<sipa>
and it'd be using fairly low-level operations (pubkey addition) which we'd like to get rid of
<sipa>
the trend in libsecp256k1 has been to focus on higher-level, hard-to-abuse, APIs
<josie>
fjahr: nope, but thats a good question.. when we spoke about it last coredev, the expectation was that a secp module would move slower and its fine to continue with the PR as is with the plan to use the module when its ready
<fanquake>
sounds like something we don't want to start doing in our codebase. If it's going to be a blocker to upstream making changes and or us pulling updates
<josie>
sipa: which is good for other implementations as well! if we had a high level, hard to abuse api, it de-risks wallets outside of core implementing bip352
<sipa>
indeed
<achow101>
i'd much rather not have to review basically 2 different implementations
<achow101>
so if the secp is likely to happen, then it should go first
Guest42 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
<achow101>
and 28122 should use it
Guest42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<josie>
im fine with that! and agree that reviewing two in tandem is gross. honestly wasnt expecting the secp module to make progress as quickly as it did (h/t theStack)
<fjahr>
yeah, if the module is used right away that will motivate more people to review secp faster as well.
<josie>
cool, well then per this discussion ill update #28122 to use the libsecp module
<ryanofsky>
#28921 was merged, #28929 is out for review, and I will open a new PR soon with 3 commits from the multiprocess branch #10102 exposing interfaces::Chain over IPC
<sipa>
in theory, it's a huge change, in practice i don't think it'll really affect anything
<sipa>
but i'd like to draw some attention to it
<sipa>
that's it, unless people have questions
<vasild>
hi
<sipa>
s/huge/fundamental/
<achow101>
anything else to talk about?
<josie>
if there are no other topics, is there q update on the mailing list?
<vasild>
where is the mailing list migrating to?
<achow101>
last I heard, mailing list is actually shutting down imminently and will be moving to groups.io. Maybe RubenSomsen can provide more details?
<sipa>
kanzure: i am baffled to hear "i am AFK" coming from you
<_aj_>
sipa: neuralink announced its first human subject the other day?
<RubenSomsen>
I found some issues with groups io, we've been talking with them to get it resolved
<Murch[m]>
Good point, I thought kanzure and his keyboard were a permanent cybernetic system
<achow101>
RubenSomsen: can you say what kind of issues?
<RubenSomsen>
We might still opt for Google groups depending on how it pans out
<josie>
in the meanwhile, is delving the best place for soliciting feedback on proposals?
<RubenSomsen>
Emails had an unsubscribe link that required no authentication. Forwarding an email would allow whoever received the email to unsubscribe you.
<sipa>
RubenSomsen: ouch
<sipa>
delving seems to be starting to get a pretty good crowd
<RubenSomsen>
Imo the mailing list should continue to exist, and delving alongside it
<achow101>
any idea when the migration will be completed?
<achow101>
no longer being able to send to the list now is kinda bothersome, especially for conversations that were happening on the list and not elsewhere
<vasild>
what would a migration look like? a migration of some web-archive of past emails, or would existent subscribers would automatically be subscribed to e.g. bitcoin@groups.io?
<RubenSomsen>
The bug was just fixed. I just tested and confirmed. We want to finalize things soon. Especially if we're stopping emails on the current list that forces us to do something asap.
<sipa>
great
<RubenSomsen>
vasild: to be determined, but it may be cleaner to let people re-subscribe. We have a lot of weird subscribers that are probably spam.
<achow101>
presumably there'll be a final email on the current list with instructions
<RubenSomsen>
yeah
realies has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<vasild>
ok, so it looks like there is nothing to be migrated? just a new list people can use (subscribe and send emails to)?
<sipa>
given the mbox comment, i guess the history will be imported?
SpellChecker_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
SpellChecker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<vasild>
right, which I guess will be available via some kind of web ui?
<achow101>
wherever the new official archive is, I think history will also be imported there too, so it'll all be in one place. otherwise, it's just a new mailing list
<RubenSomsen>
I think that's more for archiving purposes than importing.
<sipa>
RubenSomsen: oh, unfortunate
<RubenSomsen>
We have to archive the new mailing list somewhere too, so maybe that place can host both the new and old archive
realies has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
kashifs has quit [Quit: Client closed]
<achow101>
anything else to discuss?
<RubenSomsen>
I'd be curious to hear if anyone has strong objections to Google groups. We're currently experimenting with both.
<maxedw>
Is one free and one not? Does that factor?
<achow101>
i guess the main thing is that groups.io could get expensive?
realies has quit [Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)]
realies has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<RubenSomsen>
We can easily find people to sponsor that amount, but if we get spammed with subscribers that could become an issue
<sipa>
i do agree with vasild' sentiment about google groups, though pragmatically, i would still subscribe
<vasild>
achow101: yeah, that $0.04 may be rised in the future
<_aj_>
setup a btcpay store and require people to pay 50c to stay subscribed after a year?
<sipa>
and groups.io is probably not that different from a cost for hosting ourselves if we need to pay people to maintain things
<hebasto>
if there is possibility to spam some adversary will use it
<sipa>
RubenSomsen: is there some kind of spam protection we could get? like if there is a sudden influx of subscribers that get kicked quickly, we don't get billed for it?
<vasild>
too many spam/unwanted subscribers should be a common problem for any group at groups.io, how do they solve it?
<sipa>
maybe this discussion belongs elsewhere, though
<_aj_>
on the mailing list? :)
<RubenSomsen>
sipa: I sent them my concern about mass subscription and am awaiting the reply. Hopefully they have some thoughts.
<sipa>
_aj_: i thought there was an IRC channel about discussing the migration too
<vasild>
even groups.io have incentive to sneak some moderate dummy subscribers themselves
<achow101>
There's a ##bitcoin-dev-lists channel
<RubenSomsen>
Yeah let's take this there
<achow101>
seems like there wasn't anything else to discuss for today
<achow101>
#endmeeting
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jonatack has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
szkl has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Guest42 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
kevkevin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guyver2 has left #bitcoin-core-dev [Closing Window]
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] knst opened pull request #29364: refactor: Remove excess reserve() call for SecureString (master...bitcoin-knst-secure-string) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29364
kevkevin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #28661: libconsensus: adapt API header to be compliant to ANSI C (master...202310-libconsensus-ansi_c_api_header) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28661
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] starius opened pull request #29365: Extend signetchallenge to set target block spacing (master...signet-blockitme-in-challenge) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29365
bugs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
puchka has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
puchka has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
salvatoshi has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<josie>
fanquake: end of an era
<PaperSword>
Why is there 4K weight units subtracted from template generation by default?
<PaperSword>
static constexpr unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_WEIGHT{MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT - 4000};
<PaperSword>
Is there a technical reason or just some safety margin?
pablomartin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<glozow>
PaperSword: margin for the coinbase
<PaperSword>
So if one modifies their coinbase to use over that 4000WUs then you could generate invalid blocks if you don't adjust that parameter to account for the added size.
abubakarsadiq has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
cold has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
midnight has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
the_mariner has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
Talkless has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
kevkevin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
the_mariner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
the_mariner has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
the_mariner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jonatack has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
preimage has quit [Quit: WeeChat 4.2.1]
___nick___ has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
cguida has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
cguida has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
the_mariner has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
abubakarsadiq has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
TallTim_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
TallTim has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
pablomartin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
the_mariner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
the_mariner has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
kevkevin has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
the_mariner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
the_mariner has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
bugs_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
salvatoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
the_mariner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #29367: wallet: Set descriptors flag after migrating blank wallets (master...set-descriptors-flag-migrated-blank) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29367