abubakarsadiq has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
nanotube has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
vasild_ has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
cmirror has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
cmirror has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
vasild has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
jarthur has quit [Quit: jarthur]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
vasild has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
PaperSword has quit [Quit: PaperSword]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
earnestly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
_aj__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
_aj__ has quit [Changing host]
_aj__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
_aj_ has quit [Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by _aj__))]
_aj__ is now known as _aj_
vasild has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
vasild has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guyver2 has left #bitcoin-core-dev [Closing Window]
vasild has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<darosior>
Does anyone have an idea how could an in-memory CDbWrapper leak memory? Running it in a fuzzer, it seems the memory is never dropped. For instance the memory usage of this trivial repro grows from a couple MBs to >1GB of memory after only 6 minutes: https://paste.ec/paste/EVPsg0ju#r1xd5pqzk74er0m2bgY73oev6+t-LHPMlp4pbxIQsK5
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
vasild has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
qubenix has quit [Quit: quit]
earnestly has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
earnestly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
qubenix has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
qubenix has quit [Client Quit]
vasild has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
vasild has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
qubenix has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
vyHamii has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
lightningbot has quit [Killed (NickServ (GHOST command used by lightningbot`))]
lightningbot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
abubakarsadiq has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
vyHamii has quit [Quit: Leaving]
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
furszy has quit [Changing host]
furszy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
DarrylTheFish has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guest6 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
DarrylTheFiish has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guest6 has quit [Client Quit]
DarrylTheFish has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
jonatack has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
jon_atack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
josibake____ has quit []
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jon_atack has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
bitdex has quit [Quit: = ""]
Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guyver2 has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
<glozow>
As discussed last week, I've put all of the p2p PRs in draft to focus review attention on the validation stuff for now. I'll continue working on them.
<instagibbs>
achow101 proposed topic: voting/signaling for priority projects?
<glozow>
instagibbs and I had a conversation yesterday about re-opening #27609 now that we have fuzzing / it feels a bit safer
<instagibbs>
there's at least one project which would use submitpackage, in a limited way, to avoid a song and dance
<darosior>
Yeah
<fjahr>
hi
<instagibbs>
ldk-node, which does a song and dance, then hopes a miner with a large mempool sees it, essentially
<glozow>
I remember speaking about it with sdaftuar, mostly concerned about encouraging direct-submits to miners. Not really what we'd want but maybe the lesser of evils for now?
<instagibbs>
They're doing... interesting stuff without our help, so I'm less and less persuaded myself that we shouldn't open it up
<sdaftuar>
hi
<glozow>
hi!
<instagibbs>
!!! welcome
<gribble>
Error: "!!" is not a valid command.
<lightningbot>
instagibbs: Error: "!" is not a valid command.
<dergoegge>
good bots
<glozow>
lol
<josie>
instagibbs has angered all the bots
<achow101>
perhaps reopen the pr and have the discussion there?
<sdaftuar>
sorry i'm not up to speed at all on where the package relay/package acceptance logic is these days. i think one of our concerns was whether there were dos vectors in submitpackage that we didn't want to leave open for exploitation?
<sdaftuar>
if those have been closed off (enough), then i think i would not be opposed
<glozow>
We've fixed a lot of bugs in the last month or so (yay) and it would be through rpc so hopefully trusted clients only. can have loud warnings in release notes
<sdaftuar>
cool, sounds good
<instagibbs>
I'm working on more fuzzing stuff, will just have glozow pick up what she wants to get 26711 pristine
<glozow>
Agree with moving discussion to PR. We have a really small window before feature freeze (assuming people want this for 26) so please leave your comments asap if y'all have opinions
<glozow>
achow101: we can move on, thanks
<b10c>
hi
<achow101>
#topic BIP 324 updates (sipa)
<achow101>
perhaps sipa is not here
<dergoegge>
i think we're just waiting for review on the integration PR
<_aj_>
there's the breaking protocol change
<achow101>
#28331 is the main pr, but I think #28525 is probably next for priority?
