--- layout: post title: Overview and Logs for the Dev Meeting Held on 2019-09-08 summary: Development status, Code & ticket discussion, 0.15 release discussion, and miscellaneous tags: [dev diaries, core, crypto] author: el00ruobuob / moneromooo / rehrar --- # Logs **\** Looks like meeting will start in a few minutes. Stay tuned. **\** time? **\** who's already here? **\** Well, it can start now. Who wants to say anything ? **\** present **\** hola **\** Hi **\** I've been working on a "sync pruned blocks" patch, it's proving annoying to test but it's almost ready. **\** Asking around until get the full block? **\** I'm reworking the randomx integration patch, it has gotten ugly with the added tweaks over the past few months **\** I do not understand that question. **\** and currently the daemon mining support is broken **\** I mean what means "sync pruned blocks" **\** You asked for pruned blocks when you can, rather than full blocks that you'd then prune. **\** hyc: Could you define ugly? **\** Ah, ok. Thans **\** Thanks **\** dEBRUYNE: two different code paths for main blocks vs altchain blocks **\** hello, apologies for tardiness **\** ought to be able to consolidate it back into 1 **\** but need to step back and rethink the overall structure **\** (it's to save network bandwidth btw, it doesn't save more db size) **\** How does reworking of RandomX PR look in regard to the calendar? **\** well, it always takes 2-3 days to test and verify that the network is behaving **\** fwiw hyc, current state of pr seems to be working now **\** It's September, do we have a hard fork date? **\** jtgrassie: we haven't crossed a nother epoch boundary yet, I don't think **\** ^ good point **\** No fork date yet. **\** We were thinking Octoberish though, no? **\** We were. **\** I would assume mid-October **\** we ought to be nailing that date down **\** so in theory there is a hypothetical freeze coming mid September? :D **\** Though the randomx code being still changed makes me nervous about mid october. **\** hyc: for testing, you could shorten the epoch to 128 blocks, then you can test it in 2 hours **\** fluffypony luigi1111 ArticMine smooth binaryFate ? **\** tevador: we did that when the PR was originally written. for some reason the current problems never showed up then. **\** hyc, tevador: The recent change were made after audit recommendations or? **\** successfully mined millions of blocks with epoch=128 **\** Recent changes to RandomX **\** that was with a private testnet perhaps? **\** dEBRUYNE: changes to RandomX itself are independent of the randomx integration patch **\** tevador: true **\** dEBRUYNE: most changes were made based on audit recommendations **\** I see. I guess if we need more time we can always push it back to end of October, but most people and services are expecting a fork in October **\** dEBRUYNE: are they though? **\** Nobody expects a monero fork. **\** we could always release with daemon mining disabled, and fix it up in a point release if we need to **\** since xmrig is already available **\** I realize we don't have to go Verge vaporware extreme where we push back indefinitely, but I think people are used to some "delays" if it means code that works from the get go (hopefully) **\** especially if it's just a couple of weeks **\** but I'm pretty sure I can get a new patch ready in the next couple days **\** hyc: I think you could change the testnet epoch to 128 blocks even for public testing **\** No mining in daemon would make me nervous, I have to admit **\** tevador: yeah I guess we can try that. **\** hello all **\** dsc\_ or selsta here also? **\** speeding up test verification to 2 hours would certainly help **\** i may be in and out **\** yes **\** Would also be a minor PR defeat, so to say, after telling everyboding about restoring everybody's capacity to mine **\** my cat just died **\** :( **\** ^ joke **\** o **\** I think launching with daemon mining is pretty crucial. Shows we are prepared and not reliant on just one software for it, no? **\** hyc: Oh, then we should still have plenty of time **\** There's like 6 weeks left until mid october **\** ok then should be no problem **\** rbrunner: Yes I tend to agree. I'd prefer to release v0.15.0.0 with full functionality **\** selsta: what's the state of the GUI as we march toward this fork? **\** yeah, we should make sure daemon mining is working, especially since there is not much difference in hashrate between xmrig and monerod **\** With respect to branching, I guess we just keep merging stuff into master until the RandomX pull request is ready? **\** There's certainly more stuff to be merged atm. **\** Pragmatic approach :) **\** xiphon added simple mode public node discovery without a centralized service, I did some redesigned the balance card, dsc is working on i2p **\** makes sense **\** we shouldn't release a pow change and it being reliant on some third party miner **\** also small things **\** moneromooo: hyc i just got it **\** lol **\** it seems like this is shaping up to be a standard Moenro fork :P **\** we'll have our standard debriefing afterward with our similar standard complaints **\** anything else currently being worked on? **\** how long was the code freeze last time? **\** oh well. the integration PR was pushed in May. if more people had been testing it since then we could've found this earlier **\** Last time was quite rushed because of the "ASIC emergency" **\** as it is, we found the problems on testnet, so that at least served its purpose **\** Are the Wownero people running smoothly then? If yes, why? **\** they aren't using daemon mining **\** Oh **\** amuses me how the problem exists in loki and wow **\** does anyone take Wownero seriously as a testing bed? Serious question. **\** This problem is likely will not be detected unless someone mined 3 long altchains with epoch boundary in the middle privately and exposed them to hyc\`s testnet **\** \*would not be **\** yes, mining issue only happens when there are long altchains across epoch boundary **\** I had another initial attempt when did that **\** "long" means that one block on each side would not be enough to trigger ? **\** not necessarily long, I guess they need to have different seed hashes **\** RandomX was released for wow will only daemon mining, tthere were no 3rd party miners at first **\** must be at least 64 blocks I think **\** so 64 blocks is enough if split block is chosen carefully **\** I suppose enough but noone tried to expose them before daemon miner even started to mine epoch boundary block **\** OK. I'll see if I can add tests for this. **\** There was a race **\** That sounds like an awfully special situation **\** yes **\** yes, but one which any attacker can construct **\** And noone claims that he tested all possible special situations **\** other than that, it works **\** But it's better test all of them **\** Mining ahead 64 mainnet blocks? Good luck for that attacker :) **\** But I understand of course. **\** rbrunner, you're wrong **\** technically, you don't need 64 valid blocks to do it **\** mine 2 blocks before mainnet and expose them immediately **\** just 64 blocks to trigged node to verify them **\** and boom **\** it's broken **\** anyway we don't need to occupy the rest of the meeting with this **\** discussion in -pow **\** kinda fascinating though **\** are there any questions about specific issues or PRs? **\** Remember when PoW algorithms were easy and simple ... **\** no core team seems to be here though :/ **\** rbrunner: I suppose we'd have similar problems with any PoW scheme that references previous blocks **\** this problem exist due to complex dependencies in monerod and lack of people to know all of them to write correct code but not local small changes **\** \*that know all of them **\** tewinget: if you're still working on loki: ^ **\** is vtnerd here? **\** I think he said in one of the previous meetings that his networking stuff will probably not be ready in time, correct? **\** \ so in theory there is a hypothetical freeze coming mid September? :D \<= I guess branching is technically a freeze right? Because typically only fixes go into the branch **\** though it doesn't need a hard fork for his stuff so it doesn't matter **\** rehrar: Yeah I think he said the dandellion++ stuff would not be ready in time **\** vtnerd\_\_: can you take a look please https://paste.debian.net/hidden/bccdc3a2/ **\** His white noise PR has been merged though **\** That's a MacOS depends build with Clang 3.7.1 **\** was there anything else that needed discussing? **\** alright, so it looks like we can call it here for the meeting **\** discussion can obviously continue afterwards on various topics **\** I'll try to ping core team peeps to be present for next meeting since we're drawing very close to a fork