<vasild>
TheCharlatan: 208M on one machine and 122M on another (that is `du -sh`, depends on the filesystem block size)
kevkevin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jespada has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
<vasild>
not much, it has just a few files
pseudoramdom has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
jespada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<vasild>
and 113M on a pruned node
kevkevin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Cory55 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
Cory55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<TheCharlatan>
Thanks, interesting to see this magnitude of variance.
donal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
pseudoramdom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
pseudoramdom has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
donal has quit [Quit: Client closed]
bitdex has quit [Quit: = ""]
donal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
pseudoramdom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<laanwj>
123M here. some difference based on the file system block size is expected, but i don't think it should come out double?
kevkevin_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
kevkevin has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<laanwj>
as i understand, pruning shouldn't make a difference, block files are deleted but the blocks remain in the block index
brunoerg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<instagibbs>
don't remember the command but topic: we should decide a direction on OP_RETURN stuff
<laanwj>
so the larger ones are interesting, maybe it's for long-running nodes which have a lot of stale blocks from reorgs
<laanwj>
the command is #topic <topic>
<instagibbs>
#topic let's decide a direction on OP_RETURN policy
reverseengineer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Christoph_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<jeremyrubin>
tbh i don't really care to get involved in whatever the thing is, but I think the GH thread should probably get unlocked, maybe someone should just comment "will be reopened after a 48h cooldown"
pseudoramdom has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<reverseengineer>
Did the Btc blk magic signature change or why do I, upon reading the first 4 bytes of blk000001.dat get s.o like d3f5 etc etc. ?
<reverseengineer>
I downloaded the blocks without pruning
jespada_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
donal has quit [Quit: Client closed]
jespada has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<_aj_>
fanquake: du -bh .bitcoin/blocks/index/ ?
<reverseengineer>
193MB
TorTanicc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<_aj_>
instagibbs, laanwj: aren't you thinking of #proposedmeetingtopic ?
<instagibbs>
the world may never know
TorTanicc has quit [Client Quit]
banananananananz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
banananananananz has quit [Client Quit]
<reverseengineer>
_aj_: I rule out corrupt blocks because the latest blocks show the same first bytes. The issue is that due to this issue I can't read the size of blocks etc.
<laanwj>
_aj_: oh, oops, yes, #topic is a command but it sets the current topic it doesn't propose one
<laanwj>
anyhow, it's probably clear by now
<laanwj>
reverseengineer: newer versions of bitcoind xor the blocks on disk to avoid false positives with virus scanners, see `contrib/linearize/linearize-data.py` how to handle this
<reverseengineer>
thank you laanwj
reverseengineer has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bugs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
pseudoramdom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
eugenesiegel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] ismaelsadeeq opened pull request #32395: fees: rpc: `estimatesmartfee` now returns a fee rate estimate during low network activity (master...04-2025-fee-estimate-with-low-network-activity) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32395
jon_atack has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
eugenesiegel has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<fanquake>
_aj_: yea
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #32396: cmake: Add application manifests when cross-compiling for Windows (master...250501-app-manifest) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32396
aleggg has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<_aj_>
fanquake: even -bh says ~300MB? weird
<fanquake>
_aj_: this is bsd du, on a macos box, so there's no -b
<_aj_>
fanquake: haha, sucks to be you
<fanquake>
I can check some others later
<_aj_>
fanquake: find .bitcoin/blocks/index -printf "%s\n" | (x=0; while read a; do x=$(($x+$a)); done; echo $((x/1024/1024)) )
<fanquake>
_aj_: did you think BSD find would be so useful to implement -printf
<_aj_>
can't you use homebrew or something to upgrade to the 90s?
<fanquake>
yea there's probably a g prefixed tool floating around somewhere
<achow101>
There are 2 pre-proposed meeting topics this week. Any last minute ones to add?
<sr_gi[m]>
hi
<kanzure>
hi
<willcl-ark>
hi
bugs_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<lightlike>
Hi
<Murch[m]>
Hi
<marcofleon>
hi
<achow101>
#topic Erlay WG Update (sr_gi, gleb)
<sr_gi[m]>
I've been moving forward with Warnet simulations, small-scale on my local setup for now. Now that the experiments are design I should be moving to bigger scale experiments SoonTM. Nothing substantial to report so far.
