< KevinW> help
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #15625: refactor: Remove unused function (master...remove-unused-function) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15625
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e45b7f20e651...81f732bcaa30
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 054d01d Pieter Wuille: Do not relay banned IP addresses
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 81f732b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #15617: p2p: Do not relay banned IP addresses
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #15617: p2p: Do not relay banned IP addresses (master...201903_nobannedrelay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15617
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 commit to 0.18: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d3a038200709...238ef3369296
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.18 238ef33 Pieter Wuille: Do not relay banned IP addresses
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #15626: Docs: Update ACK description in CONTRIBUTING.md (master...update-ack-description-in-contributing-md) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15626
< wumpus> i've added the list of PRs and authors to the preliminary release notes, if someone could double-check that'd be good, https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/0.18.0-Release-Notes-Draft
< fanquake> wumpus can do
< fanquake> #15607 probably mergable if you agree with the changes
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15607 | [Docs] Release process updates by jonatack · Pull Request #15607 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> (e.g. I always clean up the list and have tried to remove "silly" PRs, small refactors, and self-referential documentation ones that refer to changing the release notes, and so on, but I might have removed too much or little)
< fanquake> silly PRs :o
< wumpus> yes, to not have a list with 1000 times "fix typo" :)
< fanquake> sounds right, release notes are quite long as is
< wumpus> also it's pretty easy to miscategorize things
< fanquake> just throw everything into "misc"
< meshcollider> lol
< wumpus> hehe
< wumpus> how postmodern
< wumpus> there's also still a few PRs (such as #12493) that are marked "needs release note" https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=label%3A%22Needs+release+note%22+
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12493 | [wallet] Reopen CDBEnv after encryption instead of shutting down by achow101 · Pull Request #12493 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> (though before you begin writing please check if the PR is actually part of this release, or an earlier one and somehow still has the tag! looks like there's a few of those)
< fanquake> Also looks like some that we closed un-merged and still have the tag
< wumpus> :$
< fanquake> "TODO for release notes 0.17.0" Still "Needs release note"
< wumpus> reminder: remove everything from that tag after -final
< fanquake> Could be another addition in #15607
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15607 | [Docs] Release process updates by jonatack · Pull Request #15607 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> yes!
< fanquake> Ok. No more issues tagged needing release notes, and < 10 PRs left.
< fanquake> Only 3 actually. Descriptor checksums, Reopen CDBEnv after encryption instead of shutdown & Never bind INADDR_ANY by default.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] layer1gfx opened pull request #15627: Update bitcoin_de.ts (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15627
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #15627: Update bitcoin_de.ts (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15627
< wumpus> fanquake: thanks for sorting them out
< wumpus> fanquake: I think we have the INADDR_ANY one; see "The rpcallowip option can no longer be used to automatically listen " under configuration option changes
< wumpus> updated
< fanquake> wumpus yes good call
< nothingmuch> what is the purpose of NET_INTERNAL address?
< nothingmuch> (i've looked at #10466 which introduces it, but i don't understand what problem it actually solved)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10466 | Use localhost for bitcoin · Issue #10466 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< nothingmuch> oops, #11512
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11512 | Use GetDesireableServiceFlags in seeds, dnsseeds, fixing static seed adding by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #11512 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< nothingmuch> wait, that's not it either... sorry for spamming, too many open tabs... 10446
< dongcarl> fanquake: Hey let me know if there are things I didn't address yet for your help on Guix! Too many threads haha. But the tool I linked to in https://github.com/fanquake/core-review/issues/5 should make it much easier to just use capabilities
< dongcarl> nothingmuch: hey!
< wumpus> nothingmuch: NET_INTERNAL is used for IP ranges that are reserved for internal networks like 192.168.*
< wumpus> nothingmuch: they're not supposed to be gossiped over addr messages
< nothingmuch> wumpus: that's what i guessed when i first found it in the code (i was trying to figure out proxy selection logic), but IsInternal seems to specifically match an ipv6 private sub-range
< nothingmuch> dongcarl: OH HAI!
< dongcarl> nothingmuch: Check out `SetInternal`
< nothingmuch> that's the part that got me confused ^_^
< wumpus> nothingmuch: SetInternal is a scheme to generate fake internal addresses for the addrdb bucketing logic
< wumpus> ah yes you already had #10446, there cfields kind of explains it
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10446 | net: avoid extra dns query per seed by theuni · Pull Request #10446 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< dongcarl> nothingmuch: basically, instead of having an actual IP, you have (0xFD + sha256("bitcoin")[0:5] + sha256(hostname))[0:16], which is useful in cases where you don't actually care about the IP, but the hostname, e.g. for seeds
< * dongcarl> might be wrong
< nothingmuch> i read through that explanation, but didn't understand the problem statement ("resolve an extra host")
< nothingmuch> dongcarl: i think that's right, and that the goal is to get LookupHost to return an entry which would not be connected to under any circumstances
< nothingmuch> but i'm still confused as to why that would happen
< dongcarl> the "not be connected to under any circumstance" part is not as important as "we can identify these seeds by their hostname rather than their IP in AddrMan"
< dongcarl> nothingmuch: does that make sense?
< nothingmuch> hasn't clicked yet, staring hard at the call sites of SetInternal in net.cpp...
< dongcarl> Okay, I'd suggest reading the commit message again, and lmk where you're stuck
< nothingmuch> dongcarl: sorry, IRL distractions + thundering herd of messages... i reread the subsequent commit and it makes sense now. thanks!
< dongcarl> :+1:
< wumpus> yay
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/81f732bcaa30...93623eea71e7
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa11c03 MarcoFalke: refactor: Expose UndoReadFromDisk in header
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 93623ee MarcoFalke: Merge #15623: refactor: Expose UndoReadFromDisk in header
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #15623: refactor: Expose UndoReadFromDisk in header (master...1903-UndoReadFromDiskHeader) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15623
< PowPos> Guys there's a PoW vs PoS debate
< PowPos> With Kyle Samani from Multicoin
< PowPos> and Will Martino from Kadena
< PowPos> Live at the moment
< PowPos> Would love to have you guys come in
< sipa> stop spamming
< PowPos> Sorry about that
< mischa010> hi, compact blocks seems to reduce orphan rates by ~75%, would there happen to be a source somewhere stating this?:p
< sipa> mischa010: does not compute
< sipa> block propagation shouldn't affect tx relay i think
< sipa> oh, you mean orphan blocks
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/93623eea71e7...bbc436e09ef1
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0d9d2b3 Jon Atack: Doc: update ACK description in CONTRIBUTING.md
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bbc436e Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #15626: Docs: Update ACK description in CONTRIBUTING.md
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #15626: Docs: Update ACK description in CONTRIBUTING.md (master...update-ack-description-in-contributing-md) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15626
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bbc436e09ef1...b3f82284ba90
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ef0019e Patrick Strateman: Generate log entry when blocks messages are received unexpectedly.
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b3f8228 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #15597: net: Generate log entry when blocks messages are received un...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #15597: net: Generate log entry when blocks messages are received unexpectedly (master...2019-03-12-net-unexpected-block) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15597
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 18 commits to 0.17: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/392d1382c1b1...6cf81b01b48e
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.17 f455979 Andrew Chow: Add function to close all Db's and reload the databae environment
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.17 048fda2 Andrew Chow: After encrypting the wallet, reload the database environment
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.17 435df68 Andrew Chow: Move BerkeleyEnvironment deletion from internal method to callsite
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #15575: 0.17: Backport 15297 (0.17...2019-03-backport-15297-017) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15575
< gmaxwell> 12:02:39 < mischa010> hi, compact blocks seems to reduce orphan rates by ~75%, would there happen to be a source somewhere stating this?:p
< gmaxwell> 75% sounds like a really low figure, I believe the effect is greater than that.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #15629: init: Throw error when network specific config is ignored (master...1903-InitErrorConf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15629
< dongcarl> Trying to understand qt: at a high level, the user-visible options are in `OptionsModel` whereas the non-user-visible ones are kept in `gArgs`, right?
< dongcarl> (of course there's interactions between them but... just talking in general)
< ryanofsky> most options will be in gArgs regardless, optionsmodel.cpp will set them there
< ryanofsky> only settings that aren't in gargs are things that are gui specific like minimize to tray
< dongcarl> ryanofsky: I see. When we have multiprocess bitcoin, will it be an interface violation for optionsmodel.cpp to include net.h?
< ryanofsky> for now yeah. i was kind of overzealous in #10244 and changed qt to only access gArgs indirectly through the Node interface
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10244 | Refactor: separate gui from wallet and node by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10244 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< ryanofsky> i want to change that to get some simplifications, but for now it is the current state
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #15631: qa: mininode: Clearer error message on invalid magic bytes (master...1903-qaMagicMininode) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15631
< ryanofsky> if you know what problem you want to solve, i can point you in the right direction. last thing I heard about #14856, is that you wanted to have multiple connmans in a single gui, but that didn't quite make sense to me
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14856 | net: remove more CConnman globals (theuni) by dongcarl · Pull Request #14856 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #15632: Remove ResendWalletTransactions from the Validation Interface (master...no_resend_wallet_txs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15632
< mischa010> [20:42] <gmaxwell> 75% sounds like a really low figure, I believe the effect is greater than that.
< mischa010> has anyone done measurements that i can look at?
< sipa> it's kind of hard to test, as it depends on ecosystem adoption and not just what the test nodes do
< sipa> and there are certainly historical measurements, but those are also influenced by other factors
< mischa010> i did a linear regression on an orphan blocks per 2 days bar chart
< mischa010> please excuse the lack of binning, im still working on it
< sipa> is this just your own node?
< mischa010> no the data is from blockchain.info
< mischa010> the fit seems to show an approximately 75% decrease since compact blocks were merged
< mischa010> but as you said, lots of other factors influence it of course
< mischa010> adoption, verification speed, read/write speed
< mischa010> correct?
< sipa> miner topology
< sipa> decentralization of hashpower
< sipa> validationless mining
< sipa> fibre deployment
< mischa010> thanks
< mischa010> btw measurements seem to go to zero somewhere in 2017, i wonder if they stopped collecting data or orphan rate actually went to zero :p
< gmaxwell> mischa010: it's not zero, I assume you're looking at blockchain.info which basically gives garbage data.
< gmaxwell> they aren't even trying.
< gmaxwell> orphaning is caused by latency at many different places in the stack, orphaning related to non-propagation causes doesn't propagate well, and so its difficult to observe.
< gmaxwell> if you look from only one node/geography you'll only see a tiny fraction of it.
< gmaxwell> for some reason bc.i doesn't even show that much, I'd guess their collection is just broken entirely.
< mischa010> thanks, it's the best data i could find
< mischa010> so nice to have a list of reasons to explain divergence of my results
< mischa010> \difference from prediction
< mischa010> also blocks weren't full in 2014!
< gmaxwell> This has much better data: https://twitter.com/tillneu/status/1076034211872677888
< midnightmagic> holy moly.
< midnightmagic> look at that.
< mischa010> thanks gmaxwell