bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
Guest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
sdfgsdfg has quit [Quit: ayo yoyo ayo yoyo hololo, hololo.]
<Guest>
Hii I have successfully built Bitcoin core on Windows with the help of Visual Studio.. I want to take this (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20576) issue as the starting point of contribution.. Could you please tell some code pointers related to this issue?
sdfgsdfg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Guest>
jonatack
salvatoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Guest>
Please confirm if it is logging.cpp and logging.h
sdfgsdfg has quit [Quit: ayo yoyo ayo yoyo hololo, hololo.]
Guest40 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guest40 has quit [Client Quit]
rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
grettke has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
sdfgsdfg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
sipsorcery has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Guest>
I am new to git.. I am trying to push a commit regarding this (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20576) .. I am getting this message when I am trying to push the code remote: Permission to bitcoin/bitcoin.git denied to anshu-khare-design ..
<Guest>
My commit branch is different from master branch
<fanquake>
This isn't a how-to-use git / github support channel
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
sdfgsdfg has quit [Quit: ayo yoyo ayo yoyo hololo, hololo.]
willcl_ark has quit [Changing host]
willcl_ark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
rex4539 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
Guest has quit [Quit: Client closed]
sdfgsdfg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guyver2 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #24250: Update translations for 0.23 string freeze (master...2022-02-english-translation) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24250
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
goatpig has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
SpellChecker_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
SpellChecker has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<laanwj>
fanquake: agree, it's not even a "building bitcoin core" support channel
common has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<laanwj>
it's fine to ask questions about specific weird issues here but it's a development discussion channel, not a hand-holding channel, please see the topic
<laanwj>
that said, you should push to your own remote (clone) of the repository, not to the upstream one, that's not allowed for obvious reasons :)
rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
rex4539 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
SpellChecker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
SpellChecker_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
bomb-on has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
yanmaani has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
sdfgsdfg has quit [Quit: ayo yoyo ayo yoyo hololo, hololo.]
brunoerg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
pavanj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jespada has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
pavanj is now known as pavanjs
pavanjs is now known as pavanj
jespada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
pavanj has quit [Quit: Leaving]
pavanj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<pavanj>
Hello! I am Pavan. Looking forward to contribute to this Community
<sipa>
Hello Pavan!
<pavanj>
It will be great, if someone can assign me any Beginner task or good first issue on which I can work on.
brunoerg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<laanwj>
anything else to add, remove or that is (almost) ready for merge?
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
vysn has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<laanwj>
the boost::filesystem removal was merged today, i'd recommend testing the current master branch on as many platforms and operating systems as you can to make sure any issues come to light
<sipa>
Good idea.
<warren>
That was the last boost dependency?
<laanwj>
i don't expect anything but you never know!
<michaelfolkson>
Presumably #22558 shouldn't get 23.0 milestone? Not much review yet
<jonatack>
vasild and i are coordinating to propose a doc/cjdns.md for v23 as well
<sipa>
cool
<laanwj>
if it's unlikely to make it, it shouldn't be added to the milestone, generally nothing but critical fixes actually blocks a release anyway
<laanwj>
jonatack: will do
<jonatack>
thanks!
<laanwj>
jonatack: concept ACK, though, should keep it compact imo, i don't think we should end up with extensive documentation about setting up all kind of overlay network in our repo
<laanwj>
granted, tor.md is pretty big but that's mainly because we have a lot of configurability related to tor
<jonatack>
laanwj: yes. the main thing people seem to trip up on when getting started is the find a friend part (myself included).
<laanwj>
jonatack: yes, that's always the difficult part :)
<Murch>
#proposedmeetingtopic sweep vs subtract-fee-from-output
<laanwj>
i hope cjdns.md will help some people find friends :p
<jonatack>
:)))
<sipa>
Murch: For this meeting, or wallet meeting?
<michaelfolkson>
Has to wait a week if it is wallet meeting :)
<Murch>
Pieter: If this meeting runs out of topics, I'd be happy to talk about it here, but otherwise wallet meeting is fine, too.
<laanwj>
we're out of topic right now, so, happy to take it
<Murch>
Okay
<laanwj>
#topic sweep vs subtract-fee-from-output (Murch)
<core-meetingbot`>
topic: sweep vs subtract-fee-from-output (Murch)
<laanwj>
it's useful for sending entire utxos to another wallet
<Murch>
laanwj: We intend for sweep to also allow specifying input UTXOs
<Murch>
It's not in the current iteration, but something we want to do in a follow-up
<laanwj>
i've used it pretty often and never for sweeps
<jeremyrubin>
very much supportive of sweep and getting rid of SFFO; generally speaking if i am trying to pay someone 10000 sats and they get 9999, that might not be a valid payment anymore. SFFO seems like a huge footgun.
<laanwj>
the target might not be a bitcoin core wallet (e.g. c-lightning, joinmarket, etc)
<provoostenator>
We could call it "sendcoins" instead of sweep, but potato potato
<warren>
I've used SFFO often to selectively combine only specific UTXO's where I don't want change outputs. It seems strange if that's taken away.
