1 2016-02-04T00:20:21  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  2 2016-02-04T00:23:46  *** adam3us has quit IRC
  3 2016-02-04T00:24:01  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2016-02-04T00:25:32  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
  5 2016-02-04T00:44:40  *** arubi_ has quit IRC
  6 2016-02-04T00:51:47  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
  7 2016-02-04T00:57:16  *** bityogi has quit IRC
  8 2016-02-04T01:00:24  <Luke-Jr> kanzure: it's  intentional I think
  9 2016-02-04T01:07:19  *** arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 10 2016-02-04T01:21:20  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2016-02-04T01:25:30  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
 12 2016-02-04T01:48:24  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 13 2016-02-04T01:48:47  *** bityogi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2016-02-04T01:48:53  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2016-02-04T01:50:07  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 16 2016-02-04T01:54:34  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2016-02-04T01:57:58  <PRab> Any idea why "./bin/gbuild -i --commit signature=v${VERSION} ../bitcoin/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-win-signer.yml" is giving "fatal: ambiguous argument 'v0.12.0rc3':"?
 18 2016-02-04T01:58:08  <PRab> All of the other gitian stuff worked.
 19 2016-02-04T02:08:41  *** bityogi has quit IRC
 20 2016-02-04T02:10:31  *** belcher has quit IRC
 21 2016-02-04T02:10:45  <Luke-Jr> what is VERSION?
 22 2016-02-04T02:12:33  <PRab> echo ${VERSION}
 23 2016-02-04T02:12:35  <PRab> 0.12.0rc3
 24 2016-02-04T02:16:45  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 25 2016-02-04T02:19:56  <cfields> PRab: sigs aren't posted yet
 26 2016-02-04T02:20:25  <cfields> waiting to see if the new cert comes through
 27 2016-02-04T02:21:05  <PRab> cfields: I thought I was generating my own sigs. What sig needs to be posted?
 28 2016-02-04T02:21:51  <cfields> PRab: win-signer attaches the detached codesign payload to the binaries
 29 2016-02-04T02:21:58  <cfields> same as osx-signer
 30 2016-02-04T02:22:26  <PRab> Oh, gotcha. I didn't realize that what it was doing.
 31 2016-02-04T02:22:29  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: "A soft-fork BIP strictly requires a clear miner majority expressed by blockchain voting (eg, using BIP 9). In addition, if the economy seems willing to make a "no confidence" hard-fork (such as a change in proof-of-work algorithm), the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork has potentially-majority support, or at most three months. Soft-fork BIPs may also set additional requirements for their adoption.
 32 2016-02-04T02:22:31  <Luke-Jr> Because of the possibility of changes to miner dynamics, especially in light of delegated voting (mining pools), it is highly recommended that a supermajority vote around 95% be required by the BIP itself, unless rationale is given for a lower threshold."
 33 2016-02-04T02:22:32  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: is this clearer?
 34 2016-02-04T02:23:22  <PRab> I thought it was just signing the binary so that it could be checked before somebody preformed the windows signature. This is even cooler.
 35 2016-02-04T02:23:53  <PRab> Out of curiosity, where does the detached codesign payload live?
 36 2016-02-04T02:24:21  <PRab> In a git repo?
 37 2016-02-04T02:25:39  <cfields> PRab: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin-detached-sigs/tree/0.12
 38 2016-02-04T02:26:08  <PRab> cfields: Ah, I had looked in there, but I looked at master.
 39 2016-02-04T02:27:25  <PRab> So until that is posted, it sounds like I can't do that part of the gitian build.
 40 2016-02-04T02:27:41  <PRab> No big deal. I can do it later.
 41 2016-02-04T02:27:42  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2016-02-04T02:28:08  <cfields> PRab: i sign, detach the sigs, and push them up, without posting the binaries anywhere. That way it's nearly guaranteed that the signer hasn't tampered with anything
 43 2016-02-04T02:28:41  <cfields> PRab: yep, this one's going to be delayed a bit. fingers crossed it should be taken care of soon.
 44 2016-02-04T02:28:53  <PRab> Yep, makes sense now. Thanks for all the hard work.
 45 2016-02-04T02:29:32  <cfields> np, sorry for the inconvenience
 46 2016-02-04T02:30:35  <Luke-Jr> cfields: btw, would you be interested in making sigs for Bitcoin LJR as well?
