12016-04-21T00:01:26  *** PaulCape_ has quit IRC
  22016-04-21T00:11:54  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  32016-04-21T00:13:00  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  42016-04-21T00:25:19  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52016-04-21T00:25:57  *** jtimon has quit IRC
  62016-04-21T00:37:56  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  72016-04-21T00:38:49  *** mr_burdell has quit IRC
  82016-04-21T00:38:49  *** harding has quit IRC
  92016-04-21T00:39:22  *** LeMiner2 has quit IRC
 102016-04-21T00:39:23  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 112016-04-21T00:39:23  *** TD-Linux has quit IRC
 122016-04-21T00:39:23  *** davec has quit IRC
 132016-04-21T00:39:23  *** nkuttler has quit IRC
 142016-04-21T00:39:39  *** baldur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 152016-04-21T00:39:47  *** windsok_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 162016-04-21T00:39:55  *** windsok has quit IRC
 172016-04-21T00:40:36  *** harding has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 182016-04-21T00:41:32  *** mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 192016-04-21T00:44:55  *** TD-Linux has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202016-04-21T00:46:17  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 212016-04-21T01:03:35  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 222016-04-21T01:06:49  *** nhancm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 232016-04-21T01:20:57  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 242016-04-21T01:27:42  *** nhancm has quit IRC
 252016-04-21T01:36:34  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 262016-04-21T01:38:07  *** LeMiner2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272016-04-21T01:38:19  *** nkuttler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 282016-04-21T01:47:43  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
 292016-04-21T01:50:06  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 302016-04-21T02:00:53  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
 312016-04-21T02:01:29  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322016-04-21T02:12:29  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 332016-04-21T02:13:32  *** droark has quit IRC
 342016-04-21T02:14:48  *** molz has quit IRC
 352016-04-21T02:42:24  *** cryptocoder has quit IRC
 362016-04-21T02:51:12  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 372016-04-21T02:52:43  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 382016-04-21T03:04:30  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 392016-04-21T03:17:52  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 402016-04-21T03:22:06  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 412016-04-21T03:31:40  *** Thireus has quit IRC
 422016-04-21T03:32:38  *** TomMc has quit IRC
 432016-04-21T03:35:39  <GitHub112> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #7920: Do not merge yet: Switch Travis to Trusty (master...travis-trusty) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7920
 442016-04-21T03:46:15  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
 452016-04-21T03:48:20  *** justanotheruser is now known as justanot1eruser
 462016-04-21T03:48:52  *** justanot1eruser is now known as justanotheruser
 472016-04-21T03:52:44  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 482016-04-21T03:55:00  *** Thireus has quit IRC
 492016-04-21T03:58:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 502016-04-21T04:01:36  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 512016-04-21T04:04:48  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 522016-04-21T04:09:04  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 532016-04-21T04:11:17  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 542016-04-21T04:21:17  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
 552016-04-21T04:32:20  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
 562016-04-21T04:32:46  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 572016-04-21T04:34:36  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
 582016-04-21T04:51:07  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 592016-04-21T04:54:16  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 602016-04-21T05:03:24  *** cryptocoder has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612016-04-21T05:12:00  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
 622016-04-21T05:14:54  *** cjcj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 632016-04-21T05:17:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 642016-04-21T05:18:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 652016-04-21T05:33:22  *** ebfull has quit IRC
 662016-04-21T05:34:32  *** ebfull has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 672016-04-21T05:35:53  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 682016-04-21T05:37:17  *** ebfull has quit IRC
 692016-04-21T05:56:26  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 702016-04-21T05:58:25  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
 712016-04-21T06:13:40  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 722016-04-21T06:19:20  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 732016-04-21T06:21:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 742016-04-21T06:22:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 752016-04-21T06:42:33  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, is it going to cause problems for afl if a bunch of things to fuzz are all in the same binary with a giant switch() ?
 762016-04-21T06:44:46  <gmaxwell> No.
 772016-04-21T06:45:13  <gmaxwell> though it might be better to make the switch triggered with a commandline flag, and run afl seperately for each thing. or maybe not.
 782016-04-21T06:45:48  <gmaxwell> AFL has a hash table and branches are just randomly mapped into it, so combining things in one binary won't hurt.
 792016-04-21T06:46:07  <gmaxwell> you might not get even coverage of the different functions if which function is being used is read from the input though.
 802016-04-21T06:51:18  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 812016-04-21T06:51:42  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, trying to figure out how to easily fuzz loooots of things
 822016-04-21T06:52:05  <gmaxwell> then perhaps one binary and input from AFL is the right thing to do.
 832016-04-21T07:44:07  *** Cory has quit IRC
 842016-04-21T07:46:54  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 852016-04-21T07:48:40  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862016-04-21T07:49:02  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 872016-04-21T08:14:51  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 882016-04-21T09:40:02  *** KHCkjhv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 892016-04-21T09:49:18  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 902016-04-21T09:59:21  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912016-04-21T09:59:29  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
 922016-04-21T10:13:11  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
 932016-04-21T10:22:42  *** fengling has quit IRC
 942016-04-21T10:23:13  <nickler> phantomcircuit: what do you plan to fuzz?
 952016-04-21T10:27:55  <wumpus> all the things!!?!?!
 962016-04-21T10:28:25  <wumpus> I have a fuzzing branch for univalue if you want to fuzz that
 972016-04-21T10:28:49  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, i cant figure out a sane way to get the build system to work
 982016-04-21T10:30:07  <wumpus> I'll see if I can find my notes
 992016-04-21T10:34:56  <wumpus> phantomcircuit: first you need this branch: https://github.com/laanwj/univalue/tree/2015_11_unifuzz   (helpfully rebased on top of my UTF-8 branch)  ... secondly use this to build: https://gist.github.com/laanwj/68551528b7ae641ccaeb519566ca67c7
1002016-04-21T10:35:14  <wumpus> then you can use afl with the executable 'unifuzz'
1012016-04-21T10:37:44  *** davec has quit IRC
1022016-04-21T10:44:33  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032016-04-21T10:58:51  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, hmm so you have the fuzzing thing as a test binary
1042016-04-21T10:59:03  <phantomcircuit> i guess that makes more sense than adding a new directory
1052016-04-21T11:01:23  *** afk11 has quit IRC
1062016-04-21T11:02:22  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072016-04-21T11:04:19  *** Pasha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082016-04-21T11:06:12  <wumpus> yes you need to recompile using the fuzzing gcc/g++ for instrumentation, and you need an executable that takes input on stdin and returns an exit status based on the input (or crashes, if it's found a bug)
1092016-04-21T11:06:33  <wumpus> also you need input samples that are ok and that fail, univalue has a few of those int the test directory
1102016-04-21T11:06:48  <wumpus> afl-fuzz generates further samples based on those
1112016-04-21T11:08:01  *** Cory has quit IRC
1122016-04-21T11:08:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
1132016-04-21T11:08:07  *** Alopex1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142016-04-21T11:11:12  *** Pasha is now known as Cory
1152016-04-21T11:12:43  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, yeah i have a special vm where i have CC=afl-gcc and CXX=afl-g++ for the entire system
1162016-04-21T11:12:50  <phantomcircuit> so all libraries are instrumented
1172016-04-21T11:13:02  <phantomcircuit> (also i have some glibc debugging stuff enabled system wide)
1182016-04-21T11:13:05  <wumpus> that's not usually neede though
1192016-04-21T11:13:27  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, i know, it basically means im also fuzzing the library
1202016-04-21T11:13:55  * sipa likes seeing this discussion
1212016-04-21T11:13:57  *** toker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222016-04-21T11:14:11  <wumpus> which is the same thing you do if you build univalue with the switches I gave. Sure, that won't fuzz libc and such, but for me at least that's out of scope.
