the bandwidth.
<marcofleon>
Cons: Latency across the network increases. In some cases in the simulations, latency almost doubled. Also, the changes to the P2P code that Erlay requires are fairly extensive aka added complexity.
<marcofleon>
There is work being done in #28463 on increasing block-relay-only connections. I think the eventual goal there would be to have 8 of these connections. It’s not clear to me that having any more than 8 full relay really provides the network with a big benefit. We already have pretty good tx censorship resistance and so it seems like focusing on the block relay only connections for better eclipse attack protection is
<marcofleon>
more beneficial. I’m open to changing this conclusion.
<marcofleon>
Basically just looking to gauge the project and try to figure out where we stand on this. Of course we don’t need to have answers right now, but at some point (this year?) would be nice to get a priority ACK/NACK. If we generally agree that we won’t be moving forward with it in the foreseeable future, then it would be good to remove any Erlay related code that’s been merged and focus on increasing block relay
<marcofleon>
connections. If we do end up deciding that the tradeoffs are worth it and that developer time should be spent on Erlay, then I would be happy to work on/review it and make it happen. It’s definitely an elegant idea
<sipa>
It's a good discussion to bring up. I agree we should decide to either move forward and pioritize, or cancel entirely.
<instagibbs>
would a fresh issue with the discussion be a good place to start it? a recap may be helpful to those (raises hand) who haven't been paying close attention to the evolution of hte idea over time
<marcofleon>
No need for a conclusion now, my point was just to bring it up for now. We can keep it in mind
timbo_xy1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<lightlike>
to be fair, erlay became more relevant with the recent attempts to censor transactions by preventing them from reaching miners (Knots). Although the threshold for that is already quite low (~10%)
timbo_xyz has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<marcofleon>
instagibbs: A rehash of conceptual discussion in an issue could be good
<furszy>
sr_gi[m] ^^
<fjahr>
Agree good to have the discussion, I was also wondering what the recent progress was.
<Murch[m]>
I think AJ's proposal to sync the top of mempools is also relevant in the context
<willcl-ark>
sr_gi[m]: has been re-running simulations recently too IIUC, which could be good to have presented in such a recap issue
timbo_xy1 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
timbo_xyz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<stickies-v>
lightlike: i think the new private broadcast mechanism might also be useful there to more aggressively broadcast transactions?
<sipa>
i think a fresh issue with conceptual discussion, trade-offs, and recent developments would be good
<sr_gi[m]>
Hi
<sipa>
stickies-v: that seems largely orthogonal to me, as it's just about the initial announcement
<marcofleon>
nice, that sounds good. Yeah we can get recent updates there too. I know its a big project and simulations and testing are a big part of it, so its important to be thorough
<sipa>
the mempool sync idea may matter - with that, we can perhaps tolerate a lower guarantee on reachability after fanout + recon, if it'll be fixed up later with mempool sync
<stickies-v>
but being able to announce it to more peers seems like it should help with reaching more miners?
<marcofleon>
My thoughts were based on the simulations I saw last year, maybe something has changed
<stickies-v>
(haven't thought this through, just popped in my head)
<sr_gi[m]>
I've been rebasing the code recently after private broadcast was merged. I agree with marcofleon that we should have a general decision on whether move forward with it or cancel. I'm happy to do a refresher on all the tradeoffs and pending things if people are interested, and push forward if there is interest in reviewing the code
<marcofleon>
sounds good to me
<marcofleon>
We can open a fresh issue then. Thanks everyone
<fjahr>
Thanks marcofleon! Anything else to discuss?
bomb-on has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<fjahr>
#endmeeting
<corebot`>
fjahr: Meeting ended at 2026-02-05T16:29+0000