1 2016-07-18T00:02:31  *** molz has quit IRC
  2 2016-07-18T00:15:47  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  3 2016-07-18T00:19:13  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2016-07-18T00:25:47  *** xinxi has quit IRC
  5 2016-07-18T00:28:14  *** netsin has quit IRC
  6 2016-07-18T00:28:49  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2016-07-18T00:32:51  *** netsin has quit IRC
  8 2016-07-18T00:35:00  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2016-07-18T00:38:28  *** jcliff42 has quit IRC
 10 2016-07-18T00:45:57  *** netsin has quit IRC
 11 2016-07-18T00:50:02  *** YOU-JI has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 12 2016-07-18T01:13:58  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 13 2016-07-18T01:17:21  *** TomMc has quit IRC
 14 2016-07-18T01:26:40  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 15 2016-07-18T01:34:33  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 16 2016-07-18T01:36:28  *** Giszmo1 has quit IRC
 17 2016-07-18T01:40:46  *** belcher has quit IRC
 18 2016-07-18T01:46:31  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2016-07-18T01:46:47  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2016-07-18T01:49:57  <GitHub30> [bitcoin] Tyler-Hardin closed pull request #8349: Qt: Clearer warning about being out of sync (master...issue8060) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8349
 21 2016-07-18T01:52:29  *** netsin has quit IRC
 22 2016-07-18T01:53:11  *** Justinus has quit IRC
 23 2016-07-18T02:05:35  *** Justinus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2016-07-18T02:14:16  *** Justinus has quit IRC
 25 2016-07-18T02:16:52  *** YOU-JI has quit IRC
 26 2016-07-18T02:28:56  <ebfull> luke-jr: we should team up to coordinate integration/UX strategy for #7601 and #7534
 27 2016-07-18T02:37:18  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 28 2016-07-18T02:48:41  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 29 2016-07-18T02:53:33  *** xinxi has quit IRC
 30 2016-07-18T03:11:53  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 31 2016-07-18T03:11:59  *** justanot1eruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 32 2016-07-18T03:12:36  *** justanot1eruser is now known as justanotheruser
 33 2016-07-18T03:20:04  <GitHub157> [bitcoin] maiiz closed pull request #8336: TX fees and policy: fix relaypriority calculation error Issues #8334 (master...issues-8334) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8336
 34 2016-07-18T03:46:54  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 35 2016-07-18T03:47:22  *** YOU-JI has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2016-07-18T04:01:22  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 37 2016-07-18T04:14:27  *** xinxi has quit IRC
 38 2016-07-18T04:22:23  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2016-07-18T04:56:52  *** netsin has quit IRC
 40 2016-07-18T05:03:54  *** xinxi has quit IRC
 41 2016-07-18T05:04:34  *** achow101 has quit IRC
 42 2016-07-18T05:11:55  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 43 2016-07-18T05:25:56  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 44 2016-07-18T05:31:35  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2016-07-18T05:34:19  *** YOU-JI has quit IRC
 46 2016-07-18T05:43:35  <wumpus> phantomcircuit: not yet
 47 2016-07-18T05:46:38  <GitHub121> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bc94b8748782...37303934fe8f
 48 2016-07-18T05:46:39  <GitHub121> bitcoin/master 96fa953 Suhas Daftuar: Improve handling of unconnecting headers...
 49 2016-07-18T05:46:39  <GitHub121> bitcoin/master e91cf4b Suhas Daftuar: Add test for handling of unconnecting headers
 50 2016-07-18T05:46:40  <GitHub121> bitcoin/master 3730393 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8305: Improve handling of unconnecting headers...