<achow101>
but with 2 priority projects so close to the finish line, I think we could move it back another week so we can have those for this release?
<glozow>
concept ACK
<achow101>
(not that priority projects are intended to go in for the next release, but it'd be cool to have these in)
<lightlike>
makes sense to me
<fjahr>
+1
<hebasto>
agree
<sipa>
that (obviously) sounds reasonable to me
<darosior>
Sounds good to me.
<dergoegge>
+1
<josie>
+1
<_aj_>
*2
<achow101>
#topic voting/signaling for priority projects
<achow101>
we discussed this at coredev and for the next round of priority projects we're going to try to do the voting online
<darosior>
I need to bounce but if we are doing the prio projects thing, just letting people know i'll personally try to carve out some time to help package relay move forward. No promise though.
<darosior>
(if that counts as a vote)
<_aj_>
(have priority projects been successful in minimising how much unwanted rebasing those projects have had to do?)
<achow101>
my thoughts were that after feature freeze, i'll open an issue to gather possible projects (seeded with the list from coredev). then a week later, we can vote by posting comments in an (new?) issue.
<instagibbs>
_aj_ there was pretty good consensus on a strong "yes" there
<achow101>
_aj_: the general sentiment was that they were successful
<stickies-v>
_aj_: I have seen at least a few instances of PRs getting closed/drafted because of priority conflicts. Could probably be more though.
<achow101>
voting would be open for a week. then we'd have our votes done by branching
<josie>
achow101: sounds good, but I do think its important to limit voting to people who are actively contributing/reviewing in the project. this isnt a vote of "what would you like to see in bitcoin core" and more signaling "i will prioritise working on and reviewing x"
<achow101>
there's a bit of an open question of whether it should be anonymous or not. doing it in an issue would be inherently public, unless everyone pgp encrypts their votes or something like that
<_aj_>
achow101: if voting == "i'm aiming to review", then anonymity doesn't seem needed
<fanquake>
who are they encrypting to?
<instagibbs>
"I want to not make them rebase" + "I will review"
<fanquake>
the maintainer group?
<achow101>
fanquake: the maintainers? or perhaps just me?
<stickies-v>
+1 on limiting the vote. i don't mind doing it in public
<stickies-v>
also liked josie's idea of having two votes: one being "what should be priority" and another being "what will i actively contribute to" because the two don't always have to overlap because of e.g. skillsets, experience, ...
<achow101>
I think the only votes that will be counted are from those that are in the github org(s)
<stickies-v>
but that may overly complicate the system
<_aj_>
imo, it's not really a "vote", it's "which projects have the most reviewer interest, so are likely to make the most progress, and are least likely to spend a long time unmerged, and hence will only cause minimal rebasing in conflicting PRs"
<josie>
if votes will only be counted from within the github org, then i dont see the point of anonymous?
<sipa>
i don't think anonymity is necessary
<instagibbs>
anon seems like overhead for no purpose
<josie>
_aj_: +1
<fanquake>
isn’t the whole reason we skipped the vote before because people complained about posting their votes publicly last time
<fanquake>
or am I misremembering
<_aj_>
i thought it was "sounds good, let's just do it" ?
<achow101>
fanquake: no, it was that some people were anon and others were not. the complain was that everyone should have the option for anon, or no one should
<sipa>
really the priority projects help break the cyclic dependency in decisions of the form "i'd like to work/help on X, but only if sufficient other people think the same"
<glozow>
yeah I think we didn't vote last week because people said it was unfair to the people who weren't there, i.e. because no anon
<_aj_>
oh, before = 6 months ago, or last week?
<fjahr>
fanquake: i think it would have been possible to vote for a week but nobody did 6 months ago
<achow101>
I think we can just try it non-anon on github this time, and if people complain or there are less votes this time, we can try something else next time?