<laanwj>
hi
<sr_gi[m]>
That's it on my end
<achow101>
#topic Kernel WG Update (TheCharlatan)
<TheCharlatan>
Still looking for review on #40595 and #31382
<corebot>
TheCharlatan: Error: That URL raised <HTTP Error 404: Not Found>
<achow101>
It doesn't seem like any new discussion really happened there
<achow101>
Now that it has been a week, how do people feel about moving the repo?
<vasild>
did anything happen with the bip repo in the meantime, e.g. did bip people decide to move it away from bitcoin/bips?
<achow101>
nope
<jonatack>
vasild: no
<instagibbs>
does crickets mean ack/nack or pure indifference
<darosior>
achow101: i wanted to chime in but didn't get to it. Can we punt for another week?
<achow101>
darosior: you can chime in now :)
<jonatack>
ACK for me, as i commented in that issue
eugenesiegel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<stickies-v>
not necessarily opposed but doesn't feel important pushing this through atm, let's just move bips and move on for now?
<willcl-ark>
I think a little more time might be prudent here
<darosior>
The perspective of "this is unnecessarily risky" is growing on me
<fanquake>
optics-wise, I don't think it's a good time to move anything around
<achow101>
one thing I want to point out is that the recent temp bans being issued do affect the bips repo too
<glozow>
I would like more time
<TheCharlatan>
yeah, great timing ^^
<achow101>
okay, punt for another week
<stickies-v>
i don't think next week is going to be significantly different
<furszy>
+1 on moving the bips repo only - if that's needed due to the recent temp bans
<TheCharlatan>
what will be the name of the repo in the bitcoin-core org?
<stickies-v>
if the bips ban issue is fixed, there's no real urgency here?
<achow101>
TheCharlatan: we can bikeshed that.. I like bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core
<Murch[m]>
Some BIP Editors appear to think that the bitcoin org is the correct place for BIPs while Bitcoin Core should move out. Others seem fine with the move.
<achow101>
moving the bips repo is up to the bip editors decide
<cfields>
it's unclear to me on the issue if the org will transfer ownership or retain the current owners? As that was brought up las week, that's the bigger concern to me.
<stickies-v>
Murch[m]: but the bip editor's can't get ban permissions in the bitcoin org?
<jonatack>
achow101: agree with your naming suggestion
<cfields>
s/will/would/
<achow101>
cfields: I think the general sentiment is that the current owners of bitcoin/ will remain so, and no new ones will be added, regardless of any moves
<Murch[m]>
stickies-v: I have mentioned that, yes
<cfields>
achow101: ok, thanks. I'd suggest updating the issue to make that explicit.
<laanwj>
bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core sgtm
<Murch[m]>
stickies-v: We also have had less brigading in the past
<TheCharlatan>
I'd like to keep /bitcoin. It would also make easier to maintain any existing cloning documentation, i.e. no need to handle the renamed dir.
<glozow>
I thought it was quite clear we wouldn't transfer ownership of the org
<laanwj>
yes
<jonatack>
I agree the project owners in bitcoin/ would not need to be changed.
<achow101>
TheCharlatan: the url will still redirect
<cfields>
👍
<Murch[m]>
The Ordinals proposal had some, and there is a tiny bit on BIP 177, but we have so far done fine with just hiding a few comments
<glozow>
TheCharlatan: +1
<jonatack>
Banning hasn't been needed over the past year, until recently
<TheCharlatan>
yeah, but you end up with either bitcoin or bitcoin-core on your machine.
<jonatack>
in a single event
<glozow>
that's not true, banning happens all the time
<jonatack>
in the BIPs
<Murch[m]>
glozow: Yeah, I think the ownership being retained by Bitcoin Core maintainers is understood
<darosior>
Yeah it was a single event, and wasn't really effective anyways
<achow101>
jonatack: I've definitely banned several spammers from the bips repo over the past year
<Murch[m]>
Sure, but Spam is a clear-cut issue
<darosior>
For low value spam ban can be effective, but in this case they can just be banned from the whole org
<jonatack>
right
<achow101>
yes, just saying that there have been bans issued for obvious spam in the bips repo, without the bips editors asking
<Murch[m]>
It is my impression that the BIP Editors would be fine with remaining in the current org/repo at this time.
<jonatack>
achow101: yes, and it's helpful. only referring to the fortunately very rare non-trivial bans.