 47 2016-02-04T02:31:25  <cfields> Luke-Jr: sure, though tbh i'd rather put the effort into porting an osx signer
 48 2016-02-04T02:31:48  <cfields> fyi, win is already signed in linux. osx is the only hold-out
 49 2016-02-04T02:31:59  <Luke-Jr> cfields: well, I didn't see any trivial way to get keys to sign with :/
 50 2016-02-04T02:32:31  <cfields> Luke-Jr: oh, no, i wouldn't be comfortable signing with the same keys :)
 51 2016-02-04T02:34:12  <Luke-Jr> do you have an easy way to get another set? XD
 52 2016-02-04T02:35:43  <cfields> Luke-Jr: i'm honestly not sure what the requirements are. we'll be going down that path after 0.12 though, need to get new keys for Core. i can let you know how it goes
 53 2016-02-04T02:36:25  <Luke-Jr> cfields: ok. maybe if you get a convenient opportunity for two key-pairs, get one for LJR? ;)
 54 2016-02-04T02:36:47  <cfields> heh, sure
 55 2016-02-04T02:46:36  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
 56 2016-02-04T02:55:49  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: that's definitely clearer, but...
 57 2016-02-04T02:56:20  <jtimon> let's think for a moment about the sequence of events
 58 2016-02-04T02:57:45  *** adam3us1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 59 2016-02-04T02:57:46  *** adam3us has quit IRC
 60 2016-02-04T02:57:59  <jtimon> 1) controversial softfork gets activated
 61 2016-02-04T02:57:59  <jtimon> 2) some time
 62 2016-02-04T02:57:59  <jtimon> 3.a) asic-reset hardfork to revert 1
 63 2016-02-04T02:57:59  <jtimon> 3.b) there's not "economic consensus" to revert 1
 64 2016-02-04T02:58:11  <jtimon> ho much time is 2?
 65 2016-02-04T02:58:17  <jtimon> s/ho/how
 66 2016-02-04T02:58:45  <Luke-Jr> that's the "at most three months"
 67 2016-02-04T02:59:48  <Luke-Jr> perhaps I should also clarify that the Final soft-fork can still be moved to a Replaced status should it later gain consensus?
 68 2016-02-04T03:00:09  <jtimon> so if 3.a happens 6 months after 1, the softfork BIP proposing 1 will get to final?
 69 2016-02-04T03:00:27  <Luke-Jr> (maybe not; I guess that's implied in a hardfork anyway)
 70 2016-02-04T03:00:34  <jtimon> oh, I guess that would solve my time concern
 71 2016-02-04T03:00:37  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: Final and then Replaced
 72 2016-02-04T03:01:36  <jtimon> yep, if a softfork that gets to the final state can then be reverted to replaced if it's found to be controversial, then I guess my concern goes away
 73 2016-02-04T03:02:21  <Luke-Jr> What happens if the economy decides to hard-fork away from a controversial soft-fork, more than three months later?
 74 2016-02-04T03:02:22  <Luke-Jr> * The controversial soft-fork, in this circumstance, changes from Final to Replaced status to reflect the nature of the hard-fork replacing the previous (final) soft-fork.
 75 2016-02-04T03:02:33  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 76 2016-02-04T03:02:38  <Luke-Jr> ^ sound good?
 77 2016-02-04T03:04:03  <jtimon> I would still really like to make uncontroversial soft/hard forks as similar as possible, since I believe philosohpically there's much more difference between controversial/uncontroversial than between soft/hard fork (the latter being just a time/technical/convenience advantage in softforks, but nothing fundamentally different for non-deployment concerns)
 78 2016-02-04T03:04:21  <Luke-Jr> we can't change the nature of the differences. :P
 79 2016-02-04T03:05:08  <jtimon> of course not, we can just change our terms and definitions
 80 2016-02-04T03:07:47  *** d_t has quit IRC
 81 2016-02-04T03:09:13  <jtimon> mhmm...so I was, I guess, previously asking that only uncontroversial changes could get to the final state (neither controversial soft nor hard should ever get to final), but you propose that instead controversial softforks can get to final and then reverted to replaced by a hardfork
 82 2016-02-04T03:10:02  <Luke-Jr> even controversial hardforks can get to Final, provided they have de facto destroyed the dissent
 83 2016-02-04T03:10:21  <Luke-Jr> (not to say they *should*..)
 84 2016-02-04T03:10:46  <jtimon> mmhmm, can a controversial hardfork be "replaced" by another controversial hardfork? how does this all look when there's 8 controversial hardforks living in parallel?
 85 2016-02-04T03:11:08  <Luke-Jr> everyone needs to be using the hardforked rules to get to Final
 86 2016-02-04T03:11:35  <Luke-Jr> a controversial hardfork gets there, by forcing everyone else to use its rules
 87 2016-02-04T03:12:26  <jtimon> ok, so if at one point two controversial hardforks coexist (that is, the controversial hardfork and the no-hardfork ruleset) there will never be a final hardfork again?
