< promag> feeling alone here
< promag> #12153 is also sad
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12153 | Avoid permanent cs_main lock in getblockheader by promag · Pull Request #12153 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< kallewoof> meshcollider: ah, good point. I forgot about it. will reopen #11489
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11489 | [wallet] sendtoaddress style argument by kallewoof · Pull Request #11489 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kallewoof reopened pull request #11489: [wallet] sendtoaddress style argument (master...201709_segwitwallet2_sendtoaddress) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11489
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achavala opened pull request #12214: added app files (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12214
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achavala closed pull request #12214: added app files (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12214
< jimpo> Can I get some review on #11857?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11857 | Build tx index in parallel with validation by jimpo · Pull Request #11857 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< kallewoof> A full node of mine is banning peers left and right and I'm seeing a ton of "ERROR: non-continuous headers sequence". Running master, switching to 0.15 to see if it goes away.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c7978be89964...17180fa60810
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cdf3e03 Wladimir J. van der Laan: wallet: Deprecate addwitnessaddress...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 17180fa Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12210: wallet: Deprecate addwitnessaddress...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #12210: wallet: Deprecate addwitnessaddress (master...2018_01_deprecate_addwitnessaddress) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12210
< wumpus> kallewoof: weird! I've never seen that error
< sdaftuar> kallewoof: if you have debug logs you can post somewhere, i'd be interested in investigating
< sdaftuar> wumpus: kallewoof: i think i've seen it before with clock issues and the 2 hour rule on testnet, but don't think i've ever seen it on mainnet
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors opened pull request #12216: scripted-diff: prefix [address|change]type parameters with 'default' (master...2018/01/defaultaddresstype) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12216
< provoostenator> ^ I'm lazily relying on Travs to check the scripted diff, because it uses sed in an OSX / BSD unfriendly way.
< provoostenator> Oh great, OSX requires sed -i '' 's/changetype/defaultchangetype/g' whereas linux doesn't allow that.
< wumpus> isn't that the other way around? I'm fairly sure linux has sed -i but various BSDs have not
< provoostenator> OSX requires an empty string as the first argument.
< provoostenator> (before the actual /s)
< wumpus> but yes writing portable shellscript is frustrating, remebering the many ways we have to use to do a basic thing like sha256 verification in the bdb install script
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/17180fa60810...898f560b55ab
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa1e69e MarcoFalke: qa: Sync with validationinterface queue in sync_mempools
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 898f560 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12206: qa: Sync with validationinterface queue in sync_mempools...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #12206: qa: Sync with validationinterface queue in sync_mempools (master...Mf1801-qaWalletMempoolAsync) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12206
< Tport> hello
< Tport> where are API of bitcoin network?
< wumpus> test 97 of p2p-fullblocktest.py is consistently failing here, weird
< gmaxwell> I feel dejavu at that.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #12217: qa: Add missing syncwithvalidationinterfacequeue to tests (master...Mf1801-qaWalletMempoolAsyncTake2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12217
< Tport> is anyone can send me 0.001 btc to test?
< Tport> 0.005 sorry
< wumpus> Tport: testnet?
< Tport> no, real
< wumpus> go away, no begging here
< Tport> i'am developing crypto stock exchange, i need to able to send blocks to differents puls, what is the right way?
< wumpus> take it to #bitcoin please
< Tport> #bitcoin channel ?
< wumpus> yes
< wumpus> hrm on another host, p2p-fullblocktest.py works fine
< MarcoFalke> ups. My znc shut down and I lost the backscroll of last week or so.
< wumpus> I'll pastebin it
< MarcoFalke> wumpus: I will use botbot
< MarcoFalke> .me
< wumpus> ok
< MarcoFalke> I was wondering if syncwithvalidationinterfacequeue should be a not-hidden rpc. I could imagine some user does this:
< MarcoFalke> wallet.listunspent(); create and sign raw tx; sendrawtx; wallet.some_rpc_that_is_not_in_sync
< MarcoFalke> ()
< wumpus> maybe, but not for 0.16, I'm not convinced having to explicitly call a sync call is a good idea for end users
< wumpus> seems to have a lot of foot-shooting potential, it's fine for fixing intermittent test failures for now, but I don't like it much as API
< MarcoFalke> Then, maybe sendraw should do that internally
< wumpus> MarcoFalke: it does
< MarcoFalke> oh, then it is fine, I think.
