< meshcollider> wumpus: I've updated the tests for #15087
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15087 | Error if rpcpassword contains hash in conf sections by MeshCollider · Pull Request #15087 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider> sorry for the delay, I'm travelling at the moment
< wumpus> meshcollider: thanks!
< wumpus> can we have some review on #14955 please? :$
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14955 | Switch all RNG code to the built-in PRNG by sipa · Pull Request #14955 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< instagibbs> wumpus, it's kind of scary material to review imo
< instagibbs> but i can at least read it
< instagibbs> err wait, maybe this is different one, nvm
< wumpus> instagibbs: that's why I request reviews on it, the worst-case scenario to review for would be loss of randomness for wallet key generation
< wumpus> for the rest, randomness is used for DoS avoidance in P2P code and unordered_map hashing and such; would be bad if it breaks, but not as disastrous ast ehe ffect on the wallet
< sipa> as a reviewer you probably want to reason through what happens in a call to GetStrongRandBytes
< sipa> to see that all those randomness sources are actually affecting the output
< instagibbs> I've done that historically at least, I'll take a look
< wumpus> instagibbs: thanks!
< promag> wumpus: nit, don't mind my nits
< wumpus> promag: I agree; we waited a few days for the author to update for it, but if they don't, let's just merge imo
< wumpus> especially as it's a new contributor
< wumpus> lol @ amount of bikeshedding in #15127
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15127 | docs: Clarifying testing instructions by benthecarman · Pull Request #15127 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> (FWIW I think this is good, if you really have to file a single-line change to the documentation, be prepared to get a lot of review on it :-) )
< sipa> yeah...
< provoostenator> sipa: sounds like a good opportunity to read up on some C++ concepts, added to my review list. At least it compiles on macOS and two new wallets don't get the same address :-)
< sipa> provoostenator: unfortunately, the class of likely bugs in a system like this will not result in duplicate randomness, but just predictable one (for example, the Debian OpenSSL bug from a few years ago resulted in randomness with a bit over 16 bits of entropy, meaning you'd still need to observe 1000s to observe anything bad)
< provoostenator> Indeed, touching this code is scary. But is waiting for the next OpenSSL drama I guess?
< provoostenator> *so is
< sipa> i think at this point we're already not relying on openssl for much except belt and suspenders
< gmaxwell> [ignoring BIP70] Now we're just stuck issuing new binaries the next time there is some zomg panic about openssl because we statically link to it.
< sipa> yup
< sipa> i think i would describe our openssl dependency as annoying, so we'd like to get rid of it - but there isn't any specific pressing reason to do so
< gmaxwell> via bip 70 though it could actually introduce vulnerabilities, though thats really a question about getting rid of bip70, not openssl.
< provoostenator> BIP70 is depreacted so depending on when disaster happens, we could then just ship a new binary with OpenSSL removed.
< gmaxwell> yea, if anyone has any funds left after. :)
< cjd> is it common to connect nodes holding money to the public network ? I assumed that by now everyone was using a guard node which relayed for their LAN
< gmaxwell> cjd: they should be but my expirence is that almost no one does... the resource usage of doing so is quite considerable.
< cjd> ahh ok
< gmaxwell> Also BIP70s implementation inherently had to be run from a wallet.
< gmaxwell> My statement was mostly hyperbole, but had an underlying point that "wait until it fails" isn't a great move. :P
< cjd> hm, lightning network is going to create some pressure to run big money on network-connected servers
< gkrizek> wumpus: Are you able to still see the configuration for the IRC GitHub Service? I'm working on a replacement, but I'm not sure what the events were it would comment about in here .
< gkrizek> Seems like it was push to any branch, PR open, close, merge.
< echeveria> gmaxwell: sipa: bip70 could kinda be a different binary at this point, but I don't think it's level of use justifies any sort of investment in development.
< echeveria> if this was my software I'd be putting a bounty in the bip70 payment window to see if anybody notices it. you found the secret bit! send a letter to this address and we'll mail you a prize!
< gmaxwell> yea, I think bip70 as an external program would be nice, except no one cares about it...
< gmaxwell> it always should have been done that way.
< gmaxwell> I even went and tried to break it out at one point, but it was implemented with QT crap... (which is stupid, the external program could operate just as a commandline tool, ...)
< promag> provoostenator: not sure if I understand your comment https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15084#pullrequestreview-190732482
< promag> provoostenator: you agree with what?
< promag> big lag with github emails?
< fanquake> yes
< phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, as far as i know literally only bitpay uses bip70
< phantomcircuit> i've never seen it used anywhere else
< roasbeef> coinbase too maybe?
< jarthur> Stripe had thrown its support in, prior to taking a break from Bitcoin point of sale.
< luke-jr> phantomcircuit: BitPay isn't even BIP70-compatible
< gmaxwell> roasbeef: they support it but unclear how much they use it...
< gmaxwell> like they spent more than half a year with their cert expired...
< roasbeef> luke-jr: orly? iirc they enforce it and there's no other way to pay them other than via bip70
< roasbeef> heh
< gmaxwell> roasbeef: their bip70 violates the spec and can't be used with bitcoin core regardless.
< luke-jr> roasbeef: iirc it "works" but it violates spec
< luke-jr> gmaxwell: why can't it be?
< luke-jr> last time I used bitpay, it worked..
< gmaxwell> luke-jr: because if they see the txn first they abort the payment, or at least they were a couple months ago.
< gmaxwell> Last time I tried they just aborted the payment.
< luke-jr> O.o
< gmaxwell> I guess it's hard to say exactly what they do because they can change... :)
< luke-jr> I think it's been over a year since I last used it, so..
< gmaxwell> In any case they 'require' non-conforming behavior, and what they require introduces vulnerablities. :(
< gmaxwell> Which is just fucked, because the thing they _want_ is what sipa fought for with gavin and eventually burned out advocating.
< gmaxwell> Unfortunately, bitpay didn't think through the implications of just dumbly grafting it on.