 88 2016-02-04T03:13:29  <jtimon> no hardfork (controversial or not) can force any user to validate a particular ruleset
 89 2016-02-04T03:14:24  <Luke-Jr> I would think users of a non-Final hard-fork do not count toward subsequent hard-fork proposals
 90 2016-02-04T03:15:14  <Luke-Jr> since they're no longer using Bitcoin
 91 2016-02-04T03:17:32  <jtimon> you said a hardfork is only final if the dissenting branch died, if two branches coexist forever, both of them are non-final forever and this no subsequent hardfork proposal count for any of the two branches!
 92 2016-02-04T03:18:26  <Luke-Jr> hmm
 93 2016-02-04T03:18:40  <jtimon> let's bring my canonical example: let's say some users suddenly decide bitcoin should have 5% annual demurrage
 94 2016-02-04T03:18:41  <Luke-Jr> I don't see a solution for that hypothetical :P
 95 2016-02-04T03:19:13  <jtimon> and we have 2 branches that live forever (let's call them bitcoin and freifork respectively)
 96 2016-02-04T03:20:04  <Luke-Jr> no
 97 2016-02-04T03:20:06  <Luke-Jr> the original is not a branch
 98 2016-02-04T03:21:18  <jtimon> the recommendation in bip99 should be that if freiforkers know beforehand the two branches will never merge, they should consider starting an altcoin instead of a controversial hardfork
 99 2016-02-04T03:21:33  <Luke-Jr> no difference
100 2016-02-04T03:22:05  <jtimon> but there's theoretically cases for a legitimate controversial hardfork (asic-reset for starters)
101 2016-02-04T03:23:34  <jtimon> yes, there's a difference: an altcoin gives you far more parameter choosing flexibility (say, you deeply believe that 100 is a more round number than 21 or whatever)
102 2016-02-04T03:23:47  <Luke-Jr> asic-reset isn't controversial, and still needs consensus
103 2016-02-04T03:24:19  <Luke-Jr> a non-consensus hardfork that never becomes Final, is literally an altcoin
104 2016-02-04T03:25:41  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: I already admited we disagree on whether an asic-reset hardfork is intrinsically controversial (as bip99 indicates) or not (as you believe), let's please agree to disagree on that
105 2016-02-04T03:26:01  <Luke-Jr> well, then don't try to use it as a premise :p
106 2016-02-04T03:26:52  <jtimon> well the premise in bip99 is that uncontroversial things require bip9 regardless of them being softforks or hardforks
107 2016-02-04T03:27:02  <Luke-Jr> ewww
108 2016-02-04T03:27:24  <Luke-Jr> hardforks should never use miner voting :<
109 2016-02-04T03:27:46  <Luke-Jr> unless maybe it's super clear that miners are only indicating economic consensus
110 2016-02-04T03:27:58  <jtimon> because "uncontroversial" always means "uncontroversial" (by any defintion), no matter how long you have to wait to deploy it for practical purposes
111 2016-02-04T03:28:01  <Luke-Jr> ie, they'd manually set the vote and not merely run software supporting it
112 2016-02-04T03:29:48  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: "hardforks should never use miner voting" as you hopefully know already, bip99 (and I believe petertodd) directly contradicts this, modulo s/miner voting/miner upgrade coordination/
113 2016-02-04T03:30:55  <Luke-Jr> I have no read BIP 99 yet. Remind me to oppose it I guess >_<
114 2016-02-04T03:31:04  <Luke-Jr> unless the modulo there changes it
115 2016-02-04T03:31:11  <jtimon> would you agree that "mining voting" is a confusing term that leads people to talk about "hashing power democracy" and other confusing concepts?
116 2016-02-04T03:31:21  <Luke-Jr> shrug
117 2016-02-04T03:32:02  <Luke-Jr> the problem is trying to use a consensus-establishing system for something it cannot establish consensus on
118 2016-02-04T03:32:08  <Luke-Jr> not the terminology
119 2016-02-04T03:32:19  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: "I have no read BIP 99 yet. Remind me to oppose it I guess" shrug maybe you should have read it before writting your own
120 2016-02-04T03:32:33  <Luke-Jr> mine has different goals than BIP 99
121 2016-02-04T03:32:50  <Luke-Jr> BIP 99 is, as I understand it, aimed at successful deployment of softforks and hardforks
122 2016-02-04T03:32:56  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: how do you know if you haven't read bip99 yet?
123 2016-02-04T03:33:03  <Luke-Jr> I did skim it :P
124 2016-02-04T03:33:22  <Luke-Jr> am I wrong?
125 2016-02-04T03:35:02  <jtimon> not on the goals, I would complete it with "and deploy an uncontroversial hardfork" and classify not-recommended/unsuccesful soft/hard-forks as well"
126 2016-02-04T03:35:44  <Luke-Jr> I do think you should split the HF proposal out to another BIP, FWIW
127 2016-02-04T03:36:08  <jtimon> but really, I was assuming that you had read it all along, that could have probably saved us a lot of terminology discussion...