< wumpus> it doesn't call SyncWithValidationInterfaceQueue, but does the same thing manually
< wumpus> (not sure why it doesn't just use that call)
< kallewoof> wumpus: for some reason my debug.log is empty, but i have a screen with -printtoconsole.
< wumpus> printtoconsole doesn't write to debug.log
< wumpus> kallewoof: please use a pastebin for lots of text, don't paste all of that into my PM
< wumpus> it keeps putting up notifications here now :/
< kallewoof> Sorry!
< wumpus> master doesn't log version messages anymore for newly connected nodes?
< wumpus> that's kind of annoying, trying to correlate MISBEHAVING peer=X to connections, but they're not logged anymore
< wumpus> when did this change?
< gmaxwell> FWIW, misbehaving, there are a lot of "bitcoin gold" nodes causing misbehaving messages.
< wumpus> is that possibly the "ERROR: non-continuous headers sequence"?
< gmaxwell> Yes.
< gmaxwell> Thats it.
< wumpus> kallewoof: ^^
< gmaxwell> I dunno about the logging change, I don't recall it changing but I do recall discussing it.
< wumpus> should also stop logging MISBEHAVING and other network things then
< gmaxwell> (The reason to not log it is because logging any text from third parties is a potential attack, nussance spam vector.)
< wumpus> it makes no sense to log those, with peer numbers, without being able to correlate them
< gmaxwell> if they're still connected you can go look at the peer info.
< wumpus> no this is for post-mortem analysis
< wumpus> I've banned them long time ago
< wumpus> (automatically)
< wumpus> well this is also a nuisance vector like this :(
< gmaxwell> right but the misbehaving log entries still happen before the banning.
< gmaxwell> There were some incidents in the past with people connecting in a tight loop with their version strings set to webservices addresses and what not.... but I still don't remember the behavior changing.
< wumpus> ok I understand that change then, but then these should also move to ::NET category
< wumpus> right now the log shows this:
< wumpus> 2018-01-18 16:02:27 Misbehaving: peer=164603 (80 -> 100) BAN THRESHOLD EXCEEDED
< wumpus> 2018-01-18 16:02:27 ERROR: non-continuous headers sequence
< wumpus> that seems like a local error
< gmaxwell> yes, thats ... not optimal.
< wumpus> maybe Misbehaving() should take a message so that it can at leaswt be logged on the same line
< adiabat> I get lots of that kind of thing in the log; non-continuous headers sequence, also bad-diffbits, incorrect proof of work (code 16)
< adiabat> the latter seems to be from "/WorldBitcoin:0.16.1/"... whatever that is
< sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i got around to doing a little investigation, looks like there was some sigops attack stuff happening back in november 2015, and i appear to have data from back then
< sdaftuar> so presumably i should have a way to simulate and evaluate alternate options if you have something to try
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #12218: net: Move misbehaving logging to net logging category (master...2018_01_misbehaving_logging) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12218
< wumpus> argh, running with debug=net gives me way too much logging output, I wish there was a low-traffic net category
< wumpus> which just logs the stuff that used to be logged unconditionally
< wumpus> I don't want every single message or requested transaction :/
< jnewbery> in general, log levels would be nice, and the ability to set different levels for different catagories (rather than just on/off)
< wumpus> yeah...