<Murch[m]>
There was a little bit of a debate about the bans in the past days affecting the BIPs repo as well, but I don’t think any of the affected parties were actively contributing to the BIPs repo at the time and the bans were short…
<jonatack>
I think the BIPs case is separate from the bitcoin core one.
<achow101>
ok, so i'll add this as a topic again next week, and if anyone has thoughts, please comment in the issue
<achow101>
#topic let's decide a direction on OP_RETURN policy (instagibbs)
<instagibbs>
hi
<instagibbs>
The recent OP_RETURN policy discussion has been heated and has many viewpoints.
<instagibbs>
I'm not going to recapitulate all background to the topic, that's DYOR stuff.
<instagibbs>
Unfortunately, we have to make a choice and we need input from regular contributors who have put thought into relay concerns. Letting the topic linger with no clear direction just breeds resentment and saps the project's energy by wasting time and attention on what otherwise is a smaller problem.
<instagibbs>
That said I see roughly four options of varying credulity ahead of us:
<instagibbs>
0) Decide as a project that we will not modify this relay policy, close PRs indefinitely
<instagibbs>
1) Decide that OP_RETURN expansion results in too much arbitrary data publishing, and double-down on transaction filtering. Make it a project priority. (to be clear, this was rejected as a group repeatedly with 0 volunteers)
<instagibbs>
2) Decide to adjust priority "dial" minimally to something we find "appropriate" for known uses to reduce harm we are aware of, and ship it. Likely to be revisited in future.
<instagibbs>
Regardless of my biases for one or the other, as a project we should actively pick one, and we need consistent contributors to speak up if they disagree with the direction. Once direction is set, the rest of the details are straight forward and we can get back to real business.
<instagibbs>
That's it. Thanks for listening to my ted talk
<Sjors[m]>
I think anything short of (3) will just keep bringing back the drama.
pseudoramdom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<vasild>
I guess the most liberal is to have this configurable in Bitcoin Core so users can set whatever mempool policy they wish. This way Bitcoin Core developers will not be perceived as imposing their views on the node operators.
<glozow>
I don't think (1) makes any sense. (0) is giving in to drama
<Sjors[m]>
(though avoiding drama isn't necessarily a good criterion)
<glozow>
vasild: it is mostly configurable already. But long term I think it's a footgun to give options for users to... reject transactions that will likely be mined
<darosior>
Storm in a tea pot. I don't think we should give in to bullies and do what we believe is good for actual Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin network users, ie the silent majority. I think we should merge Todd's PR and call it a day.
<achow101>
configurability here is basically just a placebo
<instagibbs>
vasild fwiw going forward we don't add these kinds of arguments if it doesnt achieve its aims and causes block prop to suffer
<Sjors[m]>
vasild: except the documentation would have to list the downsides of not using the default, such as interfering with compact block relay
<instagibbs>
from scratch I'd argue heavily against an argument
<darosior>
I don't think keeping the option makes any sense once we switch the default to be no restriction.
<glozow>
configurability at the cost of compact block reconstruction is irresponsible on our part imo
<eugenesiegel>
I don't have much to add, but I agree with glozow
<instagibbs>
I'm fine enough with 2, but prefer 3 out of humility of not knowing the next zk proof size people want to use, and do not want to revisit this again
<Sjors[m]>
Also - as someone argued recent - it's arguably dishonest to ship an option knowing it doesn't work, i.e. a placebo.
<sipa>
my belief is: you should only provide configuration knobs when you can give advice on when someone should use it
<achow101>
I prefer 3 or 0, don't want to revisit this ever again
<instagibbs>
^ fair
<darosior>
sipa: +1. And i don't think it holds in this case.
<TheCharlatan>
is the reality that if configuration options are removed, a significant portion of the user base will switch to another implementation? Then I'm not sure if it is entirely irresponsible.
<achow101>
TheCharlatan: a loud minority will, but they probably already have
<Sjors[m]>
TheCharlatan: I doubt it
<sipa>
or they don't run a node at all
<jonatack>
perhaps consider spending time exlaining the issues involved to the outer community, if perception of bitcoin core is a criteria
<glozow>
I wrote a comment about splitting out the option-removal part of Peter's PR. I think it's been buried though
<Sjors[m]>
We don't collect network metrics, but I suppose you could find out with some well crafted transaction broadcasts.
pseudoramdom has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
<darosior>
If default is no restriction we can't expect providing a knob to have any global effect (defaults are sticky). So the user setting it would just shoot themselves in the foot: either blinding them to unconfirmed transactions they compete with for block space, harming block reconstruction, or both. Therefore i don't think the knob should exist.