1232016-04-21T11:14:45  <phantomcircuit> i like that it's fuzzing libc also, in case there's some weird interaction that is non-obvious
1242016-04-21T11:14:58  <phantomcircuit> i've not caught anything yet because of that of course
1252016-04-21T11:15:18  <wumpus> (and it may work the wrong way around, for example slow down runtime of functions you're not interested in in the first place)
1262016-04-21T11:18:41  <phantomcircuit> wumpus, oh it's definitely slower
1272016-04-21T11:19:19  <phantomcircuit> not generally much slower though unless the codes making heavy use of stuff which would otherwise be un-instrumented.... but that's exactly where im kind of interested in instrumenting it
1282016-04-21T11:19:26  <phantomcircuit> also i have cpu cycles to spare...
1292016-04-21T11:19:44  *** cryptapus__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302016-04-21T11:20:16  <phantomcircuit> oops it's 4:30am
1312016-04-21T11:20:19  * phantomcircuit sleeps
1322016-04-21T11:20:47  <wumpus> yes well happy fuzzing then
1332016-04-21T11:21:31  <wumpus> :)
1342016-04-21T11:22:33  *** cryptapus__ is now known as cryptapus_
1352016-04-21T11:35:02  *** KHCkjhv has quit IRC
1362016-04-21T11:37:41  *** KHCkjhv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1372016-04-21T11:42:40  *** KHCkjhv has quit IRC
1382016-04-21T11:43:40  *** KHCkjhv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392016-04-21T11:47:36  *** dermoth__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402016-04-21T11:48:49  <GitHub144> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/04a29373571d...7daa3adb242d
1412016-04-21T11:48:50  <GitHub144> bitcoin/master e9fc71e Cory Fields: net: require lookup functions to specify all arguments...
1422016-04-21T11:48:50  <GitHub144> bitcoin/master a98cd1f Cory Fields: net: manually resolve dns seed sources...
1432016-04-21T11:48:51  <GitHub144> bitcoin/master 3675699 Cory Fields: net: resolve outside of storage structures...
1442016-04-21T11:48:54  <GitHub128> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #7868: net: Split DNS resolving functionality out of net structures (master...net-cleanup-resolve) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7868
1452016-04-21T11:51:51  *** dermoth_ has quit IRC
1462016-04-21T11:53:36  *** KHCkjhv has quit IRC
1472016-04-21T11:57:26  <GitHub164> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7daa3adb242d...bafd075c5e6a
1482016-04-21T11:57:27  <GitHub164> bitcoin/master 220f950 Yuri Zhykin: Fix for incorrect locking in GetPubKey() (keystore.cpp)
1492016-04-21T11:57:27  <GitHub164> bitcoin/master bafd075 Pieter Wuille: Merge #7913: Fix for incorrect locking in GetPubKey() (keystore.cpp)...
1502016-04-21T11:57:37  <GitHub5> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #7913: Fix for incorrect locking in GetPubKey() (keystore.cpp) (master...getpubkey-locking-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7913
1512016-04-21T11:57:38  *** toker has quit IRC
1522016-04-21T12:11:03  *** KHCkjhv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532016-04-21T12:15:58  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1542016-04-21T12:18:49  *** gevs has quit IRC
1552016-04-21T12:19:39  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562016-04-21T12:23:50  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572016-04-21T12:23:50  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582016-04-21T12:25:41  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592016-04-21T12:26:15  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
1602016-04-21T12:31:37  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612016-04-21T12:40:48  *** gevs has quit IRC
1622016-04-21T12:41:33  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632016-04-21T12:50:10  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642016-04-21T12:54:59  <GitHub119> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bafd075c5e6a...3689ac463439
1652016-04-21T12:55:01  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master 764d237 Jorge Timón: Globals: Explicitly pass const CChainParams& to UpdateTip()
1662016-04-21T12:55:01  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master d0a6353 face: Pass CChainParams to DisconnectTip()
1672016-04-21T12:55:01  <GitHub119> bitcoin/master 176869f face: Explicitly pass CChainParams to ConnectBlock
1682016-04-21T12:55:13  <GitHub1> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7916: Explicitly pass CChainParams& to DisconnectTip() (master...global-params-cleanup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7916
1692016-04-21T13:07:38  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: I've just enabled commit access to bitcoin/bitcoin for you - to get you started, can you try to merge #7912 using the github-merge.py script? If you need any help setting it up let me know
1702016-04-21T13:08:50  <jonasschnelli> \o/
1712016-04-21T13:09:36  <MarcoFalke> whoohoo
1722016-04-21T13:09:45  <sipa> MarcoFalke: :)
1732016-04-21T13:09:46  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742016-04-21T13:09:52  <MarcoFalke> I should edit verify-commits first?
1752016-04-21T13:10:29  <jonasschnelli> Hmm... maybe you should add you key here first: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/verify-commits/trusted-keys
1762016-04-21T13:11:06  * jonasschnelli can hear TheBlueMatt murmur in the background
1772016-04-21T13:11:26  <jonasschnelli> Otherwise verify-commits will fail.
1782016-04-21T13:11:51  <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: and make sure your sign the merge commits
1792016-04-21T13:13:35  <sipa> github-merge does that automatically
1802016-04-21T13:14:10  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
1812016-04-21T13:17:24  *** face has quit IRC
1822016-04-21T13:18:08  <jonasschnelli> sipa: okay. But I guess at least you need to specify/gen a key if you haven't done that before. Not sure about MarcoFalke setup.
1832016-04-21T13:18:14  <sipa> right
1842016-04-21T13:18:18  <jonasschnelli> His last commits where not listed as "verified" by github: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7918/commits
1852016-04-21T13:18:26  <jonasschnelli> Could be a missing pubkey upload
1862016-04-21T13:18:50  <wumpus> yes, you need to add the key that you use to sign commits to the verify-commits script, good point
1872016-04-21T13:18:54  <sipa> ok, so MarcoFalke: can you 1) create a PR to add your key to trusted-keys 2) import your gpg key into github
1882016-04-21T13:19:04  <MarcoFalke> I am not signing "usual" commits
1892016-04-21T13:19:09  <wumpus> you don't need to
1902016-04-21T13:19:11  <MarcoFalke> gpg key is already in github
1912016-04-21T13:19:19  <MarcoFalke> only merge commits
1922016-04-21T13:19:21  <sipa> ah, i see
1932016-04-21T13:19:29  <wumpus> merge commits need to be signed, which is what the script does (as well as other things)
1942016-04-21T13:19:32  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952016-04-21T13:19:56  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
1962016-04-21T13:20:01  <MarcoFalke> Also cherry pick commits need to be signed but I am not doing backports anyway
1972016-04-21T13:20:15  <wumpus> right, as they are effectively merges
1982016-04-21T13:20:24  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992016-04-21T13:20:37  <sipa> are cherry-picked turned into merges?
2002016-04-21T13:20:52  <MarcoFalke> no, it is how verify-commit works
2012016-04-21T13:21:16  <sipa> verify-commits verifies all commits recursively along the leftmost child, i think
2022016-04-21T13:21:20  <sipa> whether they're merges or not
2032016-04-21T13:21:43  <MarcoFalke> I think it checks both right and left
2042016-04-21T13:22:02  <MarcoFalke> (for cherry-pick there is only left ofc)
2052016-04-21T13:23:00  <sipa> MarcoFalke: where are you based, btw?