128 2016-02-04T03:36:24  <Luke-Jr> I probably should go read it.
129 2016-02-04T03:38:01  <Luke-Jr> (I had mostly forgotten it even existed when I started this one)
130 2016-02-04T03:39:35  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: thanks, that's useful feedback I realized conflating "let's clasify uncontroversial hardforks with all the rest of theorethically potential hardforks" and "and let's deploy one of those uncontroversial hardforks, what was the point of putting them in context otherwise" is potentially confusing: I will reaplace the code entire code section with a link to another bip draft
131 2016-02-04T03:40:38  <jtimon> to reiterate, having a bip in draft state for an undefined amount of time is right, right?
132 2016-02-04T03:41:18  <Luke-Jr> ?
133 2016-02-04T03:41:24  <jtimon> unless someone complains that it should move to replaced or something, obviously
134 2016-02-04T03:42:36  <jtimon> last question: is it fine if bip99 stays as a darft while I wait to rebase the informational part on top of yours and move the code/hardfork-proposal part to a different bip to be linked from this one?
135 2016-02-04T03:43:24  <jtimon> (without knowing when any of those two things may happen)
136 2016-02-04T03:43:33  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: I don't see why not
137 2016-02-04T03:43:50  <Luke-Jr> Rejected status has a timeout of 3 years
138 2016-02-04T03:45:37  <jtimon> oh, I missed that, "not touched in 3 years" -> rejected, I think I have time or it will be replaced by some other first hardfork by that time, great
139 2016-02-04T03:47:11  *** adnn_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2016-02-04T03:47:27  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2016-02-04T03:47:51  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: thanks for answering many questions, this was really helpful (but could have been even more productive if you had read bip99)
142 2016-02-04T03:48:15  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: np, hopefully I'll get them added to the BIP's Rationale so others get the answers too ☺
143 2016-02-04T03:48:45  <Luke-Jr> I'll try to read BIP 99 soon, unless you'd rather I wait for you to split it?
144 2016-02-04T03:51:38  <jtimon> no, the part to be splitted is just the code section (and its respective references)
145 2016-02-04T03:51:47  <Luke-Jr> k
146 2016-02-04T03:52:00  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
147 2016-02-04T03:52:08  <jtimon> please read it, I think you will understand some of my points better
148 2016-02-04T03:52:12  <Luke-Jr> I will
149 2016-02-04T03:56:09  <jtimon> in fact the next main change I had plannned was just to add "use a negative block version number after activation" to both of the hardfork recommendations (as explained in the talk), plus incorporate some of the feedback (like incorporate the "let's keep 50 btc subsidy forever" as an example of a failed controversial hardfork)
150 2016-02-04T03:56:39  <Luke-Jr> eh, negative? just don't interpret it as signed and ignore the first bit :P
151 2016-02-04T03:57:04  <Luke-Jr> or better yet, set the first bit on the first block, and make a consensus rule that it be clear from that point forward..
152 2016-02-04T03:57:11  <Luke-Jr> so it can be reused
153 2016-02-04T03:57:51  <Luke-Jr> frankly, it's pretty dumb that versionbits considers it as a number at all at this point
154 2016-02-04T03:57:54  <jtimon> yeah, "negative" or "first bit active" mean the seam here: non-upgraded nodes will preceive it as invalid [unless they have a more advanced warning system backported]
155 2016-02-04T03:58:57  <Luke-Jr> I should assign a number for biprevised so I don't need to keep saying "my BIP" for it..
156 2016-02-04T03:59:01  <jtimon> in any case we both know what bit we're talking about: the one that would old nodes think a given block is invalid
157 2016-02-04T03:59:33  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: ack on number, or at least just open a PR to the bips repo
158 2016-02-04T03:59:44  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: can't open a PR until GitHub fixes their crap :/
159 2016-02-04T03:59:53  <Luke-Jr> my repo is somehow de-linked so it can't PR to the main on
160 2016-02-04T03:59:55  <Luke-Jr> one*
161 2016-02-04T04:00:06  <jtimon> github crap?