<instagibbs>
jonatack we should communicate whatever the result is for sure
<jonatack>
beforehand, in a way that doesn't disenfranchise people
<glozow>
can you explain on what "disenfranchise" means?
<achow101>
Sjors[m]: with mempoolfullrbf, it didn't take particularly long or especially well crafted broadcasts to get txs to relay, even when a majority of the network hadn't turned it on/upgraded yet
<willcl-ark>
I've yet to see a well-reasoned/data-driven arguement as to why having these transactions arrive to your node in a block, vs via your mempool, makes anything better. Having a knob to twiddle that setting does seem pretty pointless to me, so would also prefer 0 or 3.
<glozow>
explain/expand
<jonatack>
darosior: i read that, and it was very good until the last 3 sections imo
<jonatack>
then it reverted to a tone that imo doesn't reach across the aisle effectively
<Sjors[m]>
achow101: I don't mean that the filtering would work, just that we could measure how many nodes actually encorce an OP_RETURN limit
<Murch[m]>
jonatack: I have already spent several hours explaining this week, there are a lot of misconceptions being spread by popular social media participants, though
<Sjors[m]>
As a proxy for churn away from Core
<jonatack>
Murch[m]: yes, i've been swamped with private questions by users and the community as well
<instagibbs>
Pick a direction, draft a reasoning for it, PR can do normal review for implementation details only, remove any comments about direction since they're off topic.
<glozow>
I do think we can do more on the outreach part of this PR, but don't think it's productive to try to convince all of the twitter people. Particularly ones who are clearly not interested in engaging productively.
<sipa>
^
eugenesiegel has quit [Quit: Client closed]
eugenesiegel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<glozow>
In general, I don't think popular opinion should stop us from doing what is right. And I don't even think this is a popular opinion tbh, more of a loud one
<Murch[m]>
glozow: 💯
<darosior>
glozow president
<jonatack>
it's more effective beforehand, but now that it's become widespread drama, i think reaching out with a tone like willcl-ark's recent meta comment is a good approach
<sr_gi[m]>
willcl-ark: +1. I think the argument that people against removing the limit are "ok" with transactions over the limit being included in blocks, but they are completely against them ever touching their mempool doesn't make sense. Specially when the alternative storing the same type of data in unspendable transactions that needs to live on the UTXO set potentially forever
<darosior>
jonatack: i dispute that "reaching out" wasn't done. I explained the rationale on the mailing list. Todd only opened the PR days after that.
pseudoramdom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<BlueMatt[m]>
glozow: Not only right, but *important*. Sitting around and watching people fill the utxo set with garbage isn’t really acceptable.
<darosior>
And if "reaching out" means appeasing people who are motivated by hurting the project and its contributors, then sorry but no i won't do that.
<instagibbs>
You don't have to love Citrea's design, but actively reducing harm should be the default where possible.
<glozow>
Currently the PR is locked for cooldown (fanquake what is the expiry for that?). I think that should be respected by everyone and we should never merge PRs that are locked. But afterward we should treat it like any other PR. Weigh in with your technical opinions and we'll decide; the garbage brigading can be ignored.
<jonatack>
darosior: i mean reaching effectively across the aisle rathen than preaching to the choir, in a way that connects
<achow101>
glozow: the expiry is when someone unlocks it (there is no expiry on locking issues/prs)
<glozow>
ok. when should we unlock it then?
<pinheadmz>
There needs to be more effective educational outreach
<Murch[m]>
It sounds to me that there a) appears to be a majority for 0 or 3, and a bunch of proponents for dropping the limit. Is there anyone arguing for the opposite (0)?
<pinheadmz>
I think before the PR is reopened
<pinheadmz>
Or, counter propaganda ie why utxo bloat is worse
<Sjors[m]>
glozow: I do think it's better to merge it with some open nits, and improve those later.
<achow101>
glozow: the request was for a day, so basically after this meeting. unless it should be locked for longer
<instagibbs>
pinheadmz I think drafting the "we're doing this and here's why" before unlocking is a good idea
<Sjors[m]>
Not a huge rush either, but it touches a lot of tests, so might end up needing a rebase.