< wumpus> this really makes net logging unusable for me :/
< jnewbery> wumpus, for your failing p2p-fullblocktest: running master? running with --enable-debug? Which line in p2p-fullblocktest is failing (you should have an INFO log like 2017-12-12 12:46:23.112000 TestFramework.comptool (INFO): Running test 99: test/functional/p2p-fullblocktest.py line 1283
< wumpus> hm I don't actually know if I'm running with --enable-debug
< wumpus> let me try with #12197 :)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12197 | Log debug build status and warn when running benchmarks by laanwj · Pull Request #12197 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< instagibbs> almost #bitcoin but not quite: in master is there any way to back out legacy addresses from (p2sh)-p2wpkh addresses from -cli or elsewhere?
< wumpus> (I did enable debug to test that, it might still be on, that'd explain something!)
< instagibbs> aside from self-computing using pubkey of course :)
< wumpus> jnewbery: yep, I'm running debug build, will try to rebuild in release mode
< wumpus> instagibbs: I don't know
< wumpus> but let me check first what line the error happens
< wumpus> "OSError: [Errno 28] No space left on device" oops
< wumpus> hehe /tmp was 30GB, lots of abandoned test files after failed tests
< provoostenator> Can we get binaries for Ubuntu 18.04 bionic?
< wumpus> provoostenator: I don't understand what you mean
< wumpus> it's possible to download pre-release ubuntu images here https://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/bionic/current/ though I'm not sure how well and if they work
< provoostenator> On the nightly Ubuntu 18.04 build `sudo add-apt-repository ppa:bitcoin/bitcoin && sudo apt-get update` complains:
< provoostenator> The repository '..... bionic Release' does not have Release file. Updating from such a repoisotry can't be done surecurity,
< provoostenator> (sorry, can't get copy-paste to work on VirtualBox)
< wumpus> well it's not released yet so I'd expect some bugs
< wumpus> the mirrors likely don't have packages for it yet
< provoostenator> Ok, so that's not an incantation we need to do, but something the Ubuntu folks need to fix?
< provoostenator> Also, who is "so"?
< wumpus> seems some of the ppas have bionic packages so I guess it's something that needs to be enabled
< wumpus> jnewbery: you were right, building in release mode made the problem go away
< wumpus> interesting
< jnewbery> p2p-fullblock has a huge re-org at the end. Running in debug can make the test time out waiting for that re-org. #11632
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11632 | p2p-fullblocktest.py fails occasionally · Issue #11632 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #12220: RFC: Error if relative -walletdir is specified (master...pr/wdabs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12220
< wumpus> meeting time?
< sipa> meetung?
< wumpus> #startmeeting
< lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 18 19:00:46 2018 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
< lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
< meshcollider> Hi
< sipa> Hi
< gmaxwell> HI
< wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator
< jonasschnelli> hi
< achow101> hi
< jnewbery> hi
< MarcoFalke> action release segwit wallet?
< wumpus> regarding 0.16.0, we're down to 5 PRs and 4 issues: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/30 almost there!
< sipa> i want to add support for segwit to importmulti; i want to have a PR for that today
< gmaxwell> oops.
< sipa> and if not, i'll create an issue
< wumpus> I guess #11124 can be closed because of #11991?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11124 | Generate segwit address in receive payment tab? · Issue #11124 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11991 | [qt] Receive: checkbox for bech32 address by Sjors · Pull Request #11991 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider> I guess #11489 replaces the other issue too
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11489 | [wallet] sendtoaddress output type argument by kallewoof · Pull Request #11489 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider> (11134)
< phantomcircuit> im here
< wumpus> meshcollider: merging that will automatically close the issue
< wumpus> (or should, as it's properly referenced in the PR)
< wumpus> I guess we should discuss #12216
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12216 | scripted-diff: prefix [address|change]type parameters with default by Sjors · Pull Request #12216 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< achow101> should 11489 be tagged for 0.16?
< meshcollider> Yeah that's what I meant ^
< wumpus> #topic renamee address|changetype parameters
< wumpus> #11489
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11489 | [wallet] sendtoaddress output type argument by kallewoof · Pull Request #11489 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider> I meant add the tag to the PR and take it off the issue
< jonasschnelli> defaultaddresstype seems fine... though I miss the wallet prefix (but it's no consistent anyways)
< jonasschnelli> I would have prefered -walletaddresstype
< jonasschnelli> but meh
< kanzure> hi.