2062016-04-21T13:23:07  <wumpus> the idea is that everything top-level has to be signed by a trusted key
2072016-04-21T13:23:21  <morcos>  sipa: whats the plan for handling rebases and addressing comments on 7910  (i was optimistically hoping for more of a code freeze while we review it)
2082016-04-21T13:23:31  <MarcoFalke> süddeutschland :)
2092016-04-21T13:24:09  * MarcoFalke wonders if sipa is fluent in swabian yet
2102016-04-21T13:24:22  * sipa is not
2112016-04-21T13:24:53  <sipa> morcos: i plan to add "fixup" commits to address the nits
2122016-04-21T13:25:19  <sipa> unless there is something significant
2132016-04-21T13:27:55  *** zooko has quit IRC
2142016-04-21T13:27:58  <MarcoFalke> Basically https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7918 would conflict with segwit (on purpose) to get rid of the wildcard import and other cleanup. Should I submit this to the segwit branch instead?
2152016-04-21T13:28:05  <morcos> ok good and avoid rebasing for merge conflicts until the end i guess?
2162016-04-21T13:29:17  <sipa> MarcoFalke, morcos: your two above messages are a problem together :)
2172016-04-21T13:29:40  <sipa> MarcoFalke: it's probably better to do in the segwit branch (which would only modify its final commit)
2182016-04-21T13:31:01  *** jtimon has quit IRC
2192016-04-21T13:31:44  <MarcoFalke> Ok, will add this to https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/pull/79
2202016-04-21T13:31:56  <morcos> sipa: i perhaps started being a bit too thorough in my review (hence getting lost in the weeds of addrman) and i just got worried that its going to be hard to keep up if everythign is changing from underneath me.  but i'm glad to see a bunch of people seem to be reviewing right away, and fixup commits make a lot of sense to me.
2212016-04-21T13:32:51  <sipa> morcos: yeah, it would have been easier to ask for public review on the 0.12 version, i guess, but they have diverged already a bit
2222016-04-21T13:35:27  <GitHub84> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7921: [contrib] verify-commits: Add MarcoFalke fingerprint (master...Mf1604-contribMFfingerp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7921
2232016-04-21T13:37:39  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2242016-04-21T13:38:39  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252016-04-21T13:41:23  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2262016-04-21T13:43:38  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272016-04-21T13:58:24  *** shesek has quit IRC
2282016-04-21T14:00:41  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2292016-04-21T14:00:42  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302016-04-21T14:11:52  *** fanquake has quit IRC
2312016-04-21T14:14:01  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322016-04-21T14:14:40  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332016-04-21T14:18:42  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342016-04-21T14:21:12  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352016-04-21T14:23:17  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
2362016-04-21T14:24:45  *** earlest has quit IRC
2372016-04-21T14:32:44  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382016-04-21T14:32:58  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392016-04-21T14:34:40  <GitHub77> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3689ac463439...78d61aab233f
2402016-04-21T14:34:40  <GitHub77> bitcoin/master fa24329 MarcoFalke: [contrib] verify-commits: Add MarcoFalke fingerprint
2412016-04-21T14:34:41  <GitHub77> bitcoin/master 78d61aa Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7921: [contrib] verify-commits: Add MarcoFalke fingerprint...
2422016-04-21T14:34:55  <GitHub188> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7921: [contrib] verify-commits: Add MarcoFalke fingerprint (master...Mf1604-contribMFfingerp) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7921
2432016-04-21T14:35:04  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2442016-04-21T14:49:56  *** Thireus has quit IRC
2452016-04-21T14:50:33  <Chris_Stewart_5> How is the sigop limit reached on this test case inside of script_invalid.json?
2462016-04-21T14:50:54  <Chris_Stewart_5> ["",
2472016-04-21T14:50:54  <Chris_Stewart_5> "NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j'
2482016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i'
2492016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG 0 0 'a' 'b' 'c' 'd' 'e' 'f' 'g' 'h' 'i' 'j' 'k' 'l' 'm' 'n' 'o' 'p' 'q' 'r' 's' 't' 20 CHECKMULTISIG",
2502016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> "P2SH,STRICTENC",
2512016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> "Fails due to 201 sig op limit"]
2522016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> There are (by my count) 9 OP_CHECKMULTISIG ops with 20 keys a piece
2532016-04-21T14:50:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> which is 180 sigops
2542016-04-21T14:51:55  <Chris_Stewart_5> counting sigops by this function https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/script.cpp#L156-L178
2552016-04-21T14:56:38  *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2562016-04-21T14:56:45  *** KHCkjhv has quit IRC
2572016-04-21T15:00:13  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: please don't paste quotes longer than 3-5 lines
2582016-04-21T15:04:30  <Chris_Stewart_5> Sorry, copy and pasted it from the file.
2592016-04-21T15:04:53  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
2602016-04-21T15:05:06  <sipa> use a pastebin site, please
2612016-04-21T15:06:51  <Chris_Stewart_5> I'll make sure to do that in the future, here is the pastebin http://pastebin.com/vcEELjwF
2622016-04-21T15:09:25  *** wasi has quit IRC
2632016-04-21T15:14:04  *** gevs has quit IRC
2642016-04-21T15:17:58  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652016-04-21T15:21:38  *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662016-04-21T15:22:00  *** bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
2672016-04-21T15:23:51  <GitHub39> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/78d61aab233f...59ad56851a34
2682016-04-21T15:23:51  <GitHub39> bitcoin/master 807fa47 Suhas Daftuar: Tests: Fix deserialization of reject messages...
2692016-04-21T15:23:52  <GitHub39> bitcoin/master 59ad568 MarcoFalke: Merge #7912: Tests: Fix deserialization of reject messages...
2702016-04-21T15:24:01  <GitHub137> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #7912: Tests: Fix deserialization of reject messages (master...fix-mininode-reject) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7912
2712016-04-21T15:27:11  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722016-04-21T15:27:31  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732016-04-21T15:27:31  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742016-04-21T15:38:07  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2752016-04-21T15:38:45  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2762016-04-21T15:42:46  <sipa> MarcoFalke: congrats :)
2772016-04-21T15:43:17  <btcdrak> first merge :)
2782016-04-21T15:48:31  <jl2012> Chris_Stewart_5: the comment is misleading
2792016-04-21T15:48:42  <jl2012> and I think it's actually a bug
2802016-04-21T15:48:45  <jl2012> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L905
2812016-04-21T15:49:08  <jl2012> the 201 is the op code limit. Not sigop limit
2822016-04-21T15:49:45  <jl2012> and CHECKMULTISIG is counted as (number of keys +1) op codes
2832016-04-21T15:50:00  <jl2012> so 21*9 + 13 (NOP) = 202
2842016-04-21T15:52:33  *** cryptocoder has quit IRC
2852016-04-21T15:54:05  * MarcoFalke is waiting for per-repo   .js-merge-branch-action {display: none;}
2862016-04-21T15:58:00  <Chris_Stewart_5> jl2012: I understand how the comment can be misleading, but how is this a bug? Seems like just a typo in the comment?
2872016-04-21T15:58:41  <jl2012> CHECKMULTISIG is over counted
2882016-04-21T16:00:29  <Chris_Stewart_5> jl2012: is +1 for the null dummy?
