< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18183: test: Set catch_system_errors=no on boost unit tests (master...2002-testNoCatchSystemErrors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18183
< hadjiszs> hello everyone, I was wondering whether that one https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13947 means implicitly Dandelion++ rather than Dandelion
< hadjiszs> MarcoFalke: cc ^
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto closed pull request #18077: net: Add NAT-PMP port forwarding support (master...20200130-natpmp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18077
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto reopened pull request #18077: net: Add NAT-PMP port forwarding support (master...20200130-natpmp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18077
< darosior> Hi, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/eddcbfb109e592fdf39ea2c38c4d7ba183de3e34/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L938-L941 means that the script execution will stop on a failing CHECKSIG (and not CHECKSIGVERIFY), right ? If so what is the reason behind this (non-mandatory) rule ?
< darosior> Found the reason.. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8634
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eddcbfb109e5...56fc2dfcc3e6
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7f1475c Sebastian Falbesoner: rpc: update validateaddress RPCExamples to bech32
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 56fc2df fanquake: Merge #18122: rpc: update validateaddress RPCExamples to bech32
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #18122: rpc: update validateaddress RPCExamples to bech32 (master...20200211-rpc-update-validateaddress-rpcexamples-to-bech32) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18122
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/56fc2dfcc3e6...eb3c6b091234
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 63ce882 Gastón I. Silva: doc: link to homebrew's troubleshooting page
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master eb3c6b0 fanquake: Merge #18070: doc: add note about `brew doctor`
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #18070: doc: add note about `brew doctor` (master...documentation) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18070
< provoostenator> Quick and easy review beg for #17264; would be nice to change that default in 0.20 (cc meshcollider)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17264 | rpc: set default bip32derivs to true for psbt methods by Sjors · Pull Request #17264 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jonatack> provoostenator: looking
< provoostenator> I saw one person on Twitter and one on IRC in the last couple of days who got confused by the current default :-)
< jonatack> provoostenator: acked, do you think we need a deprecation period for the change?
< provoostenator> I think that's overkill.
< provoostenator> A PSBT without bip32 info is generally useless.
< jonatack> right. this fixes an annoyance
< provoostenator> It makes sense to "fake" the info for privacy reasons, e.g. in a coinjoin, but to leave it out it's very hard to sign.
< emilengler> Will probably join the meeting a few minutes later. Have an offline meeting which ends exactly at 18:00 UTC
< dongcarl> jonasschnelli: Looking at BIP324... The session ID is supposed to be provided OOB?
< sipa> dongcarl: session id is derived from the ECDH outcome
< dongcarl> sipa: Right, but the two peers need to exchange the session ID somehow right? And if it's in-band then it defeats the purpose?
< sipa> dongcarl: ECDH establishes the session id
< sipa> it's not communicated
< sipa> that's what diffie-hellman does, establish a secure shared secret over a cleartext channel (as long as it has no active MitM)
< dongcarl> right... but in jonas' breaking bitcoin talk... he mentions resistance against handshake MITM by comparing session IDs...
< sipa> ah!
< sipa> yes
< sipa> of course, you can establish authenticity by comparing session ids out of band
< sipa> but that inherently requires a preestablished identity (e.g. a phone number of who you're trying to connect to)
< sipa> or if it is yourself, it's easy :)
< instagibbs> yes, it's useful for setups like neutrino(or related) to self-owned node at home
< dongcarl> if it's your own node... why not make it easy to pair by using something like noise protocol IK?
< sipa> dongcarl: what yiu need is an authentication scheme
< sipa> which can run on top of bip 324
< sipa> we've been working on a really cool one :)
< instagibbs> dongcarl, if the tooling exists seems silly to create yet another tool
< instagibbs> create/integrate/whatever
< sipa> the most naive one you can construct is simply sending a signature of the session id
< dongcarl> sipa: where can I find info about this? I've been talking with ariard_ about this
< sipa> dongcarl: well bip 150 was an early idea
< sipa> the fancy private authentication i've talked about before, bit nothing really written up
< sipa> dongcarl: the problem is that bitcoin nodes don't have, and shouldn't have, any observable identity
< sipa> that could be used to track them around
< dongcarl> Okay, will read BIP150
< sipa> dongcarl: for a better idea of what is possible: https://gist.github.com/sipa/d7dcaae0419f10e5be0270fada84c20b
< sipa> but the actual protocol there is outdated
< dongcarl> Gotchu
< achow101> meeting?