< wumpus> -defaultwalletaddresstype !
< jonasschnelli> Bit long... but would be my the most precise one
< wumpus> I think it's overkill
< wumpus> the documentation can specify what the option is for, and what it applies to
< wumpus> the whole documentation does not need to be in the option name
< jonasschnelli> Yes. Right. I think -defauladdresstype seems the best choice then.
< achow101> I don't particularly care about what it's called as long as the documentation explains it clearly
< instagibbs> default is implied in a ton of arguments already, but whatever
< wumpus> shorter option names are easier to remember/type
< wumpus> instagibbs: I agree
< jonasschnelli> instagibbs: good point.
< jonasschnelli> Yes. Lets keep -addresstype then
< wumpus> I'm also not sure we should rename it at this point
< jonasschnelli> Don't add more unnecesarry work
< instagibbs> oh, im getting agreement, ok :)
< wumpus> as long as the help message explains that it changes the default, it should be fine
< wumpus> any other topics?
< achow101> Can i ask for #12180 to be in for 0.16?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12180 | scripted-diff: change kB to kvB, kilobyte to kilovbyte for transaction fee rate things by achow101 · Pull Request #12180 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> I think we should stop adding new PRs to 0.16.0, seriously
< sipa> Kilov Byte, sounds like a unit named after some russian scientist
< jonasschnelli> heh
< gmaxwell> then you can have charts of block's kilovbyte complexity.
< wumpus> lol!
< jtimon> hi
< wumpus> what the hell is that
< wumpus> ohh kilo-vbyte
< sipa> yeah :)
< gmaxwell> yes.
< wumpus> I don't like the word
< achow101> the base unit is vbyte
< meshcollider> What about vkilobyte
< wumpus> I get it, but kilovbyte just reads... awkward
< jonasschnelli> I think achow101 intentions are good. Maybe its just the wording. But I don't think it's necessary for the already later 0.16 release
< gmaxwell> it's extra confusing to people that our kilo is 1000 not 1024 there too. :)
< phantomcircuit> shouldn't the change output simply attempt to mirror the style of the payment address?
< wumpus> if it was 1024 it would be kivB
< phantomcircuit> regardless of whether that's segwit or not?
< sipa> phantomcircuit: there's a PR for that
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: there is a PR for that.
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: though you don't want to start using segwit in a wallet that is set to NOT use segwit in legacy mode.
< jonasschnelli> Should #12213 be in 0.16?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12213 | Add address type option to addmultisigaddress by promag · Pull Request #12213 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< achow101> the point was to clarify that the fee rate is in virtual bytes and not actual bytes
< wumpus> achow101: yes, I completely agree with that point
< wumpus> but making up new words, I don't know
< gmaxwell> I don't like the word virtual. We should call them victory bytes.
< booyah> what about wu? kwu? wasn't work unit a thing
< jonasschnelli> #12194 would also be trivial for 0.16 (and add consistent addresstype support)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12194 | Add change type option to fundrawtransaction by promag · Pull Request #12194 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< booyah> *weight
< achow101> according to rusty, they're called sipas
< wumpus> lol oh no, not more things for 0.16.0, do we ever want to release this
< gmaxwell> booyah: weight isn't directly comparible to the fee units people have gotten used to.
< meshcollider> booyah: using weight means factor of 4 difference in the actual number which will confuse people I think
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #12221: RFC: Rename -walletdir option to -walletsdir (scripted-diff) (master...pr/wdren) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12221
< gmaxwell> wallet'sdir ?
< gmaxwell> :P
< wumpus> noooo
< kanzure> multiwalletdir?
< wumpus> just stick to walletdir, don't add a s in there please
< gmaxwell> ack
< wumpus> I'll forget that every time
< phantomcircuit> shouldn't the change script type match the payment type for sendtoaddress ?