162 2016-02-04T04:00:22  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: try opening a PR from my repo to the main repo, and you'll find it's impossible :<
163 2016-02-04T04:00:27  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
164 2016-02-04T04:01:18  <jtimon> mhmm, I believe destroying your repo, forking bitcoin/bips again, etc would solve it
165 2016-02-04T04:01:29  <Luke-Jr> yes, but I don't want to do that :p
166 2016-02-04T04:01:52  <Luke-Jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/314 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/315 could use more reviews btw
167 2016-02-04T04:02:01  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2016-02-04T04:03:16  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
169 2016-02-04T04:03:30  <jtimon> fair enough, but other people need to open a PR before getting a bip number, someone will accuse you of abusing your power :p
170 2016-02-04T04:03:37  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
171 2016-02-04T04:03:37  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2016-02-04T04:03:49  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: that's not true, people have been assigned numbers without a PR many times
173 2016-02-04T04:04:38  <Luke-Jr> and I just assigned BIP 74 pre-PR a week or so ago, so that's certainly not changed since I became editor either :p
174 2016-02-04T04:04:48  <jtimon> oh, I thought the new modus operandis was PR before number
175 2016-02-04T04:05:57  <jtimon> I was just teasing anyway, assign yourself a number, but at some point you will need to open a PR as well
176 2016-02-04T04:06:00  <Luke-Jr> anyway, since it's dealing specifically with the BIP process, I was thinking BIP 2
177 2016-02-04T04:06:11  <Luke-Jr> yes, I am nagging GitHub support to fix the PR stuff
178 2016-02-04T04:06:33  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: I think bip 2 would be most appropriate
179 2016-02-04T04:07:30  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: just curious, has the github bug anything to do with the fact that bips is not a "base project" but a fork of ptodd's?
180 2016-02-04T04:08:23  <jtimon> that way we will be able to say "read bip 1 and 2..."
181 2016-02-04T04:11:34  *** lightningbot` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182 2016-02-04T04:11:38  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
183 2016-02-04T04:12:11  *** lightningbot has quit IRC
184 2016-02-04T04:12:12  *** zmanian_ has quit IRC
185 2016-02-04T04:12:45  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
186 2016-02-04T04:12:51  *** windsok_ has quit IRC
187 2016-02-04T04:14:02  *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
188 2016-02-04T04:14:29  *** windsok has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
189 2016-02-04T04:14:31  *** morcos has quit IRC
190 2016-02-04T04:14:59  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
191 2016-02-04T04:16:43  *** mr_burdell_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192 2016-02-04T04:17:47  *** zmanian_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2016-02-04T04:19:08  *** mr_burdell has quit IRC
194 2016-02-04T04:19:09  *** Guest50070 has quit IRC
195 2016-02-04T04:19:09  *** roasbeef has quit IRC
196 2016-02-04T04:19:09  *** mr_burdell_ is now known as mr_burdell
197 2016-02-04T04:19:15  *** petertodd has quit IRC
198 2016-02-04T04:19:15  *** devrandom has quit IRC
199 2016-02-04T04:19:15  *** Lightsword has quit IRC
200 2016-02-04T04:19:17  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: what do you mean? the parent of petertodd/bips was genjix/bips in github?
201 2016-02-04T04:19:26  <Luke-Jr> indeed
202 2016-02-04T04:19:31  *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2016-02-04T04:19:39  *** mr_burdell is now known as Guest97100
204 2016-02-04T04:19:42  *** devrandom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
205 2016-02-04T04:20:02  *** s1w has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2016-02-04T04:20:10  *** roasbeef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
207 2016-02-04T04:20:25  *** petertodd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2016-02-04T04:20:25  *** s1w is now known as Guest51729
209 2016-02-04T04:20:48  *** petertodd is now known as Guest60961
210 2016-02-04T04:20:49  <jtimon> I see
211 2016-02-04T04:22:18  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212 2016-02-04T04:23:08  <jtimon> can't someone create the PR while giving you the rights to force push in it?
213 2016-02-04T04:25:11  <jtimon> I believe btcdrak somehow took over maaku's bip68/bip112 opened bips with no problem, maybe someone else can create it and somehow transfer control to you or something (random thoughts, who knows how github works inside for this)
214 2016-02-04T04:32:36  <Luke-Jr> sure, but no big deal
215 2016-02-04T04:32:40  <Luke-Jr> I expect resolution in a few days
216 2016-02-04T04:40:32  *** adam3us1 has quit IRC
217 2016-02-04T05:07:19  *** adnn__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2016-02-04T05:08:10  *** adnn_ has quit IRC
219 2016-02-04T05:22:36  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
220 2016-02-04T05:35:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
221 2016-02-04T05:35:28  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
222 2016-02-04T05:36:06  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2016-02-04T05:58:16  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
224 2016-02-04T05:58:17  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
225 2016-02-04T05:58:49  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2016-02-04T05:58:50  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
227 2016-02-04T05:59:21  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2016-02-04T05:59:21  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
229 2016-02-04T05:59:21  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
230 2016-02-04T06:07:46  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
231 2016-02-04T06:21:36  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232 2016-02-04T06:21:40  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2016-02-04T07:00:29  *** zibbo has quit IRC
234 2016-02-04T07:48:17  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
235 2016-02-04T07:55:02  <GitHub71> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eb331794a22b...898fedf42fdc
236 2016-02-04T07:55:03  <GitHub71> bitcoin/master c77c662 kirkalx: peers.dat, banlist.dat recreated when missing
237 2016-02-04T07:55:03  <GitHub71> bitcoin/master 898fedf Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7458: [Net] peers.dat, banlist.dat recreated when missing...