 51 2016-07-18T05:46:47  <GitHub135> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8305: Improve handling of unconnecting headers (master...fix-relay-2hr-rule) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8305
 52 2016-07-18T05:47:45  *** xinxi has quit IRC
 53 2016-07-18T05:49:11  *** slackircbridge has quit IRC
 54 2016-07-18T05:50:47  *** slackircbridge has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 55 2016-07-18T05:58:58  <GitHub1> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/37303934fe8f...238300b39894
 56 2016-07-18T05:58:59  <GitHub1> bitcoin/master 5b95dd2 Jonas Schnelli: [Wallet] extend CKeyMetadata with HD keypath
 57 2016-07-18T05:58:59  <GitHub1> bitcoin/master b1c7b24 Jonas Schnelli: [Wallet] report optional HDKeypath/HDMasterKeyId in validateaddress
 58 2016-07-18T05:59:00  <GitHub1> bitcoin/master 986c223 Jonas Schnelli: [Wallet] print hd masterkeyid in getwalletinfo
 59 2016-07-18T05:59:11  <GitHub6> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8323: Add HD keypath to CKeyMetadata, report metadata in validateaddress (master...2016/07/hd_013) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8323
 60 2016-07-18T06:00:34  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: should #8308 be a blocker for the 0.13 rc1?
 61 2016-07-18T06:03:46  <wumpus> (it's labeled milestone 0.13, but #8206 is not)
 62 2016-07-18T06:10:52  <GitHub68> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #8354: mining: Rename `-blockmaxcost` to `-blockmaxweight` (master...2016_07_block_weight) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8354
 63 2016-07-18T06:11:15  *** netsin has quit IRC
 64 2016-07-18T06:24:06  <GitHub81> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/238300b39894...f5660d381a37
 65 2016-07-18T06:24:07  <GitHub81> bitcoin/master f15c2cd Suhas Daftuar: CreateNewBlock: add support for size-accounting to addPackageTxs...
 66 2016-07-18T06:24:07  <GitHub81> bitcoin/master 6dd4bc2 Suhas Daftuar: Exclude witness transactions in addPackageTxs() pre-segwit activation
 67 2016-07-18T06:24:08  <GitHub81> bitcoin/master d2e46e1 Suhas Daftuar: Remove addScoreTxs()
 68 2016-07-18T06:24:13  <GitHub37> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8295: Mining-related fixups for 0.13.0 (master...cnb-segwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8295
 69 2016-07-18T06:37:57  <GitHub46> [bitcoin] maiiz opened pull request #8355: [Wallet]fix relaypriority calculation error Issues #8334 (master...issues-8334) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8355
 70 2016-07-18T06:42:17  <wumpus> am I missing some context re: #8349? did someone get into a fight with the guy?
 71 2016-07-18T06:43:35  <paveljanik> wumpus, I do not think so.
 72 2016-07-18T06:44:31  <wumpus> I was thinking it was awesome that someone addressed #8334, then at the same moment he closed the pull and deleted the branch
 73 2016-07-18T06:44:54  <wumpus> addressed #8060, sorry
 74 2016-07-18T06:45:53  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2016-07-18T06:48:18  <paveljanik> strange, yes.
 76 2016-07-18T06:48:48  <GitHub94> [bitcoin] maiiz closed pull request #8355: [Wallet]fix relaypriority calculation error Issues #8334 (master...issues-8334) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8355
 77 2016-07-18T06:49:27  <wumpus> now maiiz is doing the same in #8355, either this is a github issue or people are trolling us...
 78 2016-07-18T06:51:52  <paveljanik> maiiz probably has a problem with github web interface.
 79 2016-07-18T06:56:39  *** adamg has quit IRC
 80 2016-07-18T07:00:19  <GitHub190> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier opened pull request #8356: Wallet: Minimum output value depends on fee instead of minTxRelayFee (master...wallet-min-output) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8356
 81 2016-07-18T07:04:57  <GitHub127> [bitcoin] maiiz opened pull request #8357: Update coins.cpp (master...maiiz-patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8357
 82 2016-07-18T07:05:07  <GitHub5> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f5660d381a37...8cb288a6b37d
 83 2016-07-18T07:05:08  <GitHub5> bitcoin/master d6dc1bc Krzysztof Jurewicz: Fix 0.12 release notes on block relaying...