2892016-04-21T16:00:42  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
2902016-04-21T16:00:50  <jl2012> data push should not be counted
2912016-04-21T16:00:57  <jl2012> and thanks for pointing out. I don't know this "hidden rule"
2922016-04-21T16:03:31  <Chris_Stewart_5> jl2012: Looks like you right, in sipa's pull request refactoring test cases he expects an OP_COUNT error https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/blob/refactorscriptests_12/src/test/data/script_tests.json#L1097-L1101
2932016-04-21T16:04:01  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2942016-04-21T16:07:13  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
2952016-04-21T16:14:24  *** d_t has quit IRC
2962016-04-21T16:20:37  *** zooko has quit IRC
2972016-04-21T16:23:33  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2982016-04-21T16:34:04  *** cryptocoder has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992016-04-21T16:37:14  *** zooko has quit IRC
3002016-04-21T16:49:20  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012016-04-21T17:01:16  *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022016-04-21T17:01:55  *** moli has quit IRC
3032016-04-21T17:01:55  *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
3042016-04-21T17:01:55  *** BlueMatt has quit IRC
3052016-04-21T17:02:31  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
3062016-04-21T17:02:37  *** Madars_ has quit IRC
3072016-04-21T17:03:05  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3082016-04-21T17:03:11  *** kanzure has quit IRC
3092016-04-21T17:03:45  *** arowser has quit IRC
3102016-04-21T17:04:11  *** BlueMatt_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3112016-04-21T17:04:11  *** arowser_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3122016-04-21T17:04:12  *** murch has quit IRC
3132016-04-21T17:04:12  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
3142016-04-21T17:04:12  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3152016-04-21T17:04:13  *** Madars_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3162016-04-21T17:07:06  *** kangx has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3172016-04-21T17:07:49  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
3182016-04-21T17:08:39  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3192016-04-21T17:09:19  *** pedrobra_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3202016-04-21T17:10:20  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3212016-04-21T17:10:44  *** kanzure_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3222016-04-21T17:11:00  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
3232016-04-21T17:11:35  *** kanzure_ has quit IRC
3242016-04-21T17:12:26  *** kanzure has quit IRC
3252016-04-21T17:12:26  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3262016-04-21T17:15:50  *** trippysa1mon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3272016-04-21T17:17:39  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3282016-04-21T17:17:56  *** JackH_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292016-04-21T17:18:05  *** dermoth_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3302016-04-21T17:19:13  *** Thireus has quit IRC
3312016-04-21T17:19:13  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
3322016-04-21T17:19:14  *** dermoth__ has quit IRC
3332016-04-21T17:19:14  *** JackH has quit IRC
3342016-04-21T17:19:14  *** adam3us has quit IRC
3352016-04-21T17:19:14  *** trippysalmon has quit IRC
3362016-04-21T17:19:15  *** nanotube has quit IRC
3372016-04-21T17:20:55  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3382016-04-21T17:26:58  *** nanotube has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3392016-04-21T17:27:24  *** arowser_ has quit IRC
3402016-04-21T17:27:39  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3412016-04-21T17:33:01  <cfields> phantomcircuit: sorry i missed your ping yesterday. A fuzzer sounds like a great idea
3422016-04-21T17:33:10  <cfields> phantomcircuit: what's the problem you're having?
3432016-04-21T17:56:49  *** bysherper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3442016-04-21T17:59:53  *** earlest has quit IRC
3452016-04-21T18:01:00  <gmaxwell> jtimon: meeting in one hour.
3462016-04-21T18:02:43  <jtimon> is not now?
3472016-04-21T18:04:13  <gmaxwell> jtimon: no it's in one hour.
3482016-04-21T18:04:51  <gmaxwell> The time of the meeting is 1900 UTC.
3492016-04-21T18:05:25  <jtimon> yeah, sorry, thanks
3502016-04-21T18:07:00  <wumpus> lol, enter it into google schedule already
3512016-04-21T18:08:04  <wumpus> every week you're either a week early or late :)
3522016-04-21T18:08:10  <wumpus> hour*
3532016-04-21T18:08:32  *** pedrobra_ has quit IRC
3542016-04-21T18:09:47  <jtimon> last week one hour later, this one hour early, next week...
3552016-04-21T18:14:17  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3562016-04-21T18:15:47  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3572016-04-21T18:16:29  *** molz has quit IRC
3582016-04-21T18:24:01  *** telelvis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3592016-04-21T18:38:38  <btcdrak> next week jtimon will perfect the quantum state of being both early and late for the meeting, but not on time.
3602016-04-21T18:39:53  <jtimon> no, next week I will be half an hour late, then half an hour early, then 15 min late...
3612016-04-21T18:41:17  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3622016-04-21T18:45:01  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3632016-04-21T18:45:14  *** bysherper has quit IRC
3642016-04-21T18:47:50  *** earlest has quit IRC
3652016-04-21T18:52:18  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3662016-04-21T18:56:37  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3672016-04-21T18:58:42  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3682016-04-21T19:00:27  <wumpus> meeting time
3692016-04-21T19:00:28  <jonasschnelli> ding-dong
3702016-04-21T19:00:34  <wumpus> #startmeeting
3712016-04-21T19:00:34  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Apr 21 19:00:34 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
3722016-04-21T19:00:34  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
3732016-04-21T19:00:46  <gmaxwell> jtimon: now.
3742016-04-21T19:01:19  <wumpus> topic ideas?
3752016-04-21T19:01:28  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3762016-04-21T19:01:35  <kanzure> segwit review
3772016-04-21T19:01:43  <gmaxwell> cfields: morcos: sdaftuar: sipa: petertod1: jonasschnelli: MarcoFalke: phantomcircuit: BlueMatt_:
3782016-04-21T19:01:58  * sipa not very present
3792016-04-21T19:02:04  <cfields> gmaxwell: here, thanks :)
3802016-04-21T19:02:14  <sdaftuar> here
3812016-04-21T19:02:17  <kanzure> there were some ideas submitted to split the segwit pull request for some not-quite-segwit but still good contributions into separate pull requests, i think it was phantomcircuit who said these things
3822016-04-21T19:02:20  <wumpus> only one action item from last week, move the 0.13 release schedule a month forward, that has been done
3832016-04-21T19:02:34  <sipa> kanzure: they already are
3842016-04-21T19:02:46  <sipa> kanzure: it's a single PR, enforcing service bits
3852016-04-21T19:02:58  <wumpus> #topic segwit review
3862016-04-21T19:02:58  <kanzure> alright
3872016-04-21T19:03:15  <gmaxwell> There has been a lot of input, which is good.
3882016-04-21T19:03:20  <morcos> i'm here temporarily
3892016-04-21T19:03:27  <cfields> sipa: i suppose you'd prefer to review and merge that first and rebase on top?
3902016-04-21T19:03:33  <sipa> my suggestion is to not rebase on master, and only add fixes as new commits
3912016-04-21T19:04:11  <kanzure> i have finished a read-through of the pull request although i might ask for assistance with someone to eliminate chunks of my notes (e.g. stuff it wouldn't be helpful for me to double check)...
3922016-04-21T19:04:23  <kanzure> (actually, i have read only the source code but not per commit, so commit ACKs will be incoming later)
3932016-04-21T19:04:30  <morcos> i think we should all make an effort to review as much segwit and do as little other merging as we can until we are ready to merge it.