238 2016-02-04T07:55:08  <GitHub150> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7458: [Net] peers.dat, banlist.dat recreated when missing (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7458
239 2016-02-04T08:22:26  *** mkarrer has quit IRC
240 2016-02-04T08:24:39  *** mkarrer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2016-02-04T08:34:06  *** arubi_ has quit IRC
242 2016-02-04T08:44:42  *** BashCo has quit IRC
243 2016-02-04T08:52:13  *** rubensayshi has quit IRC
244 2016-02-04T08:57:10  *** arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
245 2016-02-04T09:07:51  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
246 2016-02-04T09:16:57  *** zibbo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
247 2016-02-04T10:17:57  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
248 2016-02-04T10:28:22  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
249 2016-02-04T10:33:47  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
250 2016-02-04T10:33:48  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
251 2016-02-04T10:34:25  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252 2016-02-04T10:34:25  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
253 2016-02-04T10:34:57  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
254 2016-02-04T10:34:58  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
255 2016-02-04T10:36:02  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
256 2016-02-04T10:36:02  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
257 2016-02-04T10:36:04  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
258 2016-02-04T10:36:06  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
259 2016-02-04T10:36:37  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
260 2016-02-04T10:36:38  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
261 2016-02-04T10:39:57  *** sotisoti_ has quit IRC
262 2016-02-04T10:40:05  *** sotisoti has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
263 2016-02-04T10:40:05  *** nullpt_ has quit IRC
264 2016-02-04T10:40:13  *** warren has quit IRC
265 2016-02-04T10:40:22  *** nullpt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
266 2016-02-04T10:40:22  *** Guest97100 has quit IRC
267 2016-02-04T10:40:38  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
268 2016-02-04T10:40:39  *** roasbeef has quit IRC
269 2016-02-04T10:40:39  *** lecusemb1e has quit IRC
270 2016-02-04T10:40:47  *** trippysalmon has quit IRC
271 2016-02-04T10:41:03  *** trippysalmon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272 2016-02-04T10:41:18  *** mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
273 2016-02-04T10:41:41  *** roasbeef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
274 2016-02-04T10:41:41  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
275 2016-02-04T10:41:54  *** lecusemble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
276 2016-02-04T10:45:23  *** warren has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
277 2016-02-04T10:55:18  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
278 2016-02-04T11:06:45  *** gevs has quit IRC
279 2016-02-04T11:14:24  *** nickler has quit IRC
280 2016-02-04T11:22:00  *** nickler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
281 2016-02-04T11:49:19  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
282 2016-02-04T12:04:18  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
283 2016-02-04T12:04:23  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
284 2016-02-04T12:42:56  <GitHub89> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 19 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/898fedf42fdc...2cdbf28cf395
285 2016-02-04T12:42:57  <GitHub89> bitcoin/master d5f4683 Luke Dashjr: Unify package name to as few places as possible without major changes
286 2016-02-04T12:42:57  <GitHub89> bitcoin/master 1a6c67c Luke Dashjr: Parameterise 2009 in translatable copyright strings
287 2016-02-04T12:42:58  <GitHub89> bitcoin/master 63bcdc5 Luke Dashjr: More complicated package name substitution for Mac deployment
288 2016-02-04T12:43:01  <GitHub169> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7192: Unify product name to as few places as possible (master...single_prodname) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7192
289 2016-02-04T12:43:39  <wumpus> NOTE: if you are building the git master branch, you need to re-run ./autogen.sh after this
290 2016-02-04T12:50:47  *** jl2012_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
291 2016-02-04T12:53:41  *** adam3us1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292 2016-02-04T12:53:56  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
293 2016-02-04T12:53:57  *** jl2012_ is now known as jl2012
294 2016-02-04T12:53:57  *** adam3us1 has quit IRC
295 2016-02-04T12:54:10  *** adam3us has quit IRC
296 2016-02-04T12:54:13  *** adam3us1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
297 2016-02-04T12:54:28  *** adam3us1 has quit IRC
298 2016-02-04T12:54:47  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
299 2016-02-04T12:59:15  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
300 2016-02-04T13:29:35  *** dcousens has quit IRC
301 2016-02-04T13:53:56  *** Tasoshi has quit IRC
302 2016-02-04T13:54:26  *** Tasoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
303 2016-02-04T13:54:41  <GitHub177> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2cdbf28cf395...4f4dc5ef7295
304 2016-02-04T13:54:42  <GitHub177> bitcoin/master fa79db2 MarcoFalke: Move maxTxFee out of mempool...
