< amiti> wumpus: RE 19877. thanks! rebased
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt closed pull request #16856: Do not allow descendants of BLOCK_FAILED_VALID blocks to be BLOCK_FAILED_VALID (master...2019-09-invalidate-block-child-invalid) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16856
< fanquake> Looks like S390x may have once again thrown in the towel
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #20257: Update secp256k1 subtree to latest master (master...202010-secp256k1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20257
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/55b1ffcd259c...488b77f72e8f
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a193f96 Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Pre-splitoff translations update
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 488b77f MarcoFalke: Merge #20256: qt: Pre-splitoff translations update
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #20256: qt: Pre-splitoff translations update (master...2020_10_translations_update) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20256
< wumpus> luke-jr: re: announcing GUI PRs here, yeah I was thinking of that as well, I'm not sure! should we have a seperate place of discussion for the GUI?
< jnewbery> wumpus: can we add #19753 to the 0.21 milestone? It's a bug fix
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19753 | p2p: dont add AlreadyHave transactions to recentRejects by troygiorshev · Pull Request #19753 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> jnewbery: sure, done!
< jnewbery> thanks
< jnewbery> I'm seeing quite a few "ERROR: Qt binary download did not match the expected hash." errors in appveyor, even for PRs off master. Is that a known issue?
< fanquake> I hadn't noticed it yet
< jnewbery> I'd seen it before for backport PRs and thought it had been fixed by some change in master
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/488b77f72e8f...db26eeba71fb
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0672522 Amiti Uttarwar: [move-only, test]: Match test order with run order
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 47ff509 Amiti Uttarwar: [test] Clarify setup of node topology.
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master db26eeb Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #19877: [test] clarify rpc_net & p2p_disconnect_ban functional tests...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #19877: [test] clarify rpc_net & p2p_disconnect_ban functional tests (master...2020-09-rpcnet-fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19877
< wumpus> jnewbery: it has happened before, though haven't noticed it recently again yet
< wumpus> i doubt it's caused by anything on our side, the appveyor builds aren't as deterministic as the travis ones, dependencies and compiler versions shift under us
< wumpus> i've added the bitcoin/gui repository here for the bot, i hope it won't be a mess
< wumpus> (have enabled only 'pull requests' and not 'pushes' because they're the same there right?)
< fanquake> wumpus: yea. A push to the GUI repo should just show up as a push to the main repo
< wumpus> thanks
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #20258: [tests] Remove getnettotals/getpeerinfo consistency test (master...2020-10-remove-net-totals-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20258
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #18784: net: RecordBytesSent under cs_vSend lock (master...2004-netLockRecordBytesSent) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18784
< Relis> Hi, is anyone exploring using zk tech to scale bitcoin?
< jnewbery> wumpus: Do you have any suggestions for how to review #20237 ?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20237 | net: Hardcoded seeds update for 0.21 by laanwj · Pull Request #20237 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> jnewbery: previous PRs like it might be a guide there (#18506, #16999), e.g. people could try to repeat the last step in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/seeds#seeds and see if it ends up with the same .h file, you could also repeat the entire process but as the list of peers from the seeder will be different every time that will give a (slightly, hopefully)
< wumpus> different output
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18506 | net: Hardcoded seeds update for 0.20 by laanwj · Pull Request #18506 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16999 | net: 0.19 seeds update by laanwj · Pull Request #16999 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< wumpus> testing what part of the peers are connectable is also useful
< wumpus> or to go deeper, whether most part of the nodes are 'good nodes' and not say spy nodes, but i don't know what means of testing
< promag> what's up with travis in gui repo?
< yanmaani> why does #20237 limit the tor nodes to 512? How can it see which ASN they have?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20237 | net: Hardcoded seeds update for 0.21 by laanwj · Pull Request #20237 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< yanmaani> "Look up ASNs and limit results per ASN and per net" and Tor goes from 3681 to 512
< yanmaani> ah ok, it's https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/seeds/makeseeds.py that has max_per_net, and this is for ip4/6/onion.
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/db26eeba71fb...3f512f3d5639
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 778cd0d John Newbery: [tests] Remove getnettotals/getpeerinfo consistency test
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3f512f3 MarcoFalke: Merge #20258: tests: Remove getnettotals/getpeerinfo consistency test
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #20258: tests: Remove getnettotals/getpeerinfo consistency test (master...2020-10-remove-net-totals-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20258
< vasild> MarcoFalke: #20234 might be considered for 0.21 because we would introduce -bind=...=onion in 0.21 with one behavior and that PR changes its behavior.
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20234 | net: dont extra bind for Tor if binds are restricted by vasild · Pull Request #20234 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< vasild> hebasto: ^
< vasild> (the test failure is due to some obscure ipv6 detection issue within the tests framework)
< sdaftuar_> anyone know what went wrong here: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/DrahtBot/bitcoin/builds/35983641 ?
< vasild> sdaftuar_: I looked at it, no idea - all looks ok and no error messages, try a blind restart?
< MarcoFalke> ugh, looks like msbuild fails without error message?
< sipa> failed, or timed out?
< MarcoFalke> timed out
< MarcoFalke> right 90 minutes
< sipa> restarting it
< luke-jr> in 90 minutes it will timeout again!
< luke-jr> :P
< MarcoFalke> It used to take 52 minutes. What made it go up?
< sipa> i assume nothing
< sipa> my guess is that something caused it to just stall, and eventually time out
< MarcoFalke> pretty much every build takes 1h2x minutes
< sipa> oh, that's bad
< sipa> let's figure out when it started being elevated like that
< EagleTM> s
< sipa> MarcoFalke: appveyor builds have been regularly taking 1h15m+ since at least a month
< MarcoFalke> hmm. I guess it is just more code -> more time to compile
< MarcoFalke> Should improve a bit again after branch off with C++17
< sipa> #19960 significantly increased it
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19960 | build: The vcpkg tool has introduced a proper way to use manifests by sipsorcery · Pull Request #19960 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< bitcoin-git> [gui] hebasto opened pull request #123: rpc: Do not accept command while executing another one (master...201028-prompt) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/123
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #20260: wallet: Create named SQLite wallet files instead of wallet directories (master...single-file-sqlite) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20260