 84 2016-07-18T07:05:08  <GitHub5> bitcoin/master 8cb288a Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8320: Fix 0.12 release notes on block relaying...
 85 2016-07-18T07:05:12  <GitHub49> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8320: Fix 0.12 release notes on block relaying (master...0.12-release-notes-block-relaying) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8320
 86 2016-07-18T07:10:40  <GitHub20> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #7615: [WIP] [wallet] Couple minimum change with minimum relay fee (master...Mf1602-walletMinChange) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7615
 87 2016-07-18T07:14:06  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2016-07-18T07:18:51  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: no. 8308 is more or less a feature and can go into 0.14
 89 2016-07-18T07:19:17  <jonasschnelli> IMO it's unclear if "importwallet" should import the HD master seed and set it according to the importet wallet
 90 2016-07-18T07:19:33  <wumpus> thanks, I agree
 91 2016-07-18T07:19:42  <jonasschnelli> *import* somehow implies that "old stuff is unchanged"
 92 2016-07-18T07:20:12  <jonasschnelli> But its good to have the extended master key "xpriv" visible in the dump... but as said. can go into 0.14
 93 2016-07-18T07:20:36  <wumpus> indeed, it's something that needs to be considered carefully, youd don't expect to switch to another HD chain automatically when importing say, an old wallet
 94 2016-07-18T07:21:01  <wumpus> the only time you would want that is if you intend  the imported wallet to replace your current one
 95 2016-07-18T07:21:03  <wumpus> removing the 0.13 milestone there
 96 2016-07-18T07:21:14  <jonasschnelli> yes. Thanks.
 97 2016-07-18T07:21:18  <jonasschnelli> Re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8343/files/51a4ee889e3d317fb51623701f06919adf0ee267#r71106179
 98 2016-07-18T07:21:36  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: I don't think it's possible without non-Client-Versions
 99 2016-07-18T07:21:51  <jonasschnelli> The nWalletMinVersion is tied to the clientversion
100 2016-07-18T07:22:24  <wumpus> we did a similar thing for network at some point, the P2P version used to be coupled to the client version as well
101 2016-07-18T07:22:30  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102 2016-07-18T07:22:51  <wumpus> at some point we created a dedicated network version constant, which is bumped on non-compatible network changes
103 2016-07-18T07:23:02  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: Yes. We could do this. But detecting 0.12 (and make it fail on 0.12) requires to stick to the clientversion
104 2016-07-18T07:23:18  <wumpus> using the client version for anything else but reporting forces arbitrary release process constraints on versioning certain behavior
105 2016-07-18T07:23:32  <wumpus> yes, I agree, you'd leave the old versions the same
106 2016-07-18T07:23:56  <jonasschnelli> problematic part: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/walletdb.cpp#L637
107 2016-07-18T07:24:13  <wumpus> this would be a change going forward, for the future, it can't be done retrospectively for versions that are already released :)
108 2016-07-18T07:24:21  <wumpus> in any case no hurry
109 2016-07-18T07:25:10  <sipa> wumpus: i guess it can be replaced with a set of strings
110 2016-07-18T07:25:22  <jonasschnelli> Yes. We should slowly decouple it from CLIENT_VERSION
111 2016-07-18T07:25:27  <sipa> wumpus: denoting features that the wallet uses
112 2016-07-18T07:25:33  <jonasschnelli> sipa: you mean set of string about what features it supports?
113 2016-07-18T07:25:36  <jonasschnelli> ok.
114 2016-07-18T07:25:46  <wumpus> sipa: and then exit if a non-supported feature is used, yes
115 2016-07-18T07:25:48  <jonasschnelli> Flags? Bitmask?