< phantomcircuit> regardless of whether it's segwit or not
< wumpus> again, not the entire documentation of an option needs to be in the option name
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: 11:13:52 < sipa> phantomcircuit: there's a PR for that
< wumpus> keeping option names short in general is good
< phantomcircuit> ok
< kanzure> options should be replaced by hexadecimal identifiers, so that documentation must be consulted?
< phantomcircuit> (got disconnected didn't think that went through)
< * kanzure> hides
< sipa> kanzure: double-SHA256 of the english description of the option, so that you show you've actually read the documentation
< * sipa> hides more
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: to at least a limited extent, if the wallet is allowed to use segwit (not legacy mode), then it'll toggle between native segwit and p2sh based on the outputs.
< jcorgan> bech32 would be how the hipsters would do it
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: I'd like to see that PR get merged because it should increase native usage a bunch.
< wumpus> do we need 32948 PRs that just rename options
< morcos> wumpus: Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight Pull Requests?
< wumpus> morcos: yes
< meshcollider> More pull requests = more active development though right ;)
< gmaxwell> wumpus: well there are many more possible renamings than that, so we have a long way to go. :P
< booyah> wumpus: we do not? (:
< jtimon> wumpus: right, as long as names are clear, the shoreter the better
< jtimon> s/shoreter/shorter/
< meshcollider> Let's just start using -a, -b, -c ....
< jtimon> meshcollider: you forgot the "as long as they are clear" part :p
< wumpus> any other topics?
< sipa> let's get back to work!
< meshcollider> And more update about signing certs?
< jonasschnelli> cfields
< meshcollider> Any*
< jonasschnelli> Last state is that we are going to sign 0.16 with a single person RSA
< jonasschnelli> (OSX)
< jtimon> mircrotopic if since I wasn't here for the priority prs topic: can https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12172 haz priority and maybe even get to 0.16 ?
< MarcoFalke> I think only what is tagged 0.16 is priority right now
< MarcoFalke> We didn't do the priority prs thing
< wumpus> yes, high priority for review is the 0.16 milestone list right now
< wumpus> we'll start using the project again after 0.16 is branched
< MarcoFalke> end meeting?
< jtimon> MarcoFalke: ok, perhaps it can be priority review but not for 0.16 or priority review but only after 0.16 is forked or something, I don't know
< MarcoFalke> jtimon: I reviewed it. If other people like it they will come by, I guess.
< wumpus> jtimon: I've added it to the project anyhow
< wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/30 is at 8 PRs, 3 issues now
< wumpus> we gained 3 PRs during this meeting, and closed one issue
< jonasschnelli> heh... oh boy
< meshcollider> #12216 can be removed if we decided not to do it?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12216 | scripted-diff: prefix [address|change]type parameters with default by Sjors · Pull Request #12216 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jonasschnelli> I think #11281 is ready... though another ack would be great
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11281 | Avoid permanent cs_main/cs_wallet lock during RescanFromTime by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #11281 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< MarcoFalke> They are just tagged for 0.16. I think some should be closed without merge
< jtimon> MarcoFalke: thanks, I was just testing waters and as said "microtopic", I can always rebase this tiny thing for my purposes, it's just always good to get the thing you need in if you can, but no big deal at all
< wumpus> MarcoFalke: so they're not all blockers for 0.16?
< MarcoFalke> Not all, imo
< MarcoFalke> e.g. #11489 is clearly a feature
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11489 | [wallet] sendtoaddress output type argument by kallewoof · Pull Request #11489 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jtimon> as said I missed half the meeting but I imagine the leitmotive was "0.16, let's do this!" or something
< meshcollider> wumpus: #11708 is not on the milestone but might be RTM anyway and would be nice
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11708 | Add P2SH-P2WSH support to signrawtransaction and listunspent RPC by MeshCollider · Pull Request #11708 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> ok removed #12216
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12216 | scripted-diff: prefix [address|change]type parameters with default by Sjors · Pull Request #12216 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jonasschnelli> Remove #11489 as well? Got also a NACK
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11489 | [wallet] sendtoaddress output type argument by kallewoof · Pull Request #11489 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< sipa> well 12216 either goes into 0.16, or we don't do it at all - i don't think we should be renaming options that have been in releases
< wumpus> jtimon: yes, the action was supposed to be 'release 0.16', but we're not there yet apparently :)
< wumpus> I hope we can do that next week
< gmaxwell> oh the walletdir stuff wasn't already released?