3942016-04-21T19:05:01  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3952016-04-21T19:05:22  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
3962016-04-21T19:05:32  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
3972016-04-21T19:05:43  <sdaftuar> +1
3982016-04-21T19:05:53  <sdaftuar> i think it'd be helpful to focus review effort now
3992016-04-21T19:06:02  <cfields> morcos: ok by me. I'd like to ask for an exception for the Travis migration stuff though, since I've got them actively engaged
4002016-04-21T19:06:06  <gmaxwell> That is going to create artifical merge pressure to avoid stalling everything else.
4012016-04-21T19:06:09  <cfields> (that shouldn't affect segwit at all)
4022016-04-21T19:06:13  <wumpus> I don't think we can stop the world until segwit gets in
4032016-04-21T19:06:18  <morcos> s/artificial//
4042016-04-21T19:06:23  <wumpus> there are *lots* of things going on right now
4052016-04-21T19:06:34  <wumpus> I do agree we should delay things that potentially conflict with segwit
4062016-04-21T19:06:46  <wumpus> to save sipa on rebasing work
4072016-04-21T19:07:13  <sdaftuar> save sipa and also help reviewers
4082016-04-21T19:07:20  <kanzure> pull request 7910 says "But a lot of testing (unit tests, rpc tests, p2p tests, and tests by external software projects) are being done already, so it is probably time to make it visible as a PR for general review."
4092016-04-21T19:07:21  <morcos> mostly i'm talking about order of operations here.  if there are people who aren't going to review segwit, sure, keep on doing what you're doing.  but whoever is going to review segwit.  why not do that first.
4102016-04-21T19:07:29  <kanzure> but perhaps a more elaborate test status update could be given by sipa either today or eventually?
4112016-04-21T19:07:36  <jtimon> I'm fine with delaying after segwit as well, at least for things that are clearly going to conflict
4122016-04-21T19:08:56  <morcos> if it was up to me, i would say we should stop the world until it gets in.  i'm of course aware that it is not up to me and can live with other approaches, but just trying to push us as much that direction as possible
4132016-04-21T19:09:19  <wumpus> also mind that lots of pulls are being submitted, multiple every day, there's only a few days that we really can hold up merging until the load becomes unbearable
4142016-04-21T19:09:47  <wumpus> what areas should we avoid changes to make it easier for segwit?
4152016-04-21T19:10:39  <kanzure> would we want to do backport implementation and testing and review before merging something like 7910?
4162016-04-21T19:11:06  <cfields> wumpus: there's also the option of a rebase exemption for segwit, allowing a traditional merge for the sake of not invalidating reviews
4172016-04-21T19:11:30  <wumpus> cfields: but that doesn't help the underlying issue, it just moves the work to the merge
4182016-04-21T19:11:33  <morcos> btw, to clarify my earlier comment, this isn't about getting segwit in as quickly as possible according to the calendar.  this is about being as efficient workers as possible.
4192016-04-21T19:11:54  <wumpus> morcos: an efficient project has multiple people working in parallel on multiple things
4202016-04-21T19:12:07  <wumpus> especially if these things are orthogonal, e.g. RPC or P2P work
4212016-04-21T19:12:15  <gmaxwell> I don't think right now we're at a point where if there was nothing in flight that we'd merge today. If we were, then I'd agree that we should stop the world.
4222016-04-21T19:12:42  <jtimon> maybe it make sense to merge and backport the first "preparations" section of the PR separately (that should be fast)?
4232016-04-21T19:12:55  <morcos> i guess maybe we're talking at cross purposes.  i just don't understand why people are working on other things instead of reviewing segwit so we are at a point where it can be merged
4242016-04-21T19:12:58  <kanzure> #action more code review of segwit
4252016-04-21T19:13:01  <morcos> it needs review, and its a priority for the project
4262016-04-21T19:13:01  <wumpus> cfields: and if you move the work to the merge then the review is pretty much invalidated too, because the code after the merge looks much different from taht before
4272016-04-21T19:13:22  <gmaxwell> I think there are probably a couple rebases worth of general hammering on segwit before we'd do that. There are also 'preparations' PRs that are seperate which can go in now. So perhaps those should also be a priority.
4282016-04-21T19:13:34  <sipa> wumpus: rebasing from 0.12 to master took me 2 hours or so; i think we shouldn't overeagerly rebase, but it's not impossible
4292016-04-21T19:14:12  <kanzure> that gives us only 360 rebases per month not counting sleep
4302016-04-21T19:14:27  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4312016-04-21T19:14:32  <jtimon> the sooner we merge these safe preparations, the sooner can stop worrying about other things conflicting with them
4322016-04-21T19:14:33  <cfields> wumpus: fair enough
4332016-04-21T19:14:42  <wumpus> so again:
4342016-04-21T19:14:53  <wumpus> changes to what areas should be avoided to make it easier for segwit?
4352016-04-21T19:15:16  <wumpus> what are the most annoying things to rebase sipa?
4362016-04-21T19:15:24  <wumpus> or at least, risky
4372016-04-21T19:15:33  <jtimon> I would assume consensus and relay policy refactors not directly contributing as preparations to segwit should wait
4382016-04-21T19:15:48  <wumpus> makes sense
4392016-04-21T19:15:52  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4402016-04-21T19:16:02  <gmaxwell> do we have coverage analysis for the current tests? relative to segwit?
4412016-04-21T19:16:03  <jtimon> not sure about other areas
4422016-04-21T19:17:03  <wumpus> and yes if things can be merged already to pave the way for segwit, all the better
4432016-04-21T19:17:37  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: LCOV was included recently. I think there is a make target for the tests that produce coverage files
4442016-04-21T19:17:39  <cfields> gmaxwell: i can whip up a simple before/after. That's a good incentive to see if the dusty coverage stuff comes anywhere close to working.
4452016-04-21T19:17:47  <jtimon> I think that will also simplify review, by allowing one to make it in "phases"
4462016-04-21T19:18:03  <sipa> i'm not very worried about anything in-progres changes now
4472016-04-21T19:18:04  <gmaxwell> cfields: it might be useful in order to focus some attention on areas where people could contribute tests.
4482016-04-21T19:18:33  <wumpus> ok, in that case I'm not worried either, just trying to help
4492016-04-21T19:19:04  <cfields> yep, agreed. it'd be helpful to find what paths aren't covered for serialization too, since those changes are hard to review.
4502016-04-21T19:19:11  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
4512016-04-21T19:19:14  <cfields> (hard for me, anyway)
4522016-04-21T19:19:31  <kanzure> #action look at test coverage output
4532016-04-21T19:19:32  <morcos> sipa: so i'm not sure i understand.  are you only going to rebase rarely and announce in advance?  and how does one review the rebase other than trying to recreate it?
4542016-04-21T19:19:34  <gmaxwell> can we agree on a subset of the segwit commits as being most in need of review right now, to focus on those?
4552016-04-21T19:20:28  <gmaxwell> one thing we need to be warry of is loss of synchronization between 0.12 and 0.13, if the patches are not updated primarily by updating 0.12 and then carrying the updates in a rebase.
4562016-04-21T19:21:01  <jtimon> that's why I suggested merging and backporting the preparations first
4572016-04-21T19:21:06  <sipa> morcos: i'm not sure, i can not rebase at all
4582016-04-21T19:21:38  <sipa> gmaxwell: i think we'll end uo backporting the master patchset back to 0.12
4592016-04-21T19:22:15  <luke-jr> personally, I think it would be cleaner and perhaps easier to review a merge rather than a rebase. but I suspect others here disagree.
4602016-04-21T19:22:32  <jtimon> oh, #7910 needs rebase...