116 2016-07-18T07:26:05  <wumpus> strings are slightly better in this case because you can report the name of the feature even in versions that don't support it
117 2016-07-18T07:26:18  <wumpus> e.g. generating errors like 'this wallet uses BIP32 which is not supported in this version'
118 2016-07-18T07:26:28  <jonasschnelli> ah.. fair enought
119 2016-07-18T07:26:47  <jonasschnelli> We could do this once we switch over to a different database format (logdb)
120 2016-07-18T07:26:48  <wumpus> with bitmask you can only report the flag number, and there's no real need to be very compact here
121 2016-07-18T07:26:54  <jonasschnelli> (which is overdue since years)
122 2016-07-18T07:26:59  <wumpus> (it'd be something stored only once in the wallet)
123 2016-07-18T07:29:57  <sipa> wumpus: i like the ext2/3/4 compatibility system
124 2016-07-18T07:30:11  <sipa> wumpus: with 3 sets of strings/flags
125 2016-07-18T07:31:06  <sipa> 1) "if you don't know one of these, ignore" 2) "if you don't know any of these, only open read-only" 3) "if you don't know any of these, refuse to mount"
126 2016-07-18T07:31:37  *** anu0 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
127 2016-07-18T07:33:39  <jonasschnelli> sipa: Indeed. This would be good.
128 2016-07-18T07:34:17  <jonasschnelli> But the problem is, such stuff should had be implemented at the beginning. Now it should/must be tied to a more radical wallet format change.
129 2016-07-18T07:35:10  *** anu1 has quit IRC
130 2016-07-18T07:36:39  <sipa> no, you can just see the switch to such a new system as a 'feature' in the old compatibility system
131 2016-07-18T07:47:09  *** xinxi has quit IRC
132 2016-07-18T07:49:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
133 2016-07-18T07:49:46  *** fengling_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2016-07-18T08:05:28  <jonasschnelli> sipa: Yes. Indeed. Possible migration path.
135 2016-07-18T08:06:10  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2016-07-18T08:07:26  *** xinxi has quit IRC
137 2016-07-18T08:08:13  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
138 2016-07-18T08:19:04  *** nickler has quit IRC
139 2016-07-18T08:25:17  *** nickler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2016-07-18T08:27:30  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2016-07-18T08:28:20  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
142 2016-07-18T08:28:53  *** molly has quit IRC
143 2016-07-18T08:43:41  <wumpus> bah, changing all occurences of 'cost' to 'weight' is a huge change
144 2016-07-18T08:44:32  <wumpus> I'm having second thoughts about it
145 2016-07-18T08:45:26  <wumpus> changing it just in user-facing messages is doable, but it also appears in the RPC API, in variable names, in tons of comments
146 2016-07-18T08:49:15  <wumpus> and don't really want to block the 0.13 branch on this
147 2016-07-18T08:49:58  <GitHub77> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8354: mining: Rename `-blockmaxcost` to `-blockmaxweight` (master...2016_07_block_weight) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8354
148 2016-07-18T08:51:22  <sipa> so you want to delay the change until 0.13 is branched off?
149 2016-07-18T08:51:37  <sipa> or reconsider entirely?
150 2016-07-18T08:51:48  <wumpus> I don't think I want to do it anymore
151 2016-07-18T08:52:48  <MarcoFalke> What about only changing -help and rpc calls?
152 2016-07-18T08:52:56  <MarcoFalke> And then the nasty code cleaup for 0.14?
