< aj> sipa: hmm, wouldn't it be better to have AreInputsStandard() return false for taproot spends prior to taproot actually activating? could pass down currentBlockScriptVerifyFlags to do that, I think?
< sipa> aj: there is no script validation flag that will reject a valid taproot spend
< sipa> one could be added, but that's a bit invasive... i'd rather do it through policy/policy.cpp alone
< sipa> aj: and yes, i suggest that (a) before activation is defined: creation is allowed, spending is not (b) while defined but unactivated: neither is allowed (c) when active, both are allowed
< sipa> an alternative - if we don't care about the theft protection - is making (b) identical to (a)
< aj> sipa: oh... maybe it was too early in the morning when i read what you were saying then, that sounds great
< sipa> and looking at implementation... (a) can easily be extended to "any situation in which it will never activate", including when it has failed
< sipa> one downside to have (a) and (b) have different behavior is that it introduces a trivial relay policy difference between nodes-with-activation and nodes-without-activation
< sipa> so if that's a concern, it should just be: whenever not active: creating allowed, spending not
< aj> there'll be a relay policy difference between (a) and (c) and (b)/(c) are the same nodes, so that seems fine?
< sipa> right, but we can expect that by the time activation happens, many nodes will have activation included
< sipa> so it's a synchronized event rather than dependent on upgrade time
< fanquake> Is anyone else seeing a number of the functional tests fail? https://gist.github.com/fanquake/f3df509a6f810a104b97a38753ef7a5a
< fanquake> Wondering if I've got some local issue
< aj> maybe make (b) while defined and in LOCKED_IN neither is allowed, would make it mostly safe and synchronised?
< sipa> hmm, just have the theft protection while locked in and not yet activated?
< aj> sipa: yeah. so people spending to taproot a little early are protected
< aj> a little protected anyway
< fanquake> Seems there is at least some unwanted interaction between #20080 and the functional tests. Unclear why Travis / tests don't seem to be failing for anyone else: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20080#issuecomment-709708344
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20080 | Strip any trailing `/` in -datadir path by hebasto · Pull Request #20080 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< kallewoof> promag_: I made https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13746 a few years ago. Closed it due to lack of interest, though, but it seems similar to what you're saying.
< sipa> #13746
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13746 | -masterdatadir for datadir bootstrapping by kallewoof · Pull Request #13746 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] riyasingh0799 opened pull request #20164: [test] undo truncation of digits in btc amount (master...rpc-testmempoolaccept-fee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20164
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9ad7cd2887ab...cbb5f3a2d584
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cccc752 MarcoFalke: rpc: Properly deserialize txs with witness before signing
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3333077 MarcoFalke: rpc: Adjust witness-tx deserialize error message
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cbb5f3a fanquake: Merge #19836: rpc: Properly deserialize txs with witness before signing
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #19836: rpc: Properly deserialize txs with witness before signing (master...2008-rpcDeserTxsWitness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19836
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #20165: Only relay Taproot spends if next block has it active (master...202010_taproot_policy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20165
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #20166: [0.20] Backports (0.20...more_020_backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20166
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #20091: doc: reflect the current status of Tor support. (master...pr-351-doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20091
< luke-jr> sipa: hmm, I wonder if, ideally, we would wait 100 blocks after activation to relay them
< luke-jr> similar to coinbase spends
< sipa> luke-jr: what would that protect against?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #19635: param: add bool parameter -ephemeraltoronion to generate ephemeral tor addreses (master...ephemeral-tor-onion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19635
< luke-jr> sipa: reorgs invalidating them with a miner theft
< luke-jr> sipa: downstream of the actual taproot spend
< luke-jr> ie, a taproot spend is similar to a coinbase in that it can be claimed by any miner before the activation block
< aj> luke-jr: provided the pay-to-taproot tx has block height locktime, that's fine though
< sipa> luke-jr: that argument would apply to creation of outputs, not spending them
< luke-jr> aj: oh, that's true
< luke-jr> hmm, might have been interesting to have a consensus rule that taproot spends need a locktime after the activation height/time; probably also not worth the additional effort tho
< luke-jr> actually, that doesn't work
< luke-jr> because that rule wouldn't exist before activation either
< sipa> right
< luke-jr> hmm… maybe it would anyway? since it'd be an invalid taproot spend normally
< luke-jr> oh well, could just as well be a "wallets should do this" best practice
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #19419: wallet: let Listwalletdir do not iterate through our blocksdata. (master...wallet_351) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19419
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #20164: [test] undo truncation of digits in btc amount (master...rpc-testmempoolaccept-fee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20164
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cbb5f3a2d584...82d3596dfe4e
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5669642 Pieter Wuille: docs: mention BIPs 340-342 in doc/bips.md
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1d22300 Pieter Wuille: Address functional test nits
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 82d3596 fanquake: Merge #20161: Minor Taproot follow-ups
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #20161: Minor Taproot follow-ups (master...202010_taproot_followup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20161
< hebasto> fanquake: is /private dir a travis artefact?