4612016-04-21T19:22:53  <sipa> luke-jr: you can always recreate the merge, and then diff against the result.of the rebase
4622016-04-21T19:23:16  <kanzure> er, i think that requires the original commits- which you might not have if you didn't fetch in time
4632016-04-21T19:23:21  <kanzure> *git fetch in time
4642016-04-21T19:23:42  <luke-jr> kanzure: if you didn't fetch, how did you review the older commits? ;)
4652016-04-21T19:23:44  <jtimon> well, mergers can test locally whether a given PR is going to create conflicts to segwit or leave the hypotethical rebase clean before merging (perhaphs that's too much work)
4662016-04-21T19:23:54  <kanzure> luke-jr: there's an answer but it's not a good answer
4672016-04-21T19:24:00  <kanzure> luke-jr: (for the record, i definitely fetched.)
4682016-04-21T19:24:03  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
4692016-04-21T19:24:52  <morcos> ok. well i have to run.  i hope i'm not being difficult, i just think sometimes we could work together a little better as a team if we're more willing to coordinate/cooperate.
4702016-04-21T19:24:56  <kanzure> also interested in determining which areas or which segwit commits are most needing of review
4712016-04-21T19:25:13  <morcos> in that vein if there is something else i could do to help, please let me know, in the meantime i'm going to keep going through segwit commits one by one
4722016-04-21T19:25:27  <jtimon> morcos: I don't think anybody disagreed on your point about review for segwit being a priority
4732016-04-21T19:26:08  <morcos> jtimon: i know, i'm just used to people telling other people what to do.  :)
4742016-04-21T19:26:47  <gmaxwell> I think I will make an effort to encourage people I see working on other things who haven't reviewed segwit to also review segwit.
4752016-04-21T19:26:50  <wumpus> at least I don't disagree, just that we can't force people to not work on other stuff, and that that wouldn't be constructive either (it'd just result in less work in other things instead of more work on segwit)
4762016-04-21T19:26:58  <kanzure> getblocktemplate changes probably need a few eyeballs to confirm things..
4772016-04-21T19:27:24  <luke-jr> yes, I need to update the GBT change PR
4782016-04-21T19:27:36  <CodeShark> sipa: I've mostly reviewed the older segwit branches - is there anything specific to look for or test in the rebase?
4792016-04-21T19:27:46  <luke-jr> #action (Luke) update GBT segwit stuff
4802016-04-21T19:28:16  <sipa> luke-jr: first figure out the bip9 related changes, i guess
4812016-04-21T19:28:18  <kanzure> luke-jr: should others wait on looking at getblocktemplate things there until you submit your update?
4822016-04-21T19:28:27  *** airmac has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4832016-04-21T19:28:29  *** BlueMatt_ is now known as BlueMatt
4842016-04-21T19:28:29  *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4852016-04-21T19:28:30  <sipa> kanzure: it'll just add a few fields
4862016-04-21T19:28:30  <airmac> anyone intrested in trading bitgold for bitcoin we can use escrow if you like
4872016-04-21T19:28:31  <airmac> <airmac> you have to have a non us bitgold account to received bitgold
4882016-04-21T19:28:31  <airmac> <airmac> www.bitgold.com
4892016-04-21T19:28:37  <jtimon> I have still only reviewed a few commits, and they may have changed
4902016-04-21T19:28:43  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o sipa
4912016-04-21T19:28:48  *** sipa sets mode: +b *!*airmac@*.flip.co.nz
4922016-04-21T19:28:48  *** airmac was kicked by sipa (airmac)
4932016-04-21T19:28:54  <kanzure> OK new fields sounds trivial-ish, so probably not a review blocker
4942016-04-21T19:29:20  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
4952016-04-21T19:29:56  <luke-jr> I don't know what the code state is for that, but the BIP PR needs updating at least
4962016-04-21T19:29:59  *** JackH_ is now known as JackH
4972016-04-21T19:30:18  <luke-jr> sipa: any changes needed beyond our last conversation on that?
4982016-04-21T19:30:26  <gmaxwell> we probably need a deployment related affordance, where one can continue to mine without changes to GBT but not mine any new SW transactions; so that the recourse when there are downstream issues isn't back-out segwit.
4992016-04-21T19:30:41  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5002016-04-21T19:31:00  <jtimon> I think after the next rebase, we should be careful to merge anything that will require another non-trivial rebase
5012016-04-21T19:31:30  *** zooko has quit IRC
5022016-04-21T19:31:35  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: before merging segwit, or as a follow-up PR?
5032016-04-21T19:31:48  <gmaxwell> doesn't have to be before.
5042016-04-21T19:34:37  <wumpus> ok, next topic? any proposals?
5052016-04-21T19:34:48  <cfields> topic proposal: travis switchover
5062016-04-21T19:34:54  <kanzure> if we could get an outline of which areas have been receiving lots of testing, which areas are under-tested, and which areas should be review critical and extra attention, then i think it will help smooth the review process
5072016-04-21T19:35:04  <wumpus> #topic travis switch to trusty
5082016-04-21T19:35:24  <wumpus> kanzure: agree that would be useful
5092016-04-21T19:35:34  <luke-jr> I dislike breaking external repos' ability to use Travis, but… we're already at that point, so meh
5102016-04-21T19:35:49  <cfields> I tried to summarize in #7920. Basically we need to hit a few buttons that may cause a few hours of instability. I don't think there's really much downside other than that, I just didn't want to pull the trigger without opening it for discussion
5112016-04-21T19:35:58  <cfields> luke-jr: this doesn't disable their ability
5122016-04-21T19:36:08  <wumpus> a few hours travis downtime is no problem
5132016-04-21T19:36:17  <cfields> luke-jr: they just won't get caching until the feature is generally available. They can ask for it as well.
5142016-04-21T19:36:21  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5152016-04-21T19:36:25  <wumpus> luke-jr: how would this change that?
5162016-04-21T19:36:31  <luke-jr> cfields: well, right now Travis is unwilling to enable it for other repos without a contractual agreement
5172016-04-21T19:36:37  <wumpus> we already have special support for caching
5182016-04-21T19:36:37  <luke-jr> wumpus: it wouldn't, hence meh
5192016-04-21T19:36:38  <jtimon> cfields: hours of isntability? meh, people can just change the commit id without changes and force push
5202016-04-21T19:36:45  <wumpus> right.
5212016-04-21T19:36:46  <cfields> luke-jr: eh? It's an email asking for a flag :)
5222016-04-21T19:36:49  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: right now we have some special settings that are us only. This moves us closer to a standard configuration.
5232016-04-21T19:36:49  <kanzure> is the concern that build caching is too much load on travis?
5242016-04-21T19:36:51  <jonasschnelli> cfields: Is there still no way to use the non-sudo travis way?
5252016-04-21T19:36:52  <kanzure> *their concern
5262016-04-21T19:36:58  <luke-jr> cfields: and gets denied unless you have an arrangement
5272016-04-21T19:37:10  <jonasschnelli> cfields: qt has been added to the "allowed packages"
5282016-04-21T19:37:17  <cfields> luke-jr: huh? This _removes_ our arrangement.
5292016-04-21T19:37:25  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: cfields: oh, I missed that detail
5302016-04-21T19:37:42  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: basically this gets rid of the old thing, in favor of a new feature which will be available to everyone.
5312016-04-21T19:37:50  <btcdrak> luke-jr: travis plan to roll it out for everyone.