< wumpus> #startmeeting
< lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Feb 20 19:00:21 2020 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
< lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
< kanzure> hi
< achow101> hi
< jonasschnelli> hi
< wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 meshcollider jnewbery maaku fanquake promag provoostenator aj Chris_Stewart_5 dongcarl gwillen jamesob ken281221 ryanofsky gleb moneyball kvaciral ariard digi_james amiti fjahr
< wumpus> jeremyrubin lightlike emilengler jonatack hebasto jb55
< jonatack> hi
< ariard_> hi
< elichai2> hi
< meshcollider> hi
< promag> hi
< wumpus> no proposed topics in http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt (as I understand it)
< kanzure> no new entries in proposedmeetingtopics.txt http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt
< wumpus> ha thanks kanzure
< hebasto> hi
< wumpus> any last minute proposals?
< wumpus> FWIW the 0.20 feature freeze is in less than a month (2020-03-15)
< wumpus> see #17432
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17432 | Release schedule for 0.20.0 · Issue #17432 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> #topic High priority for review
< wumpus> 8 blockrers, 1 bugfix, 6 chasing concept ACK
< elichai2> Reviews for #18014 will be appreciated (not sure if high priority is appropriate though)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18014 | lib: Optimizing siphash implementation by elichai · Pull Request #18014 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> anyone have suggestions for things to add/remove/merge?
< wumpus> elichai2: does it block other work for you?
< achow101> merge #18034?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18034 | Get the OutputType for a descriptor by achow101 · Pull Request #18034 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< elichai2> wumpus: nope
< jonatack> #17812 may be rfm
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17812 | config, net, test: asmap functional tests and feature refinements by jonatack · Pull Request #17812 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> thanks achow101 jonatack
< gwillen> #17509 is already high-prio but nobody's reviewed since it was added there, perhaps take a look? :-)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17509 | gui: save and load PSBT by Sjors · Pull Request #17509 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] icota closed pull request #18179: Add Lightning Network support (master...2020-01-core-lightning) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18179
< wumpus> elichai2: to be clear I'm ok with adding it if you want, but the blockers list is meant for PRs that block other work
< achow101> add #17577 to blockers?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17577 | refactor: deduplicate the message sign/verify code by vasild · Pull Request #17577 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< meshcollider> achow101: 18034 needs another review imo, I'll review it this afternoon
< achow101> meshcollider: great!
< elichai2> wumpus: yeah makes sense. Just wanted to ask for people to review :)
< wumpus> achow101: #18115 is based on it?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18115 | wallet: Pass in transactions and messages for signing instead of exporting the private keys by achow101 · Pull Request #18115 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< achow101> wumpus: yes
< wumpus> ok, added
< elichai2> gwillen: Does it need code review or testing the gui?
< gwillen> provoostenator: it's your PR, opinion? ^
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Mentors4EDU opened pull request #18186: Stage and add commits behind (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18186
< gwillen> I've never been totally clear on what the requirements are before something can be merged :-)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Mentors4EDU closed pull request #18186: Stage and add commits behind (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18186
< gwillen> I did gui testing to my own satisfaction at least
< instagibbs> gwillen, it's fuzzy "I know it when I see it" :P
< gwillen> yeah, *nod*. I did both a code review and GUI testing, I imagine it just needs "more eyes", so ideally both
< wumpus> gwillen: pretty much: if the maintainer of the part of the code has enough confidence in it, you can help this by adding reviews / test reports
< instagibbs> I can definitely take a look at that PR
< gwillen> much appreciated
< wumpus> it can differ very much by part of the code changed what kind and how much review/manual testing/fuzzing/analysis/etc is needed
< instagibbs> what subsystems it touches, can people lose money if you're wrong, etc
< wumpus> exactly
< wumpus> I guess for PSBT GUI the most important thing is that people test it manually and it works as expected
< promag> I'll see 17509 too
< hebasto> btw, which devs reviews are more valuable for autotools related PRs?