153 2016-07-18T08:53:08  <wumpus> I don't think it's worth it
154 2016-07-18T08:53:37  <wumpus> should have paid more attention to this during the BIP draft
155 2016-07-18T08:54:38  <wumpus> maybe just change the help message to "Set maximum BIP141 block cost"
156 2016-07-18T08:54:59  <wumpus> then everyone can look it up if they want
157 2016-07-18T08:55:31  <wumpus> changing the BIP now because of a word impacts all other implementations too
158 2016-07-18T08:57:02  <GitHub191> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8358: [doc] gbuild: Set memory explicitly (default is too low) (master...Mf1607-docBuild) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8358
159 2016-07-18T08:57:38  <GitHub7> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #8359: mining: Improve `-blockmaxcost` help message (master...2016_07_blockmaxcost_doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8359
160 2016-07-18T09:11:23  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
161 2016-07-18T09:16:08  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162 2016-07-18T09:18:23  *** kadoban has quit IRC
163 2016-07-18T09:23:09  *** xinxi has quit IRC
164 2016-07-18T09:27:10  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2016-07-18T09:28:28  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2016-07-18T09:30:25  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2016-07-18T09:31:48  *** xinxi has quit IRC
168 2016-07-18T10:06:13  <GitHub67> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8cb288a6b37d...03c56f62c2fd
169 2016-07-18T10:06:13  <GitHub67> bitcoin/master 8cef5bd Wladimir J. van der Laan: mining: Improve `-blockmaxcost` help message...
170 2016-07-18T10:06:14  <GitHub67> bitcoin/master 03c56f6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8359: mining: Improve `-blockmaxcost` help message...
171 2016-07-18T10:06:23  <GitHub184> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8359: mining: Improve `-blockmaxcost` help message (master...2016_07_blockmaxcost_doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8359
172 2016-07-18T10:13:54  <GitHub83> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e4382fbef56a0e04b0ed834e8b3a3a16f81db149
173 2016-07-18T10:13:54  <GitHub83> bitcoin/master e4382fb Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: periodic translations update
174 2016-07-18T10:22:39  <GitHub85> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6c0336c7723da274c8312b82ed2a138f5d57158f
175 2016-07-18T10:22:39  <GitHub85> bitcoin/master 6c0336c Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: bump version to 0.13.99...
176 2016-07-18T10:22:50  <wumpus> 0.13 branch was created
177 2016-07-18T10:29:43  <sipa> \o/
178 2016-07-18T10:32:57  *** Ginnarr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
179 2016-07-18T10:36:23  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2016-07-18T10:40:57  *** fengling_ has quit IRC
181 2016-07-18T10:48:58  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182 2016-07-18T10:55:05  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
183 2016-07-18T10:55:24  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
184 2016-07-18T10:58:35  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
185 2016-07-18T10:59:00  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2016-07-18T11:00:04  *** YOU-JI has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
187 2016-07-18T11:01:59  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
188 2016-07-18T11:02:22  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
189 2016-07-18T11:04:33  *** pedrobra_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
190 2016-07-18T11:04:33  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
191 2016-07-18T11:05:30  <btcdrak> which tickets are blocking RC1?
192 2016-07-18T11:06:46  <wumpus> #8343 stilln eeds in
193 2016-07-18T11:06:52  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
194 2016-07-18T11:07:06  <wumpus> (but could only be done after the version bump, because of wallet versioning constraints)
195 2016-07-18T11:07:18  *** pedrobra_ has quit IRC
196 2016-07-18T11:09:18  <btcdrak> now the branching has happened, are we clear for a bit of libconsensus refactoring work?
197 2016-07-18T11:09:37  <btcdrak> (in master obviously)
198 2016-07-18T11:09:57  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
199 2016-07-18T11:11:25  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
200 2016-07-18T11:15:50  <wumpus> I think so...
201 2016-07-18T11:21:34  <wumpus> for 0.13 there's still plenty of work to do for the release notes: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7678
202 2016-07-18T11:28:12  *** NicLin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2016-07-18T11:41:33  *** BitcoinErrorLog has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2016-07-18T11:46:29  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
205 2016-07-18T11:47:34  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2016-07-18T12:00:12  *** molly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
207 2016-07-18T12:00:59  *** Ginnarr has quit IRC
208 2016-07-18T12:01:09  *** anu1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
209 2016-07-18T12:01:36  <GitHub24> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5e3557b8e36308a27dbeb528569abe638c4d01dd
210 2016-07-18T12:01:36  <GitHub24> bitcoin/master 5e3557b Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Clean out release notes...