<TheCharlatan>
+1 instagibbs
<Murch[m]>
instagibbs: How is this different from the posts in the mailing list and the PR explaining all that exactly?
<darosior>
instagibbs: +1
<instagibbs>
If you have something to sign off on, I'll sign off on it
pseudoramdom has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<pinheadmz>
Murch those media are not properly formatted for all the users
pseudoramdom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<pinheadmz>
Users don't read ML they read tweets
<darosior>
I'm annoyed that it makes it bigger of a deal than it is, but hey
<achow101>
Sjors[m]: the conflict list appears to be quite small. there may be silent conflicts though
<instagibbs>
darosior ship has sailed my man
<Sjors[m]>
Maybe also point out the v30 branch-off is many months away. A well reasoned argument on the mailinglist could convince us to revert even months later.
<Murch[m]>
pinheadmz: okay sure, but there do seem to be some people here that don’t seem to support dropping the limit, so I’m not sure Bitcoin Core can put out a blog post. Where would this be posted and by whom?
<Murch[m]>
Sjors: I would not make that argument in public after seeing how that discussion went with mempoolfullrbf
<Sjors[m]>
Murch: it takes the urgency away
<pinheadmz>
Maybe instagibbs idea is more fitting. "We made this call and here's why"
<pinheadmz>
But make sure it lists tradeoffs too
<Sjors[m]>
But might make life for mailinglist moderators annoying.
<Murch[m]>
I think I’d rather leave the PR open a few more weeks to collect more input than to offer reverting it later
<jonatack>
My guess is the most diplomatic and humble approach would be to close it for now and begin engaging constructively, with the option to try a bit later.
<pinheadmz>
Most importantly the users seem to think big opreturn means bigger blocks which means harder to run nodes
<instagibbs>
pinheadmz no perfect options, but we're picking an options whether wer like it or not
<pinheadmz>
That's such an easy thing to teach users about
<glozow>
I think we could have a longer discussion about whether a prescriptive "filter" for good/bad practices still has a place in mempool policy, because this probably isn't the last of this flavor of disagreement. But perhaps for another day.
<Sjors[m]>
Murch: that's fine too, if we can announce a specific intented merge-by date
<jonatack>
The way it is done matters a lot to the outer community who want to feel heard and listened to. IMO.
<Murch[m]>
pinheadmz: Which is funny, because OP_RETURN is not weight-discounted, so makes blocks smaller…
<instagibbs>
glozow imo it's one of the last actually useful expansions that is in conflict with "paternalism" of policy
<glozow>
I don't think we should give up *again*. That's why we closed it in 2023
<instagibbs>
taproot is so relaxed
<pinheadmz>
jonatack: +1
<darosior>
How about:
<darosior>
1. PR gets re-opened
<darosior>
2. Every regular contributor who thinks this should be merged goes, ACK with rationale
<darosior>
3. After merging maintainers email the mailing list thread with their and everyone's rationale
<pinheadmz>
Be mature. Close. Teach. Reopen
<darosior>
Comparable to signing off on a blog post or something, without treating it as too exceptional either. Maintainers aren't caught on the spot because they can point to the support of all regular contributors.
<instagibbs>
pinheadmz wanna spearhead a doc with me?
<instagibbs>
I'll raise my hand
<pinheadmz>
Sure
<jonatack>
People think it will be merged despite all the nacks and objections. If core shows humility and patience imo it would surprise people and improve things.
<TheCharlatan>
instagibbs, I'd be interested too.
<instagibbs>
And to be clear, people are allowed to disagree, please speak up if you're just being sheepish. This is for the health of the project more than the feature itself.
<Sjors[m]>
I tend to agree with jonatack that a few weeks delay might help, and doesn't hurt given that achow101 pointed out it's unlikely to need many rebased
<lightlike>
jonatack: or it would show that brigading works, and therefore invite more of it
<darosior>
jonatack: i have yet to see a good technical argument against it. We should weigh objection on their own merit and not give in just because people are harassing us. The count of NACKs is meaningless.
<instagibbs>
TheCharlatan 👍
<glozow>
I'll join on the doc
<darosior>
instagibbs: +100
<achow101>
i don't think there's any urgency to merge or close the pr
<darosior>
(not to join the doc, for your last statement)
<darosior>
Also, to be clear this type of transaction in Citrea is very unlikely to end up onchain
<darosior>
I raised the point because it illustrates an issue with our policy, not because there is urgency
<jonatack>
lightlike: i think the process hasn't helped in this case, as willcl-ark wrote in bitcoin/meta a couple hours ago
<darosior>
But the more we wait the less probable it is that people will use the less harmful way of storing data..
<instagibbs>
Maybe this can be spun into positive outreach to app devs too?
<Sjors[m]>
As long as the effect of brigading is a mere delay, I'm not too worried about that messaging.
<sipa>
darosior: i don't think days or weeks matter here
<sipa>
but months may
<instagibbs>
sipa +1
<Murch[m]>
darosior: EIther way, it would only go out with the 0.30.0 release in October/November, so whether we merge this week or revisit in two weeks doesn’t really matter much
<TheCharlatan>
darosior, we at least have time to the next release, no?
<darosior>
Yes. just pointing out that also from their point of view there is a lot of uncertainty. The harmful way of doing it is certain to work for them.
<TheCharlatan>
ah
<furszy>
darosior: if they don't use the less harmful way (when available) it means they have no incentive to do it?
<Sjors[m]>
A few weeks should be enough to get darosior on Joe Rogan and explain it :-)
<darosior>
Murch[m]: can get them to start allocating dev resources to take advantage of it. At least they know it will happen
<sipa>
darosior: i don't think that's a good reason to let us influence our choices
<sipa>
there is very good probability that citrea, or whatever individual project, just doesn't take off
<Sjors[m]>
And more practically, it means several rounds of bitcoin podcasts can go through the issue and hopefully convince more people.
<fanquake>
instagibbs: Is this doc / write up is going to go up on the website?
<darosior>
sipa: yes again i'm not really concerned about Citrea's specific transactions
<Murch[m]>
Giving people more time to understand the whole picture before revisiting the PR seems like a good idea and it doesn’t prevent us from doing what we think is right eventually
<sipa>
right, likewise
<glozow>
furszy: no, it means that our current "best practices" policy rules are prescriptive, but a poor reflection of best practices actually are
<Sjors[m]>
It might not take off, but it does we have a six month delay in dealing with it. And once projects like this are deployed, it's harder for them to adjust - and really not worth it.
<Murch[m]>
Responding with education to brigading and widespread misconceptions doesn’t feel like caving to the brigading to me. Closing the PR would, though.
<BlueMatt[m]>
yea, letting this slip into the next release is really not okay, there's very nontrivial cost to the bitcoin system
<darosior>
furszy: we should try to make the less harmful way be at least as cheap as the harmful way. We can do that byte-wise (and even better). But uncertainty is a cost too
<glozow>
fanquake: I don't really think so tbh. But we'll need to write a release note so we can probably expand a little there?
<instagibbs>
fanquake glozow as long as people go on podcasts I think that'll do more ;)
<fanquake>
glozow: where will it go then?
<instagibbs>
just needs to be public
<darosior>
fanquake: release notes?
<pinheadmz>
Needs to be treatable
<achow101>
can also just be a super long comment in the pr?
<glozow>
can we just post it on social media? does it need to go through official channels?
<pinheadmz>
*tweet able
<pinheadmz>
With clickbait title
<fanquake>
So when it's being distributed, we are going to link to a gh pr, tell people to look at the rel notes in the diff?
<Murch[m]>
The upcoming Optech newsletter will cover this debate, anyone want to come on the podcast on Tuesday to talk to me about it?
Emc97 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<darosior>
pinheadmz: haha +1
<pinheadmz>
Trick twitter users into learning something
<fanquake>
It seems odd that if as a project, we are deciding to do something, we wouldn't want to put that information in the most prominent communication channels we have
<fanquake>
i.e the blog on the website
<BlueMatt[m]>
Murch[m]: sure, if you want someone who doenst work on bitcoin core i can :)
<fanquake>
and then link to if from our twitter
<BlueMatt[m]>
oh wait ill be on a plane
<instagibbs>
website is fine, did you want it on website
<glozow>
a lot of people are not free on tuesday because they're flying to this conference where people are gathering to talk about mempool stuff
<achow101>
i think we can decide where to post it after its written. the contents may help to decide the location
<instagibbs>
yes we're going to have a mempool bloodbath next week
<instagibbs>
should be awesome
<fanquake>
instagibbs: I'm trying to figure out why it wouldn't go on the website
<fanquake>
Seems like the only & obvious place
<Sjors[m]>
glozow: that conference sounds like a good place to record some panels, assuming anyone who opposed this is there
<fanquake>
If it's a change related to the software we are shipping from that same website
<darosior>
If it's smaller than 1MiB i know where we could post it
<glozow>
LOL
<pinheadmz>
LOL
<instagibbs>
fanquake I think it would be good there, sets the tone for the project
<Murch[m]>
fanquake: I have the impression that a few people here are not in favor, but nobody substantiated that when I asked earlier, so maybe not
<glozow>
It just kind of feels... too official?
rkrux has quit [Quit: Client closed]
<fanquake>
well the code change is going into the official binaries?
<BlueMatt[m]>
the website has been used in the past for "~everyone agrees on this statement"
<instagibbs>
I think it is official, in that we can disagree and move on.
<darosior>
Yeah it seems to me there is much more important topic we could have a stance on, than Twitter nonsense about OP_RETURNs
<glozow>
When is the last time we've written a blog post about why we merged a PR that wasn't fixing a vuln?
<darosior>
But also i'm not opposed to having on the website, better than nothing
<fanquake>
it seems like that is the case here though? Otherwise it wouldn't be merged?
<instagibbs>
I'm not sure our past history is good example :)
<lightlike>
segwit faq?
<BlueMatt[m]>
i mean it can be a more general statement on policy
Emc99 has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<BlueMatt[m]>
it doesn't have to be *specifically* about the pr here
<instagibbs>
right, people not me taking on the burden
<pinheadmz>
honestly if anyone has actual code feedback just email it to ptodd
<Murch[m]>
haha
<instagibbs>
retro, I like it
<Murch[m]>
Leave it closed until the statement is out?
<achow101>
:shrug: locked or unlocked, doesn't particularly bother me. I don't think it actually puts a burden on the maintainers, rather more on the mods. I've unsubscribed from it anyways.
abubakarsadiq has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<pinheadmz>
stay locked then
<achow101>
alrighty
<lightlike>
but opening just for one comment by a regular, and close it again right after is not a good look imo
<pinheadmz>
like i said, productive feedback can go through other channels
<pinheadmz>
and well have a new place for everyone to argue soon
<instagibbs>
achow101 yep, anyone who matters has tuned out :)
<instagibbs>
Well, not everyone, 90%+
<willcl-ark>
I think it could be re-opened tomorrow. Gives a full 24h cooldown to people before jumping back in
<achow101>
willcl-ark: it's been locked for at least 24h
<willcl-ark>
yeah but AFAIK still doing the rounds on social media etc.
<achow101>
lightlike: indeed, and we shouldn't do that
<achow101>
(just noticed it happened)
<glozow>
lightlike: +1
Emc97 has quit [Quit: Client closed]
jespada_ has quit [Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
dzxzg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jespada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] Brotcrunsher opened pull request #32397: doc: Add hint about avoiding spaces in paths when building on Windows (master...HintNoSpace) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32397
dzxzg has quit [Client Quit]
sebastianvstaa has quit [Quit: Client closed]
<jonatack>
pinheadmz: instagibbs: i volunteer to do a final review of the doc if you'd like
Christoph_ has quit [Quit: Christoph_]
<instagibbs>
once shaped up substantially it'll be posted here as a gist or equivalent 👍
<jonatack>
cool, or a midway check if that can be helpful
bugs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
dviola has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
jonatack has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
eugenesiegel has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
brunoerg_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
diego has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
brunoerg has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
diego has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
diego has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jonatack has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
jonatack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Murch[m]>
errrr, either open it for everyone or leave it closed for everyone, but unlocking it for one-sided contributions seems like a surefire way to exacerbate this whole waste of time drama
jon_atack has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Murch[m]>
Ah, I see now what lightlike was referring to.
jonatack has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<Murch[m]>
Like are you trying to give other people more ammunition to take potshots?
<Murch[m]>
that just undermines the work of those that have been doing outreach for the past two days to educate and try to build understanding for the bigger picture
<Murch[m]>
srsly.
<achow101>
we had a discussion, the comment is removed