5322016-04-21T19:37:52  <luke-jr> even better
5332016-04-21T19:38:16  <cfields> jonasschnelli: there are a few annoying things that won't every work without sudo, I'm afraid
5342016-04-21T19:38:30  <gmaxwell> it isn't _yet_ available to everyone, but the plan is that it will be, and it sounds like they would be much more willing to enable it for others.
5352016-04-21T19:38:40  <cfields> unless they can be encouraged to come up with some workarounds
5362016-04-21T19:38:47  * luke-jr looked at removing sudo use a while ago, and thought it just needed whitelisted pkgs
5372016-04-21T19:38:56  <cfields> right, we're beta testers. Pretty strenuous ones too :)
5382016-04-21T19:38:56  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
5392016-04-21T19:38:58  <sipa> i would love to just enable travis on my own bitcoin fork repo
5402016-04-21T19:39:02  <kanzure> and travis changes are off-limits if they break lots of downstream forked projects?
5412016-04-21T19:39:04  *** sipa sets mode: -o sipa
5422016-04-21T19:39:10  <kanzure> what level of commitment are we making there anyway..
5432016-04-21T19:39:14  <jonasschnelli> sipa: you can?!
5442016-04-21T19:39:16  <jtimon> sipa + 5
5452016-04-21T19:39:24  <jtimon> oh, really?
5462016-04-21T19:39:27  <cfields> sipa: you can already, it just takes ages
5472016-04-21T19:39:35  <jonasschnelli> unless you pay.
5482016-04-21T19:39:36  <sipa> cfields: it fails for me
5492016-04-21T19:39:39  <sdaftuar> takes ages?  i find that about half the time the jobs fail
5502016-04-21T19:39:41  <jtimon> #action tutorial to enable travis on your own repo
5512016-04-21T19:39:43  <sipa> jonasschnelli: no, it:s free
5522016-04-21T19:39:51  <jonasschnelli> sipa: you might need to push a recent master
5532016-04-21T19:39:55  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: recently?
5542016-04-21T19:39:59  <cfields> everyone can ask for the flag, we can nag them into pulling it out of beta :p
5552016-04-21T19:40:00  <sdaftuar> yeah, all the time
5562016-04-21T19:40:01  <jonasschnelli> sipa: its free but you get more cycles if you pay.
5572016-04-21T19:40:07  <sipa> of course
5582016-04-21T19:40:19  <sipa> bit until recently everything jist failed to build
5592016-04-21T19:40:20  <kanzure> sounds like the failure might be due to lack of flag enablement
5602016-04-21T19:40:28  <luke-jr> hrm, I fixed some Travis-outside-of-"bitcoin" issues earleir this year
5612016-04-21T19:40:46  <cfields> i'm working with them on a few other things (their-side) that should speed up builds as well
5622016-04-21T19:41:01  * gmaxwell looks over at the rack in his office with hundreds of processors that can't be used for this because we're depending on external infrastructure. 
5632016-04-21T19:41:04  <cfields> so likely in the near future it will be possible for everyone to have their own repos being built
5642016-04-21T19:41:06  <jonasschnelli> While where at travis: we could also think about adding another github compatible CI to speedup tests (share platforms over two CI systems)?
5652016-04-21T19:41:10  <wumpus> in any case very good to hear the trusty conversion is very close now, let's set things in motion
5662016-04-21T19:41:16  <kanzure> perhaps some companies would be willing to sponsor large piles of testing infrastructure :)
5672016-04-21T19:41:24  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: nah, maintaining one is enough work
5682016-04-21T19:41:27  <cfields> wumpus: ok, can be done today
5692016-04-21T19:41:27  <kanzure> lots of testing infrastructure would mean big development cycle speedups, less time waiting scratching heads
5702016-04-21T19:41:31  <wumpus> cfields: +1
5712016-04-21T19:41:47  <wumpus> cfields: let me know when I need to merge
5722016-04-21T19:41:49  <gmaxwell> cfields: in any case, push button; please
5732016-04-21T19:41:53  <cfields> wumpus: just need someone around to click the merge button on my PR after it goes live
5742016-04-21T19:42:12  <cfields> roger. Confirming now.
5752016-04-21T19:42:13  * jtimon remembers asking for a script to run everything travis runs in his own computer, is there such a thing?
5762016-04-21T19:42:28  <luke-jr> if there was a non-proprietary CI option, we could use gmaxwell's hundreds of processors, and also reproduce issues locally ;)
5772016-04-21T19:42:37  <cfields> jtimon: sure
5782016-04-21T19:42:39  <btcdrak> cfields: +1
5792016-04-21T19:42:42  <luke-jr> there is?
5802016-04-21T19:42:52  <cfields> luke-jr: travis is completely open, btw
5812016-04-21T19:43:14  <kanzure> #action (cfields) travis changes requiring some downtime
5822016-04-21T19:43:22  <wumpus> thanks kanzure
5832016-04-21T19:43:38  <jtimon> well, I could use a link to a tutorial or something, but I guess we can take that offline (ie after the meeting), thanks cfields
5842016-04-21T19:43:45  <wumpus> #action merge #7920 when cfields says so
5852016-04-21T19:43:52  <cfields> jtimon: sure
5862016-04-21T19:44:01  <jtimon> if I could queue builds that would be even more awesome
5872016-04-21T19:44:35  <wumpus> ok, any other topics to be discussed?
5882016-04-21T19:46:16  <wumpus> seems not :)
5892016-04-21T19:46:27  <btcdrak> the segwit afterparty!
5902016-04-21T19:46:28  <jtimon> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_QR9QP0Rjsc/maxresdefault.jpg
5912016-04-21T19:46:41  <wumpus> #endmeeting
5922016-04-21T19:46:41  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Apr 21 19:46:41 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
5932016-04-21T19:46:41  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-04-21-19.00.html
5942016-04-21T19:46:41  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-04-21-19.00.txt
5952016-04-21T19:46:41  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-04-21-19.00.log.html
5962016-04-21T19:46:46  <kanzure> i was told there would be a space boat party
5972016-04-21T19:47:00  <wumpus> haha that party gets grander every time
5982016-04-21T19:48:08  <jtimon> so, cfields, maybe a mail to the ml with a little introduction to "travis, you didn't know? you can do this at home!" and I can ask questions there (maybe more people are interested)
5992016-04-21T19:48:44  <kanzure> approximately how much time on average per travis build without caching?
6002016-04-21T19:48:51  <cfields> jtimon: sure. The foundation of moving to travis was to get everything in-tree so that anyone can run it. Travis just happens to be running it for us automatically
6012016-04-21T19:49:30  <gmaxwell> kanzure: by space boat party http://www.lorensworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Outer-Space-themed-glowing-bath.jpg
6022016-04-21T19:49:44  <cfields> kanzure: now that we have docker availability, we can work on stashing depends as a separate step. I know you don't like 'docker build', but it'd be a stepping stone
6032016-04-21T19:49:55  <jtimon> I thought it was a private cloud service we were paying...
6042016-04-21T19:49:56  *** bysherper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6052016-04-21T19:50:05  *** telelvis has quit IRC
6062016-04-21T19:50:06  <kanzure> gmaxwell: the real party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field
6072016-04-21T19:50:40  <kanzure> cfields: thanks for remembering that actually, world would be a much better place if we could all remember everyone else's dispreferences :)
6082016-04-21T19:50:57  <cfields> jtimon: travis just spawns VM instances and runs your build scripts. We could just as easily have someone else running it
6092016-04-21T19:51:03  <cfields> heh
6102016-04-21T19:51:08  <kanzure> cfields: yeah stashing would be helpful i'm sure. but i was asking for time averages because that number is helpful when asking companies for testing resources sponsorship.