211 2016-07-18T12:04:45  *** anu0 has quit IRC
212 2016-07-18T12:08:33  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
213 2016-07-18T12:11:51  <GitHub181> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/37269105c8817a2922410ec17d976263cd589987
214 2016-07-18T12:11:51  <GitHub181> bitcoin/0.13 3726910 Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Release notes update...
215 2016-07-18T12:13:32  *** anu1 has quit IRC
216 2016-07-18T12:13:50  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
217 2016-07-18T12:13:53  *** anu0 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2016-07-18T12:19:43  *** BitcoinErrorLog has quit IRC
219 2016-07-18T12:19:49  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
220 2016-07-18T12:21:31  *** pedrobra_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
221 2016-07-18T12:21:31  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
222 2016-07-18T12:23:29  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2016-07-18T12:23:29  *** pedrobra_ has quit IRC
224 2016-07-18T12:25:33  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
225 2016-07-18T12:26:12  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2016-07-18T12:26:22  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
227 2016-07-18T12:29:10  *** xinxi has quit IRC
228 2016-07-18T12:29:53  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
229 2016-07-18T12:33:21  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
230 2016-07-18T12:34:40  *** xinxi has quit IRC
231 2016-07-18T12:46:12  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232 2016-07-18T12:55:00  *** molly is now known as moli
233 2016-07-18T12:57:40  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
234 2016-07-18T12:58:37  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
235 2016-07-18T13:07:43  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2016-07-18T13:08:14  *** mkarrer_ has quit IRC
237 2016-07-18T13:15:32  *** mkarrer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2016-07-18T13:22:59  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2016-07-18T13:23:57  <GitHub75> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #8360: doc: Add a few items to release notes (0.13...2016_07_release_notes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8360
240 2016-07-18T13:28:06  <sipa> wumpus: working on a PR with repease notes about the relay/p2p changes
241 2016-07-18T13:28:28  <wumpus> sipa: awesome
242 2016-07-18T13:28:36  <sipa> only overlap with yours is the bloom filter requirement for mempool
243 2016-07-18T13:29:05  <wumpus> ok
244 2016-07-18T14:03:42  <GitHub87> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8361: Some 0.13 release notes about p2p changes (0.13...relnotes-0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8361
245 2016-07-18T14:03:42  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
246 2016-07-18T14:06:43  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
247 2016-07-18T14:10:13  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
248 2016-07-18T14:21:54  *** Lysanders has quit IRC
249 2016-07-18T14:30:42  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
250 2016-07-18T14:31:34  *** NicLin has quit IRC
251 2016-07-18T14:33:18  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252 2016-07-18T14:33:34  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
253 2016-07-18T14:33:39  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
254 2016-07-18T14:34:23  *** TomMc has quit IRC
255 2016-07-18T14:34:48  *** YOU-JI has quit IRC
256 2016-07-18T14:40:09  <jonasschnelli> Is there a way to get the best known height? I just figured out, that NotifyHeaderTip() will not pass it the best known height header..
257 2016-07-18T14:40:41  <jonasschnelli> I expected that the main logic will get all headers first and pass them through NotifyHeaderTip() before actually downloading blocks...
258 2016-07-18T14:42:49  <sipa> yes, it will
259 2016-07-18T14:43:00  <sipa> it always notifies with the best known header at the time of calling
260 2016-07-18T14:43:17  <jtimon> GetSpendHeight() ? tip->nHeight + 1 ? pindexPrev == NULL ? 0 : pindexPrev->nHeight + 1 ?
261 2016-07-18T14:46:53  <jonasschnelli> sipa: okay. Let me check again....
262 2016-07-18T14:49:55  <jonasschnelli> sipa: but it seems it loads a couple of headers, then the according blocks and not all headers to the best known height. Right?
263 2016-07-18T14:51:01  <sipa> jonasschnelli: i cannot parse your sentence
264 2016-07-18T14:51:17  <jonasschnelli> okay.. I'll try to explain different.