305 2016-02-04T13:54:42  <GitHub177> bitcoin/master fa762d0 MarcoFalke: [wallet.h] Remove main.h include
306 2016-02-04T13:54:43  <GitHub177> bitcoin/master fad6244 MarcoFalke: ATMP: make nAbsurdFee const
307 2016-02-04T13:54:47  <GitHub47> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7070: Move maxTxFee out of mempool (master...MarcoFalke-2015-feeRateRefactor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7070
308 2016-02-04T13:55:53  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
309 2016-02-04T13:59:20  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
310 2016-02-04T14:02:29  *** rocinante_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
311 2016-02-04T14:05:17  *** rocinante_ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
312 2016-02-04T14:08:35  *** p15 has quit IRC
313 2016-02-04T14:27:17  *** Prattler has quit IRC
314 2016-02-04T14:28:57  *** Prattler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
315 2016-02-04T14:41:46  *** drnet has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
316 2016-02-04T14:59:10  *** Thireus has quit IRC
317 2016-02-04T14:59:45  *** drnet has quit IRC
318 2016-02-04T15:04:19  *** bitcoin087 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
319 2016-02-04T15:16:34  *** bitcoin087 has quit IRC
320 2016-02-04T15:41:57  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
321 2016-02-04T15:41:58  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
322 2016-02-04T15:42:17  *** bityogi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
323 2016-02-04T15:42:25  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
324 2016-02-04T15:42:26  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
325 2016-02-04T15:42:58  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
326 2016-02-04T15:45:59  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
327 2016-02-04T15:45:59  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
328 2016-02-04T16:03:39  <GitHub77> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4f4dc5ef7295...d2228384de3a
329 2016-02-04T16:03:40  <GitHub77> bitcoin/master 7d0bf0b Jonas Schnelli: include the chaintip *blockIndex in the SyncTransaction signal...
330 2016-02-04T16:03:40  <GitHub77> bitcoin/master d222838 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #6480: include the chaintip blockindex in the SyncTransaction signal, add signal UpdateTip()...
331 2016-02-04T16:03:44  <GitHub45> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #6480: include the chaintip blockindex in the SyncTransaction signal, add signal UpdateTip() (master...2015/07/syncsignal_hight) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6480
332 2016-02-04T16:05:48  <GitHub97> [bitcoin] morcos closed pull request #6936: [WIP] Keep pcoinsTip cache warm (master...HotCache) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6936
333 2016-02-04T16:26:43  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
334 2016-02-04T16:28:52  *** bitcoin271 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
335 2016-02-04T16:34:45  *** bitcoin271 has quit IRC
336 2016-02-04T16:37:00  *** fkhan has quit IRC
337 2016-02-04T16:41:14  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
338 2016-02-04T16:41:47  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
339 2016-02-04T16:43:41  <GitHub114> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 8 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d2228384de3a...152a8216cc7b
340 2016-02-04T16:43:42  <GitHub114> bitcoin/master 2adf7e2 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: The var is LIBUNIVALUE,not LIBBITCOIN_UNIVALUE
341 2016-02-04T16:43:42  <GitHub114> bitcoin/master ab22705 Luke Dashjr: Build against system UniValue when available
342 2016-02-04T16:43:43  <GitHub114> bitcoin/master 5d3b29b Luke Dashjr: doc: Add UniValue to build instructions
343 2016-02-04T16:43:46  <GitHub143> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7349: Build against system UniValue when available (master...sys_univalue_opt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7349
344 2016-02-04T16:46:06  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
345 2016-02-04T16:54:04  *** fkhan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
346 2016-02-04T17:02:01  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
347 2016-02-04T17:13:54  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
348 2016-02-04T17:18:41  *** BashCo has quit IRC
349 2016-02-04T17:30:12  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
350 2016-02-04T17:30:47  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
351 2016-02-04T17:34:58  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
352 2016-02-04T17:37:16  *** arubi_ has quit IRC
353 2016-02-04T17:40:07  *** arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
354 2016-02-04T17:48:25  *** arubi_ is now known as arubi
355 2016-02-04T18:03:49  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
356 2016-02-04T18:07:10  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
357 2016-02-04T18:10:04  *** Guest60961 is now known as petertodd
358 2016-02-04T18:31:18  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
359 2016-02-04T18:34:35  <GitHub148> [bitcoin] sandakersmann opened pull request #7467: [0.12] Set -mempoolreplacement to false (master...mempoolreplacement) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7467
360 2016-02-04T18:35:46  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
361 2016-02-04T18:47:14  <GitHub46> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7467: [0.12] Set -mempoolreplacement to false (master...mempoolreplacement) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7467
362 2016-02-04T18:50:22  *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