< jonasschnelli> sipa: yes.
< jnewbery> gmaxwell: correct
< gmaxwell> renaming it is less crazy than I was thinking.
< wumpus> gmaxwell: no, it's new in 0.16
< jtimon> wumpus: too bad, but are we ready to fork 0.16?
< wumpus> jtimon: no!
< wumpus> we're not ready yet we're not ready yet
< MarcoFalke> Hopefully early next week, jtimon
< gmaxwell> You have to say it three times for the spell to work.
< wumpus> I think we're waiting for sipa's PR and reviews of some of the others
< wumpus> gmaxwell: we're not ready yet we're not ready yet we're not ready yet
< jtimon> ok, as always I complain about the release process slowing donw master, which is probably unavoidable
< meshcollider> Ok remove 11489 and 11134 then?
< wumpus> can't make everyone happy
< wumpus> we also don't want to do a crappy release
< wumpus> better to have it slip a bit and make sure everything is working as it should, than rush it out
< gmaxwell> 0.16 is very important, I don't think anything !0.16 that is in flight right now is remotely as important as getting 0.16 out soon.
< jonasschnelli> Removed #11489 from 0.16
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11489 | [wallet] sendtoaddress output type argument by kallewoof · Pull Request #11489 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jtimon> sorry, guys, I'm just impacient, but I wasn't impacient enought to fully review the already merged sw wallet support, so I don't feel I can ask for anything (also as always)
< gmaxwell> So in the unlikely event that someone can't contribute to making 0.16 better, I think we're still better off with them sitting on their hands rather than doing anything that would make 0.16 take longer or be less good.
< wumpus> jtimon: exactly, if you want to help hurry the release along, help testing and reviewing the PRs that are left
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky closed pull request #12221: RFC: Rename -walletdir option to -walletsdir (scripted-diff) (master...pr/wdren) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12221
< meshcollider> jonasschnelli: I think the corresponding issue should be removed too
< jonasschnelli> meshcollider: thanks
< wumpus> ok, any other topics? if not, let's close early
< jtimon> wumpus: I know, but I probably won't, I'm sorry, just reiterating my old complain that master shouldn't ever be stopped, no big deal
< gmaxwell> Noted.
< wumpus> #endmeeting
< lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Jan 18 19:39:35 2018 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
< wumpus> jtimon: yes, normally we work according to a schedule, this time it's a bit more ad-hoc, on purpose, we won't make a habit out of it
< meshcollider> It's annoying that the minutes now include every issue that was mentioned in the meeting including repeats...
< instagibbs> sounds like a job for blockchain
< jtimon> I know, I think this is very good, I will always ask for even better, sorry
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: on change address matching, our power to do that is kinda limited: If the output type is p2sh or p2wsh we can't actually tell whats in it, and our usage may look nothing like it. And also we're not about to use p2pkh on a wallet that is otherwise segwit, just because the payee uses it... since the fee impact to the user would be non-negigible. (though perhaps it would be reason
< gmaxwell> able to allow that behavior to be configured)
< gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: what the open PR does, IIRC is if your wallet is configured to use p2sh-embedded-segwit (e.g. the default in master), it will use native segwit for the change if any of the requested outputs are native segwit.
< sipa> also, once native is common on the network for payments (= many transactions exist which just have a single native segwit output), it may make sense to change the default to producing bech32 change regardless of payment destination, as it's not a privacy leak anymore
< gmaxwell> and I assume that once BC1 addresses are accepted almost everywhere, we'll change the default to native, and probably keep using native even if the output type is p2sh.
< gmaxwell> You could argue that there is some advantage to matching, but I think its washed out by the high probablity that the underlying p2sh script does not match.