<laanwj>
it's not useful for sending to other people, agree
<Murch>
laanwj: Could you describe the use case that leads to an SFFO payment?
<Murch>
We've been trying to figure out what people use it for.
<laanwj>
Murch: coinjoin, sending an entire utxo without generating an extra change input
<laanwj>
or combining a bunch of utxos
<provoostenator>
Murch: sending 1 UTXO to an exchange
<laanwj>
it's good for privacy generally to not generate change
<Murch>
laanwj: So if you could specify a set of UTXOs in sweep, that seems to be covered
<laanwj>
especially if your utxos are already not linked
<provoostenator>
And to not combine coins from different source
<laanwj>
right
<jeremyrubin>
laanwj: altho not generating change is also a privacy leak itself
<laanwj>
jeremyrubin: it's kind of subtle
<Murch>
jeremyrubin: Not when you have multiple recipients. ;)
<laanwj>
Murch: can you sweep to another address or set of addresses?
<jeremyrubin>
laanwj: if you're one of the only people in the world with this pattern rn, i may be able to find you ;)
<sipa>
using SFFO to construct the spending of specific UTXOs without change is kind of a roundabout way of doing it... it's essentially trying to trick the coin selection into doing what you want, rather that just not doing coin selection at all
<provoostenator>
jeremyrubin: that's what on chain dobbelgangers are for, I'm sure you can hire those.
<Murch>
laanwj: Yes, the rpc takes multiple addresses of which at least one must not specify an amount and gets the remainder. If multiple are unspecified, it splits equally.
<laanwj>
jeremyrubin: sigh, sure, we can't really talk about use-cases here and this whole discussion is moot
prayank has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<warren>
Several users I recruited over the years use SFFO with multiple outputs to obscure which output is payment further making the amounts sent not round numbers. But I've personally used it to avoid creating change outputs when sending to myself or to other people were exact amounts don't matter or they're willing to eat the tx fee as part of the bargain.
<jeremyrubin>
laanwj: didn't mean to badger you, just a reminder that 'good for privacy' depends on the behavior being widespread generating anonymity set.
<Murch>
Another use case we've gotten feedback about on Twitter was that you "can make the receiver pay the fees". This seems like a roundabout way of making the receiver take a risk on how large a transaction is going to be, and would imho be better implemented by deducting a flat amount.
<provoostenator>
I don't have strong feelings about what it should look like under the hood. But the current manual coin selection GUI works fine for it.
<laanwj>
in any case, i do like the sffo functionality, and would be sad to see it go
<laanwj>
roundabout way or not
<provoostenator>
Murch: or just setting the fee to 1 sat/byte?
<Murch>
Mh, okay, noted.
<laanwj>
i'm fine if it only works with manual coin control
<_aj_>
maybe don't deprecate until the "specifying input UTXOs" part is done?
<warren>
+1 provoostenator I like the current coin control GUI and option for SFFO I use almost always. How it works under the hood is a different matter.
<Murch>
provoostenator: I'm not sure I follow
<laanwj>
and skips coin selection
<sipa>
_aj_: I'd assume that'd be the case
<jonatack>
if SFFO includes the subtractfeefromamount option in RPCs like sendtoaddress, i find it useful when someone wants to buy btc, sets the feerate, and pays the fee
<provoostenator>
Murch: if the recipient wants to CPFP you can just use a low fee rate
<laanwj>
warren: right-i suspect it's pretty much always used with manual coin control
<jeremyrubin>
laanwj: what about just being able to generate a transaction automatically and then modify it to deduct the fees manually from the outputs you want to deduct?
<Murch>
provoostenator: That requires sending a second transaction, though.
<laanwj>
jeremyrubin: i like it's user friendly and easy to use now
<provoostenator>
Indeed limiting it to manual coin selection would be fine by me too
<provoostenator>
So basically if you select any coins, we don't auto select more.
<warren>
+1
<achow101>
apparently bull bitcoin (an exchange) uses sffo to make their users pay the fee if they want to opt out of batched transactions. limiting to manual would break that use case
<laanwj>
sure, i know how to make manual transactions and subtract fee etc, but having to compute things manually sucks compared to just using the interface
<cfields>
+1
<jonatack>
+1
<provoostenator>
achow101: Murch: oh now it makes sense
<jeremyrubin>
i think subtracting fees could be done in a user friendly
<cfields>
jeremyrubin: Indeed I've done that several times.
<jeremyrubin>
like 10 - x works in e.g. GIMP
<jeremyrubin>
(for computing pixels or whatever)
<provoostenator>
So they're "paying" by just lowering the amount they receive?
<laanwj>
it's clearly controversial to remove this functionality
<achow101>
indeed
<laanwj>
not arguing against adding a sweep RPC, but i think proposing it to replace sffo is getting ahead of things
<warren>
+1
<Murch>
Right, thanks for the feedback!
<achow101>
i guess we need to unbreak sffo first
prayank has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
<Murch>
Indeed
dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Murch>
Alright, this was very helpful (even if not the outcome I was hoping for 0:-))
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<laanwj>
any other topics?
<laanwj>
looks like not, thanks for attending, closing the meeting