< * troygiorshev> lurks waiting for someone to open PR #20000
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20000 | HTTP Error 404: Not Found
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] vasild opened pull request #20000: test: fix DecodeBase32 tests (master...fix_base32_tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20000
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b1291b2e8fc3...821989382557
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa2ad5d MarcoFalke: test: Run signet test even when wallet was not compiled
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 77771a0 MarcoFalke: refactor: Remove SignetTxs::m_valid and use optional instead
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fae0548 MarcoFalke: fuzz: Remove needless guard
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19993: refactor: Signet fixups (master...2009-signetFixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19993
< vasild> luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/907 can be merged? It has 4 ACKs, including from the BIP author (wumpus).
< wumpus> yes, it should be merged
< jnewbery> backport #19606 reliably fails the appveyor build
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19606 | Backport wtxid relay to v0.20 by jnewbery · Pull Request #19606 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jnewbery> Error is "ERROR: Qt binary download did not match the expected hash.". Is there some fix we need to backport to 0.20?
< aj> jnewbery: i think that's an appveyor caching bug that just happens occassionally, and goes away about a day later? not sure
< wumpus> oh no not appveyor caching problems again, I'm not aware of any recent patches in that regard no
< wumpus> taking a look
< wumpus> the last appveyor-related commit we backported to 0.20 was 961e667600441c35845fcb36b120500c813cd3ed, which removed most of the caching. There have been two other commits since: 3ec8f4c080eab61563f11659c5f1370a34b77dc5 and a104caeb4008a6e0726ba604ece6f53549110354.
< wumpus> the first changes the version of VC used to the previous version, the other changes it back to the current one (as well as updates VCPKG_COMMIT_ID)
< wumpus> I guess you could try backporting the combination of those (e.g. keep the VC version the same butchange VCPKG_COMMIT_ID), the reason to do it was unrelated to qt though
< wumpus> but maybe it influences that too I don't know
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #20001: net: Use default proxy server ( if -proxy is specified without arguments (instead of continuing without proxy server) (master...use-localhost-instead-of-silently-skipping-proxy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20001
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #20002: net, rpc, cli: expose CNetAddr::GetNetClass in getpeerinfo, use in -netinfo (master...getpeerinfo-GetNetClass) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20002
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/821989382557...9e217f5a6f08
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1b615e6 Gregory Sanders: zmq test: Actually make reorg occur
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e76fc2b Gregory Sanders: Add 'sequence' zmq publisher to track all block (dis)connects, mempool del...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 68c3c7e Gregory Sanders: Add functional tests for zmq sequence topic and mempool sequence logic
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #19572: ZMQ: Create "sequence" notifier, enabling client-side mempool tracking (master...zmq_sequence_all) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19572
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift closed pull request #20001: net: Use proxy server if -proxy is specified without arguments (instead of continuing without proxy server) (master...use-localhost-instead-of-silently-skipping-proxy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20001
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #20003: net: Print error message if -proxy is specified without arguments (instead of continuing without proxy server) (master...error-on-empty-proxy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20003
< jnewbery> aj wumpus: thanks! I'll try adding those commits to the backport PR. If it fixes the issue then I'll open a PR to backport them separately.
< vasild> What are the benefits of configuring the tor hidden service in torrc instead of leaving bitcoind to automatically create it via tor-control?
< wumpus> vasild: I don't know, it was the old way to do it, but I don't see much benefit--apart from transparency from the sysadmin side maybe (less moving parts, all configuration in one place), if you're configuring Tor for other things too
< wumpus> jnewbery: ok, hope it helps
< wumpus> vasild: in any case that's very much an edge case
< vasild> hmm, if configured via torrc then bitcoind need not be supplied with tor-control auth
< vasild> these tor-control credentials can do much more to the tor daemon than ask it to create a hidden service - shutdown or arbirary change of the configuration (like editing torrc)
< wumpus> right
< vasild> so, maybe not giving tor-control auth to bitcoind could be considered as a benefit
< wumpus> yes, for advanced users
< wumpus> I still think creating an onion service automatically is a good default though
< wumpus> when bitcoind has those permissions
< wumpus> but the manual way should keep being supported, if that's what you mean
< vasild> just some thoughts wrt #19991
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19991 | net: Use alternative port for incoming Tor connections by hebasto · Pull Request #19991 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< vasild> hebasto: so, I think that if the option to specify the bind address is added to 19991 (and this also supplied to ADD_ONION of course), then 19991 will supersede #19043
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19043 | torcontrol: add -tortarget config by MDrollette · Pull Request #19043 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< hebasto> vasild: going to implement it
< vasild> -onionservicetarget=addr:port hmm, that is just another bind + a tag "anything incoming to this addr:port is incoming tor"
< vasild> right?
< hebasto> right
< vasild> what about extending the -bind=addr:port option to something like -bind=addr:port[=tor], for example: -bind= -bind=
< vasild> instead of adding a new option -onionservicetarget= ?
< wumpus> making it an attribute makes sense
< wumpus> (of the bind)
< vasild> I don't know yet how i2p works, but if it works in a similar way (the i2p daemon connects to us, like in tor) then for i2p that would mean just recognizing =i2p in addition to recognizing =tor, instead of adding new option -i2pservicetarget=addr:port
< wumpus> right, it's elegant way to think about it and allows for extensibility
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #20004: test: Add signet witness commitment section parse tests (master...2009-testSignetParse) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20004
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9e217f5a6f08...8235dca6210d
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 73f71e1 Hennadii Stepanov: refactor: Use explicit function type instead of template
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ab2a442 Hennadii Stepanov: Replace LockAssertion with a proper thread safety annotations
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0bd1184 Hennadii Stepanov: Remove unused LockAssertion struct
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19979: Replace LockAssertion with AssertLockHeld, remove LockAssertion (master...200919-tsa) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19979
< sipa> #addmeetingtopic GCC memcmp bug in version 9 and 10
< jnewbery> #proposedmeetingtopic what sipa just said
< sipa> ah, that
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8235dca6210d...5e14fafb316e
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa14f57 MarcoFalke: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (net, rpcwallet)
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5e14faf MarcoFalke: Merge #19994: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (net,...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19994: Assert that RPCArg names are equal to CRPCCommand ones (net, rpcwallet) (master...2009-rpcAssertNames) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19994
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5e14fafb316e...43305e9810e4
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7a89f2e Hennadii Stepanov: build: Fix target name
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 43305e9 MarcoFalke: Merge #19868: build: Fix target name
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19868: build: Fix target name (master...200904-make) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19868
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 8 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/43305e9810e4...1b313cacc99a
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4668ded Carl Dong: validation: Move ~CMainCleanup logic to ~BlockManager
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 74f73c7 Carl Dong: validation: Pass in chainman to UnloadBlockIndex
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f8d4975 Carl Dong: validation: Move PruneOneBlockFile to BlockManager
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19927: validation: Reduce direct g_chainman usage (master...2020-09-reduce-g_chainman-usage) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19927
< instagibbs> anyone else getting noise on unit tests? "Error: Specified -walletdir "/tmp/test_bitcoin/1600886453_943311758/tempdir/path_does_not_exist" does not exist"
< instagibbs> sounds like it's part of the test, but pretty noisy to print it :shrug:
< sipa> hi
< sipa> oh, oops, i thought it was thursday
< sipa> MarcoFalke: any reason why qa-assets can't be cloned with --depth=1 or so?
< sipa> that would avoid pulling in all of its history
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sanket1729 opened pull request #20006: Fix misleading error message: Clean stack rule (master...clean_stk) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20006