< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b89f2d059937...3774281327c8
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e605088 Carl Dong: guix: Pin Guix using `guix time-machine`
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 88c8363 Carl Dong: guix: Update documentation for time-machine
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3774281 fanquake: Merge #17933: guix: Pin Guix using `guix time-machine`
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #17933: guix: Pin Guix using `guix time-machine` (master...2020-01-guix-time-machine) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17933
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3774281327c8...2755b2b1092d
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b3c4d9b Sebastian Falbesoner: test: rename test suite name "tx_validationcache_tests" to match filename
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2755b2b fanquake: Merge #18010: test: rename test suite name "tx_validationcache_tests" to m...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #18010: test: rename test suite name "tx_validationcache_tests" to match filename (master...20200127-test-adapt-test-suite-names-to-file-names) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18010
< provoostenator> valgrind
< provoostenator> Update on the valgrind mystery in #15382; it appears it doesn't like "echo"
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15382 | util: add runCommandParseJSON by Sjors . Pull Request #15382 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Bushstar opened pull request #18012: GBT segwit rule in RPC error msg missing single quotes (master...patch-5) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18012
< provoostenator> echo also handles quotes differently between Windows and Linux, so I probably need an alternative incantation for that test anyway.
< fanquake> Qt is ditching LTS releases for non-commercial users, and it looks like a "Qt Account" will soon be required to even download the open source packages: https://www.qt.io/blog/qt-offering-changes-2020
< fanquake> Ooh actually, should still be able to download the source with no account. Looks like it'll just be for the installers?
< luke-jr> fanquake: hmm, LTS only for commercial users sounds like pretty reasonable funding for open source
< luke-jr> they should probably think of a more reasonable price for end users tho (not sure how that will mesh with open source licensing)
< luke-jr> I guess there are practical complications of such a policy for a library ^^;
< luke-jr> is there a reason #16507 wasn't backported? cc fanquake instagibbs
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16507 | feefilter: Compute the absolute fee rather than stored rate by instagibbs . Pull Request #16507 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< instagibbs> luke-jr, AFAICT it only matters if min relay fee is changed to something not % 1000 == 0
< instagibbs> which no one is talking about doing basically ever
< instagibbs> I only found it because I was investigating for liquid related purposes, where DoS is less of a concern...
< elichai2> I'm getting this when running `./bench_bitcoin -filter=something` (it doesn't matter what "somethng" is ) `bench_bitcoin: bench/bench.cpp:119: static void benchmark::BenchRunner::RunAll(benchmark::Printer&, uint64_t, double, const string&, bool): Assertion `g_testing_setup == nullptr' failed.`
< elichai2> @MarcoFalke ahhm
< elichai2> I think I've found the problem+fix
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] elichai opened pull request #18013: bench: Fix benchmarks filters (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18013
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] elichai opened pull request #18014: Optimizing siphash implementation (master...2020-01-siphash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18014
< elichai2> I'll do clickbait and say that this PR makes siphash 3X times faster ?
< provoostenator> AppVeyor is having a tantrum again, lots of failures like this: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/DrahtBot/bitcoin/builds/30410830
< * elichai2> sigh
< provoostenator> (not the same issue as #17976)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17976 | Appveyor ci fails again . Issue #17976 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< elichai2> No space left on s390x again :/ a kick will be appreciated https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/643008022
< jeremyrubin> wumpus: I think https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17925 is in a mergeable state (2 acks, 1 looks good)
< wumpus> jeremyrubin: will take a look, tahnks
< wumpus> btw s390 travis build keeps running out of space
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2755b2b1092d...fe48ac8580ae
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0dae5a5 Elichai Turkel: Fix benchmarks filters
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fe48ac8 MarcoFalke: Merge #18013: bench: Fix benchmarks filters
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18013: bench: Fix benchmarks filters (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18013
< achow101> I think #17156 is rtm?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17156 | psbt: check that various indexes and amounts are within bounds by achow101 . Pull Request #17156 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< achow101> and maybe #17261, tho meshcollider needs to ack it
< 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
< luke-jr> how about #17843 ?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17843 | wallet: Reset reused transactions cache by fjahr . Pull Request #17843 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] JeremyRubin closed pull request #17375: Add asymptotes for benchmarking framework (master...asymptotic-benchmarks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17375
< fjahr> luke-jr: maybe wrong pr? That one is already merged.
< luke-jr> fjahr: not to backports
< fjahr> luke-jr: ah ok, i thought you meant rtm :)
< luke-jr> rtm?
< jeremyrubin> ready to merge
< gwillen> achow101: (or anybody) -- is it possible to have a PSBT with all inputs signed and yet for some reason we can't finalize and extract it
< gwillen> (and is that "in theory" or in practice?)
< achow101> no in theory, yes in practice :p
< achow101> In theory, the finalizer should be pretty dumb
< gwillen> what are the kinds of cases where this can happen in practice?
< achow101> but in practice, it verifies the transaction before spitting it out, so in practice, if you have an invalid signature, it won't finalize
< gwillen> ahhh, interesting
< gwillen> is that the only case you're aware of?
< achow101> yes
< achow101> other cases are usually that you've done something subtly wrong and it isn't actually signed
< sipa> or the scripts used are not understood by the finalizer
< sipa> so despite having enough signatures present, the finalizer doesn't know how to combine them into a full satisfying witness
< gwillen> I guess actually, from my perspective if I see that an input is "signed" that already means the signature parts have been combined
< gwillen> and as far as I can tell if all inputs are "signed" in that way, then finalization looks like it can't fail
< gwillen> nor extraction
< gwillen> since PSBTInputSigned declares true if it sees a final_script_sig or a final_script_witness
< gwillen> and extraction does nothing but copy those fields out, it does not check anything as long as they exist (although presumbly broadcast will fail if they're bad)
< sipa> gwillen: finalization is creating the final_script_sig etc; if those already exist, then extraction will never fail
< sipa> extraction in theory could run a script verifier first; there should be enough information in psbt to do that
< achow101> sipa: is there a command line descriptor to script compiler somewhere?