363 2016-02-04T18:50:44  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
364 2016-02-04T19:15:46  *** raedah has quit IRC
365 2016-02-04T19:27:06  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
366 2016-02-04T19:32:00  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
367 2016-02-04T19:36:36  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
368 2016-02-04T19:38:56  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
369 2016-02-04T19:41:26  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
370 2016-02-04T19:50:48  *** treehug88 has quit IRC
371 2016-02-04T19:53:57  <GitHub92> [bitcoin] mrbandrews opened pull request #7468: [rpc-tests] Change solve() to use rehash (master...ba-fix-rehash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7468
372 2016-02-04T19:55:34  *** Naphex has quit IRC
373 2016-02-04T19:56:35  *** raedah has quit IRC
374 2016-02-04T20:01:29  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
375 2016-02-04T20:02:13  *** raedah_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
376 2016-02-04T20:05:35  *** raedah has quit IRC
377 2016-02-04T20:06:39  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
378 2016-02-04T20:07:54  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
379 2016-02-04T20:11:23  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
380 2016-02-04T20:14:26  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
381 2016-02-04T20:15:21  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
382 2016-02-04T20:15:32  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
383 2016-02-04T20:19:15  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
384 2016-02-04T20:28:16  *** arubi has quit IRC
385 2016-02-04T20:32:47  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
386 2016-02-04T20:34:34  *** raedah_ is now known as raedah
387 2016-02-04T20:34:44  *** raedah has left #bitcoin-core-dev
388 2016-02-04T20:37:18  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
389 2016-02-04T20:38:40  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
390 2016-02-04T20:39:29  *** s1w has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
391 2016-02-04T20:39:40  <michagogo> cfields: next time you make changes to gitian, would you object to switching the order of the HOSTS var on either Linux or OS X?
392 2016-02-04T20:39:52  *** s1w is now known as Guest72371
393 2016-02-04T20:46:34  *** Ylbam_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
394 2016-02-04T20:46:36  *** midnightmagic_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
395 2016-02-04T20:46:50  *** Eliel_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
396 2016-02-04T20:47:47  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
397 2016-02-04T20:47:48  *** Guest51729 has quit IRC
398 2016-02-04T20:47:48  *** devrandom has quit IRC
399 2016-02-04T20:47:48  *** Lightsword has quit IRC
400 2016-02-04T20:47:48  *** Eliel has quit IRC
401 2016-02-04T20:47:48  *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
402 2016-02-04T20:47:48  *** kanzure has quit IRC
403 2016-02-04T20:47:50  *** Ylbam_ is now known as Ylbam
404 2016-02-04T20:49:43  *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
405 2016-02-04T20:49:43  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
406 2016-02-04T20:49:44  *** kanzure has quit IRC
407 2016-02-04T20:50:48  *** devrandom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
408 2016-02-04T20:52:31  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
409 2016-02-04T20:53:43  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
410 2016-02-04T20:57:40  *** kanzure has quit IRC
411 2016-02-04T20:57:41  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
412 2016-02-04T21:00:13  <michagogo> s/OS X/win/
413 2016-02-04T21:06:10  <Luke-Jr> O.o?
414 2016-02-04T21:30:11  *** arubi has quit IRC
415 2016-02-04T21:43:27  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
416 2016-02-04T21:45:57  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
417 2016-02-04T21:46:58  *** midnightmagic_ has quit IRC
418 2016-02-04T21:48:41  *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
419 2016-02-04T21:51:14  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
420 2016-02-04T21:59:28  *** TZander has quit IRC
421 2016-02-04T22:04:00  *** belcher has quit IRC
422 2016-02-04T22:08:04  *** wangchun has quit IRC
423 2016-02-04T22:08:24  *** wangchun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
424 2016-02-04T22:09:33  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
425 2016-02-04T22:43:26  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
426 2016-02-04T22:50:53  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
427 2016-02-04T22:55:01  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
428 2016-02-04T22:55:59  *** gavink has quit IRC
429 2016-02-04T23:03:09  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
430 2016-02-04T23:05:46  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
431 2016-02-04T23:08:58  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
432 2016-02-04T23:11:53  *** gavink has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
433 2016-02-04T23:14:52  *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
434 2016-02-04T23:16:14  <GitHub130> [bitcoin] dmS0Zq opened pull request #7469: net.h fix spelling: misbeha{b,v}ing (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7469
435 2016-02-04T23:17:02  *** gavink has quit IRC
436 2016-02-04T23:21:58  *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
437 2016-02-04T23:39:17  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
438 2016-02-04T23:44:00  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
439 2016-02-04T23:52:32  *** laurentmt has quit IRC