< July 2025 >
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 12345678910111213141516 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
2025-05-01
<TheCharlatan>
yeah, but you end up with either bitcoin or bitcoin-core on your machine.
<jonatack>
I agree the project owners in bitcoin/ would not need to be changed.
<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.
<laanwj>
bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core sgtm
<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
<stickies-v>
Murch[m]: but the bip editor's can't get ban permissions in the bitcoin org?
<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>
TheCharlatan: we can bikeshed that.. I like bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core
<TheCharlatan>
what will be the name of the repo in the bitcoin-core org?
<vasild>
did anything happen with the bip repo in the meantime, e.g. did bip people decide to move it away from bitcoin/bips?
<_aj_>
fanquake: find .bitcoin/blocks/index -printf "%s\n" | (x=0; while read a; do x=$(($x+$a)); done; echo $((x/1024/1024)) )
<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
<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
<fjahr>
pinheadmz: Not sure if the ML is the right place for that bitcoin core meta discussion, so writing it here instead: Agree that it would be good to split conceptual and technical review but also skeptical the discussion post would get traction. And even if it did, people could still copy+paste their messages into the PR later.
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] darosior closed pull request #32381: policy: allow more than one OP_RETURN outputs per tx (master...2504_fixthefiltersyo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32381
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] stratospher opened pull request #32385: test: add test for malleated transaction with valid witness (master...2025_04_tx_malleate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32385
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #32355: Bugfix: Miner: Don't reuse block_reserved_weight for "block is full enough to give up" weight delta (master...fix_block_full_enough) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32355
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #31014: net: Use GetAdaptersAddresses to get local addresses on Windows (master...2024-10-windows-address-discovery) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31014
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master b9d4d5f laanwj: net: Use GetAdaptersAddresses to get local addresses on Windows
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 0ed5f37 Ava Chow: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#31014: net: Use GetAdaptersAddresses to get local ad...
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #27826: validation: log which peer sent us a header (master...2023/05/saw-header) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27826
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master bad7c91 Sjors Provoost: Log which peer sent us a header
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master f9fa287 Sjors Provoost: Use LogBlockHeader for compact blocks
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] darosior opened pull request #32381: policy: allow more than one OP_RETURN outputs per tx (master...2504_fixthefiltersyo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32381
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #32380: [PoC] Modernize use of UTF-8 in Windows code (master...250429-windows-utf8) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32380
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] fanquake merged pull request #32369: test: Use the correct node for doubled keypath test (master...fix-double-keypath-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32369
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master c5e44a0 merge-script: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32369: test: Use the correct node for doubled keypat...
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoincore.org] azuchi opened pull request #1128: Add japanese translation for security advisory for remaining CVE-2024-52919 issue (master...ja-translate-cve-2024-52919) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/1128
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #32369: test: Use the correct node for doubled keypath test (master...fix-double-keypath-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32369
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 merged pull request #32327: test: Add missing check for empty stderr in util tester (master...2504-test-util-empty-err) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32327
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master fadf12a MarcoFalke: test: Add missing check for empty stderr in util tester
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 65714c1 Ava Chow: Merge bitcoin/bitcoin#32327: test: Add missing check for empty stderr in u...
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] stickies-v opened pull request #32364: refactor: validation: mark CheckBlockIndex as const (master...2025-04/const-checkblockindex) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32364
<corebot>
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29124 | test: Test that migration automatically repairs corrupted metadata with doubled derivation path by achow101 · Pull Request #29124 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] maflcko opened pull request #32360: test: Force named args in RPCOverloadWrapper optional args (master...2504-named-args) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32360
2025-04-27
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] petertodd opened pull request #32359: Remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return (datacarrier) outputs (master...2025-op-return) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto closed pull request #32349: test: Increase stack size for "Debug" builds with MSVC (master...250425-msvc-stack) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32349
2025-04-26
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #32357: depends: Fix cross-compiling `qt` package from macOS to Windows (master...250426-macos-to-windows) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32357
<bitcoin-git>
[gui] hebasto merged pull request #864: Crash fix, disconnect numBlocksChanged() signal during shutdown (master...2025_gui_fix_crash_numBlocksChanged) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/864
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master 71656bd furszy: gui: crash fix, disconnect numBlocksChanged() signal during shutdown
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #32356: cmake: Do not override flags set by the user when replacing them (master...250426-var-override) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32356
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #32355: Bugfix: Miner: Don't reuse block_reserved_weight for "block is full enough to give up" weight delta (master...fix_block_full_enough) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32355
<bitcoin-git>
[gui] hebasto merged pull request #868: Replace stray tfm::format to cerr with qWarning (master...2025-05-qt-stray-format) https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/868
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master de90b47 Hennadii Stepanov: Merge bitcoin-core/gui#868: Replace stray tfm::format to cerr with qWarning
<bitcoin-git>
bitcoin/master edd4656 laanwj: qt: Replace stray tfm::format to cerr with qWarning
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] Eunovo opened pull request #32344: Bug/Wallet: Non-Ranged Descriptors with Range [0,0] Trigger Unexpected Wallet Errors in AddWalletDescriptor (master...bug-fix-wallet-add-non-ranged-descriptors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32344
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #30756: run_command: Close non-std fds when execing slave processes (master...subproc_closefds) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30756
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #32343: common: Close non-std fds before exec in RunCommandJSON (master...2025-04-closefds) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32343
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] tomasandroil opened pull request #32342: Fix missing error check in `set_clo_on_exec` for FD_CLOEXEC handling (master...fix/update) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32342
<laanwj>
dzxzg: oh i see your point now, yes it's less of an issue if we rename the repo to bitcoin-core too
<sipa>
glozow: i think that's much more applicable to bitcoin.org vs bitcoincore.org than github.com/bitcoin vs github.com/bitcoin-core, but yeah
<glozow>
yeah I definitely don't think Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core are the same thing. Really no single piece of software could be == Bitcoin. But most users don't know that, they will search for something called 'bitcoin,' run it, and manage their money with it...
<dzxzg>
I'm not asking whether they'll give it up, just wondering if it's an issue that there's an aural collision with this other org "bitcoincore/bitcoin" (but I'm overall +1 on moving to bitcoin-core)
<sr_gi[m]>
I personally think that the risk of github breaking redirects is higher than someone in the bitcoin org creating a bips repo, and what the implications may be
<sipa>
we like the project to be easy to find, and be prominent, but it isn't Bitcoin
<darosior>
glozow: i think this is again a good point to bring up bitcoin.org
<sipa>
glozow: i hear you - but it also just feels inappropriate that Bitcoin Core ended with the bitcoin/ org name, for historical reasons
<vasild>
so the only solution seems to be to move bitcoin/bips to another org and leave the rest as it is?
<glozow>
What if github stops doing redirects or kicks us for squatting? Not to be a doomer but what if some random money-stealing or just poorly maintained client takes over bitcoin/bitcoin? bitcoin.org not keeping up with software updates already causes people on the network to run unmaintained software.
<achow101>
(should bitcoin exist that long)
<sr_gi[m]>
As opposed to keeping either bitcoin or bips on it
<sr_gi[m]>
I still don't see what is the motivation for leaving bitcoin empty
<darosior>
achow101: i don't think this is a good idea for you all to give/share ownership of bitcoin/
<laanwj>
we need to keep sole ownership of bitcoin to make sure no one else creates a repo named bitcoin
<sipa>
i think the ideal solution is that both move, and bitcoin remains vestigial
<cfields>
glozow: so then what's left in bitcoin/ ?
<achow101>
glozow: we can give ownership to the bip editors too, and make bitcoin/ jointly owned
<glozow>
sipa: I think the cleaner solution to that is to have bips move though. Because assuming we're retaining ownership of the bitcoin org, we're still the ones pressing the ban button for bips
<sipa>
willcl-ark: i think the fact that it's not possible to ban someone from the Bitcoin Core org without also banning them from the BIPs org (whatever those orgs are) is a good motivation. It's not the reason on itself, but it demonstrates there is a mismatch in organisational structure. There is absolutely no reason why people maintaining a piece of software should have the ability to ban someone from
<achow101>
vasild: I don't think we should do that, and I think it's better to separate Bitcoin Core from Bitcoin
<darosior>
This strikes me as a triviality and a bit of a weak motivation to move the repo. I find making the difference between Core and Bitcoin is more compelling a reason.
<vasild>
another possibility is to keep bitcoin/bitcoin as it is and move bitcoin-core/* into bitcoin/; move bitcoin/bips into another org
<achow101>
darosior: we can call it bitcoin-core :p
<darosior>
Can we start bike-shedding the name of the repository in the bitcoin-core org then? :p
<sipa>
i think i'm in favor of moving bitcoin/bitcoin to bitcoin-core/bitcoin, and archiving libbase58/libblkmaker, if the plan is that we retain ownership of bitcoin
<darosior>
fanquake: yeah agree, maintaining the list is sync, as well as separating Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Core, seem more compelling reason to me.
<laanwj>
independently, moving bitcoin's repo to bitcoin-core makes sense, even if just for consistency and to not have to maintain parallel teams/frequent contributor lists
<darosior>
I think the current group of owners of the bitcoin org have shown themselves to be trustworthy and i don't think we should take the risk to change it.
<achow101>
and we can maintain ownership of bitcoin/ in the meanwhile
<sipa>
they can stay under bitcoin org, where we have ownership
<sipa>
fanquake: i think *our* decision here is whether to move bitcoin/bitcoin to bitcoin-core/bitcoin; the question whether bitcoin/bips moved elsewhere is up to the BIP editors
<glozow>
Slightly uncomfortable with the idea that the redirects only work if the owners of bitcoin org don't create a new bitcoin repo + giving admin up to bip editors
<fanquake>
wait why are we sunsetting bitcoin/
<cfields>
achow101: I don't think we want to leave bitcoin/ in a state where it could be perceived as dormant/up for grabs.
<laanwj>
sipa: no i don't think so, if they want an org they can have bitcoin-bips
<achow101>
sipa: I guess so? I'd still prefer to also move bips out and we can sunset bitcoin/
<sipa>
Would the bitcoin org ownership be handed to the BIPs editors then?
<glozow>
if you ban someone from bitcoin-core org, aren't they unable to comment on bitcion-core/meta issues?
<darosior>
Leaving bips in bitcoin/ and having Core in bitcoin-core/ does make sense to me, although i haven't thought about drawbacks.
<cfields>
hmm, looking at what would be left in bitcoin/, it'd just be bips/libblkmaker/libbase58. There's been discussion about moving/deprecating the latter 2 for years. So that'd just leave bips in bitcoin/.
<willcl-ark>
What are the advantages of vacating bitcoin/bitcoin? My natural instinct would be to retain that and move bips/ out from bitcoin/?
<sipa>
Ignoring history, I think having bitcoin/bips and bitcoin-core/bitcoin makes most sense, in that BIPs are actually aiming to be a whole-Bitcoin-ecosystem wide thing.
<laanwj>
"libbase58" is also still in bitcoin i don't know what to do with that
<fanquake>
wouldn't moving the repo break the setup of banning from bitcoin/bitcoin, and then the person can actually comment in bitcoin-core/meta, otherwise if they both exist in the same org, how will the banne comment in meta
<laanwj>
yes could move the bips repo as well, empty out "bitcoin" completely eventually
<laanwj>
sounds good to me, as long as the old git URL will keep working , it's been the plan for as long as the bitcoin-core org exists, really
<achow101>
The main issue that there could be is of course that bitcoin/bitcoin is referenced in a ton of places. However, github already handles this by redirecting all links from the old repo location to the new repo location. All PRs and issues are transferred, all links automatically redirect, and git remotes will automatically redirect too so no one would even have to change their git config. All that needs to happen is that a bitcoin/bitcoin repo
<achow101>
Transferring the repo is trivial - the same people are owners of both bitcoin and bitcoin-core, it's just a matter of clicking the button. However, it is also something that I think requires contributor buy-in, and notice that it's happening.
<achow101>
Moving the repo to bitcoin-core would also reduce administration overhead - primarily that keeping 2 organizations' member and team lists in sync is kind of annoying.
<achow101>
The solution to this issue is to not have both Bitcoin Core and BIPs under the same organization. We already have the bitcoin-core organization where all of our new repos go anyways, it would entirely make sense to move bitcoin/bitcoin to bitcoin-core/bitcoin-core, or something like that. There's also a bitcoin-bips organization that was created a couple of years ago for this, so bips could be moved there. But I think that's for the bip editors
<achow101>
This past week, the topic of moving the repo to bitcoin-core has come up again due to possible issues with conflicting moderation between bitcoin/bitcoin and bitcoin/bips. The main point is that bans are issued at the organization level, but Bitcoin Core and BIPs are really two separate projects. It is therefore conceivable that Bitcoin Core would want to ban someone, but BIPs would not, and vice versa. Under the current setup, any ban from one
<achow101>
#topic Move the repo to bitcoin-core github organization (achow101)
<johnny9dev>
Took a bit longer to get back in a rhythm after being away for 2 weeks but I managed to fix some issues found by Marnix as well as handle the case when there are no Coins to select in my Coin Control PR (bitcoin-core/gui-qml#448).