< fanquake> hebasto: no that is on my macOS machine
< hebasto> ok, going to reproduce on macOS
< hebasto> fanquake: looks like kind of sandboxing
< fanquake> hebasto: possibly, however I haven't looked further yet. Just noticed that the issue started occurring with the introduction of fs::canonical
< fanquake> hebasto: I see
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/82d3596dfe4e...2947ae6f85d4
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa64892 MarcoFalke: signet: Fix uninitialized read in validation
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa729cd MarcoFalke: doc: Move assumed-values doxygen comments to header
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa723e3 MarcoFalke: Initialize default-initialized uint256 consensus params to zero explicitly
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #20035: signet: Fix uninitialized read in validation (master...2009-signetUninitRead) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20035
< hebasto> fanquake: thanks for pointing out
< provoostenator> When taproot (signet) wallet and descriptor support? :-)
< kallewoof> Ohh.. I forgot about the fact we don't actually have wallet support. But people can still play with btcdeb I guess.
< provoostenator> You can make raw transactions and send them with your own node.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2947ae6f85d4...cb21d864c52b
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1df2cd1 Luke Dashjr: QA: blocktools: Accept block template to create_block
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d438d60 Luke Dashjr: QA: Use GBT to get block versions correct
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master cb21d86 MarcoFalke: Merge #19401: QA: Use GBT to get block versions correct
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #19401: QA: Use GBT to get block versions correct (master...qa_blockvers) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19401
< kallewoof> provoostenator: that too yeah
< hebasto> please consider GUI repo pulls for 0.21.0 -- https://github.com/users/hebasto/projects/5
< hebasto> wumpus: MarcoFalke: promag: provoostenator: luke-jr: ^
< hebasto> jonasschnelli: ^^
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #20167: test: Add test for -blockversion (master...2010-testBlockversion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20167
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #20168: contrib: Fix gen_key_io_test_vectors.py imports (master...2010-contribTestGen) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20168
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cb21d864c52b...9e8d2bd076d7
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0d9d2a1 Jonas Schnelli: Only update the updateSmartFeeLabel once in sync
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9e8d2bd MarcoFalke: Merge bitcoin-core/gui#97: Relax GUI freezes during IBD (when using wallet...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #20169: Taproot follow-up: Make ComputeEntrySchnorr and ComputeEntryECDSA const to clarify contract (master...const-ComputeEntrySchnorr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20169
< jamesob> I don't seem to be able to kick jobs on Travis anymore; can someone rerun https://travis-ci.org/github/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/736379874 for me?
< hebasto> jamesob: done
< jamesob> hebasto: thanks!
< hebasto> try to log off/on
< jamesob> ah yep, that did it. thanks again hebasto
< hebasto> yw
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ariard opened pull request #20171: Add functional test test_txid_inv_delay (master...2020-10-txid-delay-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20171
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #20172: rpc, net: Expose connections_onion_only in getnetworkinfo RPC output (master...201016-tor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20172