6112016-04-21T19:51:42  <cfields> kanzure: it varies, but we push 50min for the worst case
6122016-04-21T19:51:49  <cfields> but again, that includes depends
6132016-04-21T19:51:52  <kanzure> or does travis throw as much computing as we request?
6142016-04-21T19:52:38  <cfields> kanzure: remember though, we dropped our own hosted bot because it required meddling with things under the hood. The nice thing about travis is that we give it a descriptive recipe, and we know what to expect.
6152016-04-21T19:52:57  <jtimon> cfields: I guess I should start here https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/getting-started/
6162016-04-21T19:52:57  <cfields> I'd be pretty adamant about making sure it continues to go that way
6172016-04-21T19:53:07  <wumpus> yes I prefer travis too to hosting something on our own
6182016-04-21T19:53:24  <wumpus> pulltester required so much babysitting
6192016-04-21T19:53:28  <kanzure> i know travis does freebies for open-source project but if we have 80 pull requests opened on the same day, do they go in parallel?
6202016-04-21T19:53:29  <cfields> jtimon: all you need to do is yank commands out of the .travis.yml and run them locally
6212016-04-21T19:53:29  *** earlest has quit IRC
6222016-04-21T19:53:46  <wumpus> kanzure: no, they'll be queued
6232016-04-21T19:53:50  <jtimon> well, if it's free software there's no problem in it being hosted, we can host it ourselves later if needed
6242016-04-21T19:53:56  <cfields> kanzure: 4 concurrent builds, iirc
6252016-04-21T19:53:57  <kanzure> what is the queue width?
6262016-04-21T19:53:59  <kanzure> eww 4??
6272016-04-21T19:54:10  <wumpus> hosting it yourself would *also* cost money
6282016-04-21T19:54:12  <kanzure> yeah okay, so 50 minutes, 4 builds at most
6292016-04-21T19:54:15  <kanzure> yeah i know
6302016-04-21T19:54:20  <jtimon> cfields: oh, that easy? thank you, awesome!
6312016-04-21T19:54:24  <kanzure> anyway this is useful. i will repeat these numbers in public more frequently.
6322016-04-21T19:54:28  <cfields> kanzure: well on the good case, each build only takes about 5min
6332016-04-21T19:54:49  <cfields> kanzure: sec, i'll grab a random PR and check
6342016-04-21T19:54:55  <wumpus> as well as time spent working to administrate servers, which is far from free
6352016-04-21T19:55:06  <kanzure> yeah i understand. travis makes sense to me. i have no problems with travis at the moment.
6362016-04-21T19:55:38  <cfields> kanzure: https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/builds/123870873
6372016-04-21T19:55:42  <kanzure> but.... if ecosystem companies want more development, paying for some more travis concurrency would go a long way.
6382016-04-21T19:56:01  <jtimon> so...hours of disruption, merging when #7920 when cfields says so...what is the blocker?
6392016-04-21T19:56:10  <cfields> kanzure: yes, that's very reasonable imo
6402016-04-21T19:56:10  <kanzure> "Total time 1 hr 2 min 4 sec" yeah this can easily clog 4 workers..
6412016-04-21T19:56:32  <kanzure> jtimon: he just wanted to inform us about it
6422016-04-21T19:56:38  <jtimon> the sooner we enjoy those hours of disruption, the better, no?
6432016-04-21T19:56:39  <kanzure> jtimon: since it would be kinda rude to flip the switch otherwise
6442016-04-21T19:56:51  <cfields> jtimon: I've already requested it, just waiting on a mail
6452016-04-21T19:56:52  <jtimon> kanzure: I see, that makes sense
6462016-04-21T19:57:41  <cfields> btw, there should be no actual disruption. In all likelihood we just get one slow build. I'm just adding in the human factor of "something always goes wrong".
6472016-04-21T19:58:48  *** cryptapus_ has quit IRC
6482016-04-21T19:59:00  <jtimon> the good old trick of lowering expectations as an insurance ;)
6492016-04-21T19:59:27  <cfields> heh
6502016-04-21T20:01:24  <cfields> sipa: would you prefer that I hold off on the c++11 PR until after segwit? I don't imagine it would interfere, but it could cause a little unforeseen distraction for builders trying to test if it causes any build issues
6512016-04-21T20:01:49  <sipa> cfields: nah, go ahead
6522016-04-21T20:02:23  <cfields> ok
6532016-04-21T20:02:42  <BlueMatt> ffs...totally just realized the meeting happened :'(
6542016-04-21T20:02:50  <BlueMatt> and I was here, just not reading :(
6552016-04-21T20:04:19  <gmaxwell> if only someone pinged you at the start.
6562016-04-21T20:04:48  <gmaxwell> Now we can theorize on the BlueMatt/jtimon exclusion principle.
6572016-04-21T20:06:06  <BlueMatt> i know, I know...I saw the ping and then went and did other things with a mental note to come back and see what it was
6582016-04-21T20:07:10  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: well in any case, you didn't miss much. We assigned you to review all of segwit for us, and also to make sure blocks relay under it faster than they do today.  By next tuesday.
6592016-04-21T20:07:59  <BlueMatt> that seems....agressive...I'm travelling this weekend again
6602016-04-21T20:20:02  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6612016-04-21T20:21:08  *** Cory has quit IRC
6622016-04-21T20:21:25  *** jannes has quit IRC
6632016-04-21T20:29:25  <sipa> BlueMatt: priorities...
6642016-04-21T20:30:42  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6652016-04-21T20:30:54  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: well okay, then you can have until thursday to get the improvements widely deployed.
6662016-04-21T20:31:02  <BlueMatt> heh
6672016-04-21T20:31:19  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6682016-04-21T20:33:31  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6692016-04-21T20:35:05  *** bysherper has quit IRC
6702016-04-21T20:35:44  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
6712016-04-21T20:43:34  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6722016-04-21T20:46:40  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6732016-04-21T20:51:35  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
6742016-04-21T20:53:32  *** bysherper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6752016-04-21T20:55:56  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
6762016-04-21T20:57:22  *** earlest has quit IRC
6772016-04-21T20:58:25  *** cryptapus_afk is now known as cryptapus
6782016-04-21T21:01:02  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6792016-04-21T21:28:02  *** mrkent__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6802016-04-21T21:29:43  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
6812016-04-21T21:49:35  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6822016-04-21T21:50:05  *** earlest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6832016-04-21T21:53:33  *** bysherper has quit IRC
6842016-04-21T22:04:04  *** arowser has quit IRC
6852016-04-21T22:04:31  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6862016-04-21T22:05:28  *** d_t has quit IRC
6872016-04-21T22:05:52  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
6882016-04-21T22:07:04  *** murch has quit IRC
6892016-04-21T22:07:43  *** face has quit IRC
6902016-04-21T22:08:01  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6912016-04-21T22:25:05  *** bysherper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6922016-04-21T22:28:39  *** earlest has quit IRC
6932016-04-21T22:29:10  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
6942016-04-21T22:37:55  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6952016-04-21T22:44:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
6962016-04-21T22:48:59  *** TomMc has quit IRC
6972016-04-21T23:06:43  *** kangx has quit IRC
6982016-04-21T23:18:13  *** jtimon has quit IRC
6992016-04-21T23:20:07  *** zooko has quit IRC
7002016-04-21T23:41:36  *** PRab_ has quit IRC
7012016-04-21T23:51:30  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev