< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #17947: test: add unit test for non-standard txs with too large tx size (master...20200116-test-check-for-non-standard-txs-with-too-large-tx-size) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17947
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #17570: test: add unit test for non-standard txs w/ too large tx size (master...test_unit_IsStandardTx_tx-size) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17570
< bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 0deba68 fanquake: Merge #17943: qt, refactor: Remove never used default parameter
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #17943: qt, refactor: Remove never used default parameter (master...20200116-message-parameter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17943
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #17948: build: pass -fno-ident to prevent compilers emitting ident directives (master...pass_fno_ident) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17948
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] emilengler opened pull request #17949: doc: Remove double space in README_windows.txt (master...2020-01-remove-double-space-in-readme-win) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17949
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] emilengler closed pull request #17949: doc: Remove double space in README_windows.txt (master...2020-01-remove-double-space-in-readme-win) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17949
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] emilengler opened pull request #17950: gui: Check the strength of an encryption password (master...2020-01-password-strength-checker) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17950
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #17951: Use rolling bloom filter of recent block txs for AlreadyHave() check (master...2020-01-improve-alreadyhave) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17951
< meshcollider>
Welcome to the first wallet meeting for 2020 :)
< jonatack>
hi
< sipa>
hi
< achow101>
hi
< wumpus>
hi
< meshcollider>
Does anyone have topic proposals? I'd like to quickly just have a discussion about wallet goals for the longer term since are are getting close to merging #17261
< gribble>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17261 | Make ScriptPubKeyMan an actual interface and the wallet to have multiple by achow101 . Pull Request #17261 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< meshcollider>
So wallet boxes are really a shorter term goal now \o/
< fjahr>
hi
< achow101>
finally
< jonatack>
I'd propose the topic of multilabels
< jonatack>
(after wallet boxes)
< achow101>
meshcollider: so what are the long term goals?
< jnewbery>
meshcollider: are you polling for long-term goals or were you going to tell us what your long-term goals are for the wallet?
< meshcollider>
jnewbery's contributor survey asks everyone what their goals for core are, so if people have been thinking about it, does anyone want to discuss anything they'd like to see in the wallet
< meshcollider>
Polling :)
< achow101>
I'd like hardware wallet support :)
< achow101>
but, in general, I think wallet boxes will let us do a lot more things
< jnewbery>
clean up the node-wallet interface and make progress towards multiprocess
< achow101>
and I guess semi-related would be miniscript and generic signing code
< meshcollider>
yeah I think there will be lots of opportunities for really good cleanups after the boxes are all merged
< meshcollider>
sipa: anything you envision?
< sipa>
nothing specifically
< meshcollider>
Alright awesome, so we do still have some clear longer term goals to continue with +1
< meshcollider>
#topic Multilabels (jonatack)
< achow101>
also descriptor wallets as a mid-term goal
< wumpus>
would also like hardware wallet support
< achow101>
jonatack: can you explain what you mean by mulitlabels>
< jonatack>
Multilabels: looking for concept acks on enabling passing an array of labels to
< meshcollider>
And remember to send (wallet or otherwise) topic discussion ideas for coredev to John or kanzure or someone
< kanzure>
thank you meshcollider
< kanzure>
and remember, if you don't send topics, then i will randomly assign them to you
< instagibbs>
slept through the meeting oops. For me it's Descriptor-wallets->{HWW/Miniscript} and also more flexible fee-bumping, just *assuming* someday we'll have real fees again
< jonatack>
instagibbs: sgtm
< instagibbs>
achow101 did some related prep work which should make auto-CPFP doable
< instagibbs>
RBF is pretty ok now(anything better is way more complicated), so having CPFP as another tool in the box would be super
< instagibbs>
#17331 is the PR I mentioned, makes effective value everywhere, kills off stupid CreateTransaction loop that has plagued us for years
< achow101>
unforunately no one wants to review coin selection
< elichai2>
I would love to see Descriptor wallets. I hate a PR kinda ready for taproot descriptors so with descriptor wallets I should be able to integrate taproot into the wallet pretty easily
< instagibbs>
Well, boxing wallet is sucking the air out for now, chill :)
< elichai2>
(not saying it's anytime soon :P)
< instagibbs>
achow101, also it doesn't appear you have to rebase yet so not very painful
< achow101>
instagibbs: on the bright side, no one touches coin selection so it doesn't need rebasing :)
< kanzure>
i'd rather review a coin selection simulator before i'd view an individual coin selection implementation?
< kanzure>
e.g. test against variety of circumstances and fee markets
< instagibbs>
kanzure, well I don't particularly care about the algorithms now, see the above PR
< instagibbs>
it's mostly structuring txn creation code to be less dumb
< achow101>
it has a minor impact on the selection algo though
< jonatack>
achow101: i think coin control is interesting :) am just constrained by amount of free time i can spend on bitcoin core
< instagibbs>
If you're ok with being a UTXO cop, I think Core selection is fine. It's when people are dusting you it costs.
< instagibbs>
Verbose and too complicated, but fine :)
< elichai2>
I'll try again :) Any tips on how to recreate failed travis enviroments locally? I have two weird failures in travis I want to test locally (CentOS one and `x86_64 Linux [GOAL: install] [xenial] [no depends, only system libs, sanitizers: thread (TSan), no wallet]`)
< jonatack>
elichai2: the failing travis logs are unhelpful?
< elichai2>
jonatack: basically compile errors. now I need to figure out why it compiles on some machines and other not
< elichai2>
the 2 Mac ones I know, my problem is with the other 2
< bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #17954: wallet: Remove calls to Chain::Lock methods in wallet (master...pr/unlock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17954
< elichai2>
jonatack: especially when travis doesn't print the exact commands being run :/
< achow101>
elichai2: all of the commands travis runs are in .travis.yml
< achow101>
it calls a bunch of scripts in ci/
< achow101>
those'll have all of the configure commands so you can replicate the config
< elichai2>
achow101: well you need to chase enviroment variables to figure out the exact commands, that what I'm doing now, launched a docker and trying to recreate the env, I think I was able to recreate the TSan error
< elichai2>
hopes there's a ./run_ci_locally lol
< jonatack>
elichai2: i avoid docker like the plague but yeah was thinking test those build environments with it
< elichai2>
jonatack: well easier to have the right g++ version with dockers
< jonatack>
yes. and maybe push on a different branch running travis locally for the final checks
< elichai2>
jonatack: right. that's usually what I do after I think i've fixed it
< jonatack>
with just the problematic builds. right. sorry not more helpful
< elichai2>
hmm the Tsan one seems to be either an error in boost or the fact that it's g++5.4 :( I guess I need to include the whole module because of that, why distros why :(
< achow101>
elichai2: you can make a new private repo and setup travis debug builds
< elichai2>
achow101: good idea, i'll add `set -x`
< achow101>
then you can ssh into the travis vm and do things there