< wumpus> cfields_ dongcarl
< wumpus> maybe luke-jr
< hebasto> wumpus: ty
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #18187: Add --options runtime (runtime hardening) to macOS codesign (master...2020/02/macos_runtime_hardening) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18187
< wumpus> I understand it enough to understand what the script does but not what's a good/least messy way of structuring autotools scripts, so definitely don't go by only my review there
< wumpus> any other topics?
< jonatack> #17208 could use review; this would allow us to build with -fsanitize=undefined
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17208 | Make all tests pass UBSan without using any UBSan suppressions by practicalswift · Pull Request #17208 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< fanquake> I take it no one has found any new issues with rc2? I haven’t seen anything reported
< elichai2> jonatack: will review it!
< * dongcarl> back, looking
< wumpus> oh that one looks a lot less scary than I expected, mostly affect progress reporting code
< wumpus> the nBlocksTotal change in validation.cpp needs some eyes on it
< instagibbs> yeah was about to say
< jonatack> yes, that's the key change
< wumpus> but there was also a previous PR that changed a lot of signed/unsigned integer arithmetic all over the place, glad it's not that
< wumpus> fanquake: haven't seen anything reported either
< wumpus> I guess we can tag 0.19.1 final fairly soon
< wumpus> are the release notes ready?
< instagibbs> wumpus, oh you told me another PR was going in, so I closed my 3 line fix for it :P
< fanquake> Sure. There’s a few more things tagged for backport for 0.19, but I’m not convinced they are required for 0.19.1
< fanquake> Unsure about the release notes though
< wumpus> instagibbs: I don't remember having said that, which one?
< wumpus> instagibbs: you mean I said I wanted to merge another PR for 0.19.1?
< instagibbs> the UB PR, I had a 3 line fix, closed for later closed PR (not important just noting I had a similar fix)
< wumpus> instagibbs: oh, a 3 line fix instead of #17208?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17208 | Make all tests pass UBSan without using any UBSan suppressions by practicalswift · Pull Request #17208 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< instagibbs> right
< wumpus> depending on what the changed lines are that would be even better?
< wumpus> 0.19.1 changelog looks ok, no "Notable changes", but that happens more often for minor releases as it's bugfixes not features: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.19/doc/release-notes.md
< fanquake> Yea looks ok
< wumpus> thanks
< wumpus> I guess that concludes the meeting for today, happy reviewing everyone :)
< wumpus> #endmeeting
< lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Feb 20 19:30:56 2020 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18188: test: Bump process time in scheduler_tests to avoid race (master...2002-testBumpSched) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18188
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Empact closed pull request #13949: Introduce MempoolObserver interface to break "policy/fees -> txmempool -> policy/fees" circular dependency (master...mempool-observer) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13949
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #18188: test: Bump process time in scheduler_tests to avoid race (master...2002-testBumpSched) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18188
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift closed pull request #17208: Make all tests pass UBSan without using any UBSan suppressions (master...ubsan-warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/17208
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs reopened pull request #15283: log: Fix UB with bench on genesis block (master...ub_genesis_bench) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15283
< provoostenator> elichai2: re #1750 is the bare bones UI so let's not bike-shed it, gwillen has a pretty PR on top. But it does need testing and code review.
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1750 | Some JSON values dont work in the GUI console · Issue #1750 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< instagibbs> #17509
< gwillen> that's #17509, but yeah, my pretty PR on top is #18027
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17509 | gui: save and load PSBT by Sjors · Pull Request #17509 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17509 | gui: save and load PSBT by Sjors · Pull Request #17509 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18027 | "PSBT Operations" dialog by gwillen · Pull Request #18027 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< hebasto> dongcarl: mind testing #18077 on OpenBSD gateway router?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18077 | net: Add NAT-PMP port forwarding support by hebasto · Pull Request #18077 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub