Dev Meeting Transcripts (August 2022)

[4:00 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): Channel open

[4:06 PM] Tron: Hello.

[4:07 PM] Tron: I added this page to the Ravencoin Foundation website.

[4:07 PM] Tron: https://ravencoin.foundation/proposal_desc

[4:07 PM] Tron: It is for proposals. Two of them are there for bids. One has been bid, and there for community support.

[4:22 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): sealclubber and starks reached out to the miningcore devs for a quote on a kawpow pool but havent heard back yet.

was buzzdave able to get in touch with traysi?

[4:29 PM] Tron: I haven’t heard back from him since he told me last week he couldn’t reach Traysi.

[4:31 PM] Tron: I’ll follow up.

[5:16 PM] Jeroz: Oh still open? Sorry I’m late.

[5:16 PM] Jeroz: Tron if you are still here..

[5:16 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): we were waiting for you ❤️

[5:18 PM] Jeroz: Hans made a v4.6 with lots of sync fixes and niceties.

I would vote to create a new branch from master for v4.6 and then create a new RVN version based on Hans’.

[5:20 PM] Jeroz: This would include a PR from Hans’ repo for:

3877691d0: Adjust version for mainnet release candidate v4.6.0 (3 days ago) <Hans Schmidt>

9ab489b57: Update nMinimumChainWork, defaultAssumeValid, checkpointData, chainTxData (3 days ago) <Hans Schmidt>

6316b1222: Fix function test failures which depend on nonstandard transactions (3 days ago) <Hans Schmidt>

And include all develop commits, except for:

# Re-adding P2SH

– de594bf3b: Revert "Re-Add Feature: Add P2SH support – Core Protocol Development Proposal 001 (PR #873)" (3 days ago) <Hans Schmidt>

– 8c31e2b6c: Re-Add Feature: Add P2SH support – Core Protocol Development Proposal 001 (PR #873) (1 year, 2 months ago) <HyperPeek>

# P2SH fix

– 77fc5ecf4: Revert "consensus: correct verification of transactions pre p2sh-asset activation (#1019)" (3 days ago) <Hans Schmidt>

– 46aad1a25: consensus: correct verification of transactions pre p2sh-asset activation (#1019) (1 year, 2 months ago) <fdov>

# Removed backport

22684a762: Revert "backport: Shut down if trying to connect a corrupted block (#1126)" (#1185) (5 months ago) <hans-schmidt>

d3243c194: backport: Shut down if trying to connect a corrupted block (#1126) (6 months ago) <fdov>

[5:34 PM] Jeroz: Personally, I prefer having this version out. Since it fixes sync issues that pools have run into in the past. (I’m not sure what caused the wallet issue at bittrex) but I’m sure it’ll help.

It also allows us to get an up to date contact list again. And give a signal to everyone that they have the opportunity to stay up to date with new code. (Kind of a wake up call before any serious changes such as P2SH).

It also, separates all the new code since 4.3.2.1, from the P2SH fork code. Which I think is a good thing, because that code change won’t be clouded in with all the other commits.

[6:07 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): I think it's a great idea. The contact list is going to be a lot more work than anticipated so nice to have a "trial run" of sorts before something as urgent/pressing as a hard fork. Going to close the channel now as it's after 6PM but we can continue in development

[6:24 PM] Tron: If I understand correctly… 4.6 will be all non-consensus code. I'm all for it.

———-

[4:00 PM] bless yer heart: I see we are Open. Missed you guys.

[4:03 PM] Jeroz: 🍻

[4:03 PM] bless yer heart: No pressure to speak, Ill fill a we bit by saying that I utilize a nice app for this sort of thing and developed a little After Action Report for a bit of viewing to the community. Ill gather and post after meetings. Here's an example.

[4:04 PM] bless yer heart: And lastly, I have started pushing my GitHub along. Got many thoughts upstairs and some will surely come to fruition.

https://github.com/Chief-Prince-Of-Function

[4:07 PM] Jeroz: Thanks, bless yer heart .

I was talking to Hans_Schmidt. We are both happy to put 4.6 together in the Ravencoin git. Though, I don’t have the rights, and Hans isn’t sure if he is allowed to make branches and get this going.

[4:09 PM] Tron: If Hans can't make branches, let me know and I'll figure out how to make it work.

[4:11 PM] Jeroz: Oh, I misquoted him there. I read the conversation back. He wasn’t sure about his rights in the master branch.

But I guess we’ll just have to see if he runs into issues.

[4:12 PM] Jeroz: Anyways, I’m looking forward to work with kinkajou (SegWit Clique) and forwarding the news once it’s ready 🙂

[4:15 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): That contact sheet is fairly sparse, it seems our community has grown quite a bit since the last release – so the sooner we can get started the better 😅

[4:16 PM] Jeroz: I also want to reiterate that I’m very happy with the bounty on upgrading the dev kit. I was talking to a third party that wanted to test available libraries, and they are all outdated. Luckily some are still working.

They also asked for a Java dev kit. lp mentioned that he wanted to look into https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj.

[4:23 PM] bless yer heart: Does a java kit need to be made separate from a grouped SDK that can be added to over time through additional dev work?

[4:24 PM] Hans_Schmidt: Thanks. I will give it a try next week and see how it goes.

[4:25 PM] Jeroz: I think, ideally, a Ravencoin version of bitcoinj is added to the dev kit that people can further develop on.

[4:28 PM] Jeroz: Also, the insight explorer was deprecated in 2019, and it might be a good idea to upgrade that to https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore/tree/master/packages/insight for that devkit bounty.

[4:33 PM] Jeroz: So anyone reading this who is interested, have a look at https://ravencoin.foundation/proposal_desc and please consider sending a proposal to the foundation for upgrading (parts of) the Ravencoin devkit.

[4:49 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): With regards to the pool bounty, the miningcore dev responded to u/Seal Clubber 🤡 's post here: https://github.com/oliverw/miningcore/discussions/1334 saying they would look into it

[5:07 PM] bless yer heart: Ready for close.

———-

[4:00 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): Channel should be open

[4:07 PM] Seal Clubber 🤡: https://github.com/RavenProject/Ravencoin/releases/tag/v4.6.1

🙏

[4:08 PM] Mango Farm: Outstanding. Thanks to everyone who worked on it and to Hans_Schmidt in particular.

[4:11 PM] Mango Farm: For consideration: Should folks who use testnet a lot keep running on testnet with the p2SH version (4.9.0) or switch to 4.6.1 and let the testnet fork die?

[4:12 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): Good question. But didn't we hold off on P2SH mainly because of lack of testing? 😅

[4:12 PM] Mango Farm: True. I’m good either way I just want to be sure we have the right testnet.

[4:14 PM] Mango Farm: I suspect even if p2SH testing is needed we might want to test forking from 4.6.1 to a P2SH build off of it. But raising the question to see what y’all think.

[4:16 PM] Tron: My opinion is that testnet should continue with P2SH. The only way to test a transition to P2SH would be to start another testnet without it.

[4:16 PM] Mango Farm: 👍

[4:16 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): I mainly want to insure there is still some way people can continue testing P2SH transactions since we've all agreed more testing is needed

[4:19 PM] Tron: BIP9 activation is pretty well tested. The proper wrapping of consensus vs. non-consensus related code is critical and will be tested with 4.6.1 without involving the entire network. 4.6.1 should be consensus-level compatible with 4.3.2.1. Testing that it is impossible to fork the network using 4.6.1 pre-P2SH activation is valuable.

[4:19 PM] Hans_Schmidt: When you have time, one more approval is needed for the merge of develop branch into master branch (PR#1205) in order to formalize the v4.6.1 release

[4:23 PM] Hans_Schmidt: I verified that it is a clean fast-forward which just changes the git pointer on master to the commit which v4.6.1 is built from.

[4:24 PM] Mango Farm: If you would prefer to revert to 4.6.1 then fork to test activation so P2SH from there it wouldn’t be difficult. There are usually only one or two miners keeping testnet going so it’s a simple task. I’ll do whatever is needed on that score, or keep 4.9.0 going. At some point we will need a new testnet if P2SH is adopted anyway, because testnet users aren’t going to want to perpetually keep two releases running (one for main and a separate one for testnet from Hans’s repo).

[4:30 PM] Tron: Ah, I'm looking through the code now. P2SH has been removed, so it is not compatible with current testnet.

[4:31 PM] Hans_Schmidt: Just to make sure everyone is clear- v4.6.1 has no P2SH code in it at all.

It would have been nice to have a single version of core which activated P2SH on testnet via BIP9 and perpetually disabled the BIP9 voting on mainnet, so that the next rev just had to enable BIP9 voting for mainnet. But that would carry substantial risk for mainnet because the BIP9 wrapping for P2SH is very extensive throughout consensus code.

[4:32 PM] Tron: Would it make more sense to leave it in (properly BIP9 wrapped) with a not possible activation date on mainnet? And leave it on testnet? All the other good stuff (UI, tx improvements, fixes, etc) would be available and chould be able to be used by anyone who updates — but still 100% compatible with 4.3.2.1.

[4:35 PM] Hans_Schmidt: There would be no guarantee of 100% compatibility with v4.3.2.1 since a single mistake in the consensus code BIP9 wrapping (and there are hundreds of them) could create an incompatibility.

[4:36 PM] Tron: It only carries risk if the BIP9 wrapping is faulty. Having lots of usage, but not 50%+ of miners would test BIP9 wrapping and consensus compatibility without impact to the network as 4.6.1 users would be forked off – but not the exchanges and economic actors. The risk is to the updaters, not to the active network.

[4:36 PM] Mango Farm: My two cents here is that to the extent it is contemplated that Ravencoin could fork with P2SH code from 4.6.1, then the consensus code should be added to 4.6.1 to 4.x.x and properly activated. Testnet should test what is intended to happen, without guesswork. Since the existing testnet was forked from an older/different version of the code, why take a chance? Nobody cares about their existing testnet chain staying the chain – what's most important is that P2SH is tested.

[4:41 PM] Mango Farm: Of course that means my faucet will lose about a bazillion tRVN from my son's gaming PC, but so be it 🤣

[4:45 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): I agree. Testnet should emulate exactly what is expected to happen on the mainnet for P2SH activation. Our testnet miner contact list is 100% up-to-date so it wouldn't be difficult to coordinate 😅

[4:48 PM] Tron: Thank you u/Hans_Schmidt for doing this. I'll review it this afternoon. This can be used for a new non-P2SH testnet, and another version for P2SH testnet activation testing.

[4:48 PM] Hans_Schmidt: So if I am following: that means leaving v4.6.1 as is for people to use without any risk on mainnet, and then creating a new version for testnet with all the P2SH BIP9 code back in. Testnet would go back to non-P2SH until BIP9 allowed it to activate. That version of the code would properly test all the BIP9 wrapping code and be deployed on mainnet later.

[4:49 PM] Tron: Consensus rules for now will be governed by 4.3.2.1 rules.

[4:50 PM] Hans_Schmidt: Makes sense.

[4:50 PM] Tron: 4.6.1 should be 100% consensus rules compatible. If not, only the minority running it will experience a problem.

[4:51 PM] Tron: That will give us confidence in everything non-P2SH. A P2SH version that activates on testnet would let us test that cycle (with new activation durations).

[4:53 PM] Hans_Schmidt: v4.6.1 published on RavenProject has only trivial changes from the v4.6.0 which I published on my github 3 weeks ago. I sync''d mainnet from scratch using that and I know others have used it as well. So v4.6.1 should be safe.

[4:58 PM] Jeroz: Anything in particular that you want tested for P2SH? Is there a guide somewhere on how to create such transactions? And all kinds of stuff it allows one to do besides multisig?

[4:59 PM] BadGuyTy: well the is the hash time limited scripts

[4:59 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): Yes I believe Hans is still the only one to successfully test HTLC cross-chain Atomic Swaps

[5:02 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): https://hans-schmidt.github.io/mastering_ravencoin/analysis/HTLC_P2SH_Cross-Chain_Atomic_Swaps_RVN-Assets_With_BTC.html

[5:03 PM] Hans_Schmidt: Also more testing of restricted assets and tagging with P2SH. Just integrating BF's tagging bug fix alone required me to make 100+ changes to 50+ files in consensus code to BIP9 wrap it.

[5:05 PM] Jeroz: Sweet

[5:11 PM] Tron: In my review, I'm ignoring most of the UI changes and translation changes.

[5:11 PM] Tron: Any concern that some locks of the wallet have been removed before adding/deleting?

[5:14 PM] Hans_Schmidt: "locks of the wallet"?

[5:16 PM] Tron: In src/qt/addresstablemodel.cpp

[5:16 PM] Hans_Schmidt: you mean CRITICAL_SECTION code to avoid race conditions?

[5:16 PM] Tron: LOCK(wallet->cs_wallet); (removed)

[5:21 PM] Tron: Not a deep analysis. Just concerned that it might have been there for a reason, and not there anymore. Only concern would be for wallet corruption.

[5:27 PM] Hans_Schmidt: That change was PR#1169, which was a direct copy of bitcoin PR#11733 'Remove redundant locks". Ha!- appropriately named!

[5:28 PM] Tron: Thank you.

[5:47 PM] Tron: PR approved.

———-

[11:50 AM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): Development Meeting Agenda (August 26,2022):

– Review of https://github.com/RavenProject/ravenproject.github.io/pull/247 to get new wallet links on Ravencoin.org

– Mac releases for 4.6.1. Tron should have the apple developer keys to sign Mac binaries.

– Testnet status – are we forking to 4.6.1 and re-adding p2sh to that?

– Bounty submissions for MiningCore Pool (Starks/KyivPool)

Please send additional agenda items to kinkajou (SegWit Clique) via DM or development

[4:00 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): Channel open.

[4:03 PM] LSJI07: Hi.

[4:07 PM] Tron: I have a key to sign Windows binaries.

[4:07 PM] Tron: The Mac binaries aren't signed. Is there a Mac build?

[4:08 PM] Jeroz: ^

[4:09 PM] Jeroz: ^and this 😄

[4:10 PM] Steelers: 👋

[4:11 PM] Jeroz: (I know its been a while and I have no idea if its still possibel)

[4:11 PM] Tron: The Apple (iOS) mobile does require going through the foundation because they will not allow wallets without having a corp dev account.

[4:14 PM] Tron: If the auto-build isn't' building the Mac binaries, I'll need to reconstruct the Mac build environment.

[4:15 PM] Tron: I don't know if I can do it on the M1 or not. But I have an older Mac I can use if needed.

[4:16 PM] Jeroz: I think backwards compatibility will be hard with the M1. They do have rosetta (yes I know, coincidence in naming) to run the intel stuff on the M1

[4:17 PM] LSJI07: Wouldn't it be better to getting the deterministic builds system working eventually?

[4:19 PM] Jeroz: I dont know if I have time this weekend to have a crack at it on my 2017 macbook. Ill see what I can do.

[4:20 PM] Tron: I build the Linux version on Parallels on the M1 Mac.

[4:20 PM] Jeroz: Other than that, could you have a look at https://github.com/RavenProject/ravenproject.github.io/pull/247 @Tron ?

I updated the links on the web page to the latest wallets. I left the mac release out of it for now.

Changed update message

Updated Windows core wallet link to 4.6.1

Updated Linux core wallet link to 4.6.1

Mac version is not available (yet).

[4:21 PM] Jeroz: It needs 1 approval from someone that is not me 😄

[4:23 PM] Tron: Done

[4:36 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): Should we discuss what we plan to do with the testnet? There is a lot of confusion/uncertainty atm

[4:39 PM] LSJI07: I have downloaded and tried to sync 4.6.1 testnet yesterday plus today. Stuck at 1031714 or 74.09 percent. 34 weeks behind.

[4:41 PM] LSJI07: Just restarted the node.

[4:53 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): Tron Hans_Schmidt Mango Farm Jeroz Raven Rebels it seems like the consensus in testnet is that we need to fork back to 4.6.1 and then do a proper BIP9 activated hard-fork to the p2sh code that would be used for a mainnet release. Am I understanding this correctly or is there any opposition or alternative suggestions to this idea?

[5:03 PM] Hans_Schmidt: OSX has been taken out of the workflow yml code, but the OSX support is still in the individual scripts. So, yes, it needs to be fixed, but most of it should be there. I have never owned an Apple product and am not familiar with that.

[5:11 PM] Tron: That would be my preference.

[5:11 PM] Hans_Schmidt: If everyone wants to just switch to using v4.6.1 on testnet and let things stabilize, that's just a (significant) coordination and communications task. I am fine with that if that is the community consensus. A new binary can be released onto testnet first and mainnet second at a later date whenever the community feels a mainnet fork is warranted.

[5:22 PM] LSJI07: I stuck a post in testnet as a start. Adjust as needed.

[5:31 PM] kinkajou (SegWit Clique): And lastly, Tron I believe you have been emailed/pinged at least half a dozen times over this – but Kyiv pool and Starks 🅁🅅🄽 𓄿 are both interested in the Ravencoin Foundation mining pool bounty. Both are utilizing the MiningCore codebase which is MIT opensource.

[6:07 PM] Blockchain John: 👀

[7:46 PM] Tron: I didn't realize there were two. I assumed there was only one party interested. I will list the one for which we have a written bid.