<glozow>
ACK
<instagibbs>
whatever is simplest, thanks
<josie>
worth making the distinction: voting in person requires doxxing meatspace identity, voting on github does not. so in that sense, yeah voting on github does allow people to vote
<instagibbs>
keep forward momentum folks
<josie>
ACK
<stickies-v>
+1 keep it simple, github works
<sipa>
yeah
<lightlike>
should we have a phase for assembling / completing the list of candidates (before the voting starts)?
<achow101>
lightlike: yes "i'll open an issue to gather possible projects (seeded with the list from coredev)."
<lightlike>
ah thx, missed this
<stickies-v>
can't we just do that here? if no one here brings up a certain topic, it's probably not gonna make it into the top anyway?
<achow101>
re the 2 votes idea, I'm not sure that's useful?
<_aj_>
stickies-v: not everyone is available at this particular hour
<fjahr>
last time we each had 3...
<achow101>
sorry, meant the two different votes thing of "priority" and "review".
<achow101>
for deciding the actual priority, I think having each person vote for 3 is still good
<sipa>
the consensus at coredev was that the concept of priority projects was a success, so we don't *need* to change anything
<fjahr>
I think nobody will check later if people actually reviewed so I think it doesn't matter
<sipa>
except of course the fact that the voting was not done in person
<josie>
sipa: +1
<glozow>
I like the 2 votes idea, but agree with not hindering the process by talking about potential improvements
<instagibbs>
signaling you'll review doesn't procedurally change anything, just nice
<instagibbs>
so stick with what worked
<achow101>
any other topics to discuss?
<fjahr>
so what are the next steps?
<_aj_>
achow101 will open an issue
<fjahr>
And there will be one week to add topics?
<sipa>
an issue, or an org discussion?
<achow101>
fjahr: after feature freeze (in one week): open an issue for projects gathering. one week after that: voting in another issue, open for 1 week
<Murch[m]>
New bridge, forgot to auth. Can y’all read me now?
<sdaftuar>
yes murch!
<Murch[m]>
Thanks
<Murch[m]>
I wanted to say that I don’t think having two separate votes for what projects you like vs will review adds to the process. It’ll put an onus on us to find a scoring mechanism for the two different votes to end up having a single order and just complicates things. I’d prefer that people just do their best to support the projects that they would like to see prioritized and vote for only that
jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
achow101 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
bugs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jespada has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jespada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
nanotube has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
preimage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
test__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
flooded has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
test_ has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
flooded has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
preimage has quit [Quit: WeeChat 4.0.4]
<stickies-v>
Murch[m]: I don't think it has to complicate things too much, besides adding an additional round. The "what should be priority" would be entirely informational, to help us inform perceived importance. The actual priorities should then only be based on the second "what will i actively contribute to" vote, because if not enough people are willing/able to work on it then there's no point making it prio
<Murch[m]>
Sure, that would be a way to solve it
lbia has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
brunoerg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
lbia has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
pablomartin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guest78 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guest78 has quit [Client Quit]
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
dermoth has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
DarrylTheFiish has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
<kanzure>
are there written summaries available oof the recent IRL meets?
<sipa>
kanzure: my understanding is that there will be
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
DarrylTheFish has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<ajonas>
kanzure: aiming to have them published tomorrow
<kanzure>
thank you.
<kanzure>
sorry i couldn't be there to do it :)
DarrylTheFish has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
DarrylTheFish has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Talkless has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
Guest4 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guest4 has quit [Client Quit]
DarrylTheFish has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
DarrylTheFish has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
DarrylTheFish has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
DarrylTheFish has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
preimage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
dermoth has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
Guest4 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
preimage has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
preimage has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guest4 has quit [Client Quit]
DarrylTheFiish has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
DarrylTheFish has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
preimage has quit [Quit: WeeChat 4.0.4]
DarrylTheFiish has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bugs_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
darosior has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
abubakarsadiq has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
jarthur has quit [Quit: jarthur]
brunoerg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
bitdex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
darosior has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
MatrixBot1234561 has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]