Overview and Logs for the Dev Meeting Held on 2019-09-08
Development status, Code & ticket discussion, 0.15 release discussion, and miscellaneous
dev diaries
core
crypto
el00ruobuob / moneromooo / rehrar
Logs
<rbrunner> Looks like meeting will start in a few minutes. Stay tuned. <hyc> time? <hyc> who's already here? <moneromooo> Well, it can start now. Who wants to say anything ? <vtnerd__> present <jtgrassie> hola <rbrunner> Hi <moneromooo> I've been working on a "sync pruned blocks" patch, it's proving annoying to test but it's almost ready. <rbrunner> Asking around until get the full block? <hyc> I'm reworking the randomx integration patch, it has gotten ugly with the added tweaks over the past few months <moneromooo> I do not understand that question. <hyc> and currently the daemon mining support is broken <rbrunner> I mean what means "sync pruned blocks" <moneromooo> You asked for pruned blocks when you can, rather than full blocks that you'd then prune. <dEBRUYNE> hyc: Could you define ugly? <rbrunner> Ah, ok. Thans <rbrunner> Thanks <hyc> dEBRUYNE: two different code paths for main blocks vs altchain blocks <rehrar> hello, apologies for tardiness <hyc> ought to be able to consolidate it back into 1 <hyc> but need to step back and rethink the overall structure <moneromooo> (it's to save network bandwidth btw, it doesn't save more db size) <rbrunner> How does reworking of RandomX PR look in regard to the calendar? <hyc> well, it always takes 2-3 days to test and verify that the network is behaving <jtgrassie> fwiw hyc, current state of pr seems to be working now <rehrar> It's September, do we have a hard fork date? <hyc> jtgrassie: we haven't crossed a nother epoch boundary yet, I don't think <jtgrassie> ^ good point <moneromooo> No fork date yet. <rehrar> We were thinking Octoberish though, no? <moneromooo> We were. <hyc> I would assume mid-October <hyc> we ought to be nailing that date down <rehrar> so in theory there is a hypothetical freeze coming mid September? :D <moneromooo> Though the randomx code being still changed makes me nervous about mid october. <tevador> hyc: for testing, you could shorten the epoch to 128 blocks, then you can test it in 2 hours <rehrar> fluffypony luigi1111 ArticMine smooth binaryFate ? <hyc> tevador: we did that when the PR was originally written. for some reason the current problems never showed up then. <dEBRUYNE> hyc, tevador: The recent change were made after audit recommendations or? <hyc> successfully mined millions of blocks with epoch=128 <dEBRUYNE> Recent changes to RandomX <tevador> that was with a private testnet perhaps? <hyc> dEBRUYNE: changes to RandomX itself are independent of the randomx integration patch <hyc> tevador: true <tevador> dEBRUYNE: most changes were made based on audit recommendations <dEBRUYNE> 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 <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: are they though? <moneromooo> Nobody expects a monero fork. <hyc> we could always release with daemon mining disabled, and fix it up in a point release if we need to <hyc> since xmrig is already available <rehrar> 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) <rehrar> especially if it's just a couple of weeks <hyc> but I'm pretty sure I can get a new patch ready in the next couple days <tevador> hyc: I think you could change the testnet epoch to 128 blocks even for public testing <rbrunner> No mining in daemon would make me nervous, I have to admit <hyc> tevador: yeah I guess we can try that. <endogenic> hello all <rehrar> dsc_ or selsta here also? <hyc> speeding up test verification to 2 hours would certainly help <endogenic> i may be in and out <selsta> yes <rbrunner> Would also be a minor PR defeat, so to say, after telling everyboding about restoring everybody's capacity to mine <hyc> my cat just died <endogenic> :( <hyc> ^ joke <endogenic> o <rehrar> I think launching with daemon mining is pretty crucial. Shows we are prepared and not reliant on just one software for it, no? <dEBRUYNE> hyc: Oh, then we should still have plenty of time <dEBRUYNE> There's like 6 weeks left until mid october <hyc> ok then should be no problem <dEBRUYNE> rbrunner: Yes I tend to agree. I'd prefer to release v0.15.0.0 with full functionality <rehrar> selsta: what's the state of the GUI as we march toward this fork? <tevador> yeah, we should make sure daemon mining is working, especially since there is not much difference in hashrate between xmrig and monerod <dEBRUYNE> With respect to branching, I guess we just keep merging stuff into master until the RandomX pull request is ready? <moneromooo> There's certainly more stuff to be merged atm. <rbrunner> Pragmatic approach :) <selsta> xiphon added simple mode public node discovery without a centralized service, I did some redesigned the balance card, dsc is working on i2p <hyc> makes sense <jtgrassie> we shouldn't release a pow change and it being reliant on some third party miner <selsta> also small things <endogenic> moneromooo: hyc i just got it <hyc> lol <rehrar> it seems like this is shaping up to be a standard Moenro fork :P <rehrar> we'll have our standard debriefing afterward with our similar standard complaints <rehrar> anything else currently being worked on? <tevador> how long was the code freeze last time? <hyc> oh well. the integration PR was pushed in May. if more people had been testing it since then we could've found this earlier <rbrunner> Last time was quite rushed because of the "ASIC emergency" <hyc> as it is, we found the problems on testnet, so that at least served its purpose <rbrunner> Are the Wownero people running smoothly then? If yes, why? <hyc> they aren't using daemon mining <rbrunner> Oh <jtgrassie> amuses me how the problem exists in loki and wow <rehrar> does anyone take Wownero seriously as a testing bed? Serious question. <hoochu> 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 <hoochu> *would not be <sech1> yes, mining issue only happens when there are long altchains across epoch boundary <hoochu> I had another initial attempt when did that <moneromooo> "long" means that one block on each side would not be enough to trigger ? <sech1> not necessarily long, I guess they need to have different seed hashes <nioc> RandomX was released for wow will only daemon mining, tthere were no 3rd party miners at first <tevador> must be at least 64 blocks I think <sech1> so 64 blocks is enough if split block is chosen carefully <hoochu> I suppose enough but noone tried to expose them before daemon miner even started to mine epoch boundary block <moneromooo> OK. I'll see if I can add tests for this. <hoochu> There was a race <rbrunner> That sounds like an awfully special situation <sech1> yes <hyc> yes, but one which any attacker can construct <hoochu> And noone claims that he tested all possible special situations <sech1> other than that, it works <hoochu> But it's better test all of them <rbrunner> Mining ahead 64 mainnet blocks? Good luck for that attacker :) <rbrunner> But I understand of course. <hoochu> rbrunner, you're wrong <sech1> technically, you don't need 64 valid blocks to do it <hoochu> mine 2 blocks before mainnet and expose them immediately <sech1> just 64 blocks to trigged node to verify them <sech1> and boom <sech1> it's broken <hyc> anyway we don't need to occupy the rest of the meeting with this <hyc> discussion in -pow <rehrar> kinda fascinating though <rehrar> are there any questions about specific issues or PRs? <rbrunner> Remember when PoW algorithms were easy and simple ... <rehrar> no core team seems to be here though :/ <hyc> rbrunner: I suppose we'd have similar problems with any PoW scheme that references previous blocks <hoochu> 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 <hoochu> *that know all of them <moneromooo> tewinget: if you're still working on loki: ^ <rehrar> is vtnerd here? <rehrar> I think he said in one of the previous meetings that his networking stuff will probably not be ready in time, correct? <dEBRUYNE> <rehrar> 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 <rehrar> though it doesn't need a hard fork for his stuff so it doesn't matter <dEBRUYNE> rehrar: Yeah I think he said the dandellion++ stuff would not be ready in time <iDunk> vtnerd__: can you take a look please https://paste.debian.net/hidden/bccdc3a2/ <dEBRUYNE> His white noise PR has been merged though <iDunk> That's a MacOS depends build with Clang 3.7.1 <rehrar> was there anything else that needed discussing? <rehrar> alright, so it looks like we can call it here for the meeting <rehrar> discussion can obviously continue afterwards on various topics <rehrar> I'll try to ping core team peeps to be present for next meeting since we're drawing very close to a fork