< gmaxwell> and the tx fee savings of native.
< jtimon> wumpus: we haven't forked .16 yet, which imo is generally good until the 0.16 milestone only has 2 or 3 prs left, I just hate duplicating prs and also talling people (specially myelf) to wait until that happens. I'm certain you guys have done what I think it's best: merge prs or move for later in that list before forking. sorry, I'm being reiterative
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/898f560b55ab...10d10d7fadcf
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cc90a4f Russell Yanofsky: Avoid potential null dereference in ReceiveCoinsDialog constructor...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 10d10d7 Jonas Schnelli: Merge #12211: Avoid potential null dereference in ReceiveCoinsDialog constructor...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #12211: Avoid potential null dereference in ReceiveCoinsDialog constructor (master...pr/nullrecv) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12211
< jnewbery> wumpus: two ACKs for the docs clarification in #12166. It should be merged before v0.16 (or not at all)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12166 | [docs] Clarify -walletdir usage by jnewbery · Pull Request #12166 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gmaxwell> merge all the docs
< jonasschnelli> jnewbery: I'll have a look
< wumpus> jnewbery: I think the relative path functionality should be removed
< wumpus> jnewbery: e.g. #12220
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12220 | RFC: Error if relative -walletdir is specified by ryanofsky · Pull Request #12220 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jnewbery> ok, if 12220 is going to be merged, I should update the release docs to reflect that
< wumpus> but I'll tag it for 0.16, doc PRs don't hurt
< ryanofsky> just merge the doc pr now?
< ryanofsky> i can update the docs in the other one
< wumpus> ok
< jnewbery> depends on merge order. I'm happy to update 12166 if 12220 gets merged
< ryanofsky> same, doc pr seems ready to go though
< jonasschnelli> 12166 is pure documentation regardless of forbidding the relative paths...
< jonasschnelli> (and its ready for merge IMO)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/10d10d7fadcf...e839d6570d9d
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 97c3cad John Newbery: [docs] Clarify -walletdir usage
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e839d65 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #12166: [docs] Clarify -walletdir usage...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #12166: [docs] Clarify -walletdir usage (master...clarify_walletdir_usage) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12166
< wumpus> jonasschnelli: I would have been ok with relative paths if they meant 'relative to datadir' as other relative paths in our options, but relative to current directory isn't really acceptable, that's simply a recipe for confusion, especially if provided in bitcoin.conf
< wumpus> but forbidding relative paths for the walletdir is fine too
< jonasschnelli> Yes. I'd say we should forbid relative path for the wallet dir.
< jonasschnelli> (just said not in 12166)
< ryanofsky> datadir-relative paths make sense to me too, but we can always add that later if relative paths disallowed now
< wumpus> yyes, agreed ryanofsky
< jonasschnelli> +1
< wumpus> jonasschnelli: looks like your mainnet DNS seed is malfunctioning
< jonasschnelli> damit...
< jonasschnelli> let me check
< jonasschnelli> hmm... looks good.
< jonasschnelli> wumpus: what issue did you got on your side?
< jonasschnelli> Getting successful requests/responses as well
< wumpus> jonasschnelli: seems to work again now
< wumpus> just a few minutes ago, and earlier today it was not
< jonasschnelli> hmm... maybe a servercenter issue? logs are looking good.
< * jonasschnelli> new project for 2018, server center in home cellar, 1Gbit sym. uplink required. :)
< wumpus> yes, want that too :)
< jonasschnelli> Just so uneconomical...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e839d6570d9d...9a97f39afaa8
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7767842 Jeremiah Buddenhagen: Trivial: Fix spelling in zapwallettxes test description...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9a97f39 MarcoFalke: Merge #12212: Trivial: Fix spelling in zapwallettxes test description...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #12212: Trivial: Fix spelling in zapwallettxes test description (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12212
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #12216: scripted-diff: prefix [address|change]type parameters with 'default' (master...2018/01/defaultaddresstype) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12216