265 2016-07-18T14:51:37  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
266 2016-07-18T14:51:41  *** Arnavion3 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
267 2016-07-18T14:51:45  *** Arnavion3 is now known as Arnavion
268 2016-07-18T14:52:05  <jonasschnelli> 1.) Im connected to a node with height 421290, I'm currently at 421100
269 2016-07-18T14:52:20  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
270 2016-07-18T14:52:24  *** Arnavion3 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
271 2016-07-18T14:52:28  *** Arnavion3 is now known as AtashiCon
272 2016-07-18T14:52:34  <jonasschnelli> 2.) NotifyHeaderTip gives me a header somewhere at height 421150 (50 headers in advance)
273 2016-07-18T14:52:47  <jonasschnelli> 3.) Then I'll get the signals for the blocks till 421150
274 2016-07-18T14:52:55  <sipa> sounds correct so far
275 2016-07-18T14:53:10  <jonasschnelli> Is there no way to get signal with "the best known header" (from the remote peers)?
276 2016-07-18T14:53:18  <jonasschnelli> (or the best known height)
277 2016-07-18T14:53:28  <jonasschnelli> I want to work on the UI progress
278 2016-07-18T14:53:29  <sipa> you don't know the peer's best header until we have it as well
279 2016-07-18T14:53:50  <jonasschnelli> sipa: and main does not load all headers first,.. only a bunch of them, then the blocks?
280 2016-07-18T14:54:14  <sipa> exactly what do you want to do?
281 2016-07-18T14:54:30  <jonasschnelli> I'd like to show the "remaning blocks to process" untill we are in sync
282 2016-07-18T14:54:56  <sipa> show the difference between the height of the last notifybesttip and the last notifybestheader
283 2016-07-18T14:54:57  <jonasschnelli> So... I'd like to get signaled with "all" the headers first
284 2016-07-18T14:55:25  <sipa> that's what notifybestheader does...
285 2016-07-18T14:56:00  <jonasschnelli> sipa: I do that.. but its not really what i wanted. Say I'm 300 blocks behind. The GUI now report 50 blocks behind, slowly reduces that number, jumps back to 50, etc.
286 2016-07-18T14:56:33  <sipa> if it's behind a lot the headers should progress much much faster than the blocks
287 2016-07-18T14:56:44  <sipa> it usually takes only a minute or two to learn about all headers
288 2016-07-18T14:57:13  <sipa> ah!
289 2016-07-18T14:57:19  <sipa> notifybestheader is not called during IBD
290 2016-07-18T14:57:44  <sipa> oh, no, it is
291 2016-07-18T14:57:50  <sipa> but with a false parameter
292 2016-07-18T14:57:51  <jonasschnelli> ah... IBD is also true if I start bitcoin-core with 200 blocks behind. Right?
293 2016-07-18T14:58:02  <sipa> yes
294 2016-07-18T14:58:10  <sipa> but it is always called
295 2016-07-18T14:58:18  <jonasschnelli> Hmm.. let me debug more deep
296 2016-07-18T14:58:35  <sipa> i'm surprised it only increases 50
297 2016-07-18T14:58:43  <sipa> headers should increase by 2000 at a time
298 2016-07-18T14:58:53  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
299 2016-07-18T15:00:12  <jonasschnelli> Maybe I'm missing the first signal because of my implementation... sipa: could it be that i get older headers in later NotifyHeaderTip()?
300 2016-07-18T15:01:51  <sipa> at the time of the notify, what you see is always the best known header
301 2016-07-18T15:02:08  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302 2016-07-18T15:06:33  <jonasschnelli> RPC getblockchaininfo report a newer height that I get passed over NotifyHeaderTip()
303 2016-07-18T15:09:05  <sipa> during IBD that's possible
304 2016-07-18T15:09:12  <sipa> oh, wait, no
305 2016-07-18T15:09:31  <sipa> are you not filtering out IBD NotifyHeaderTips somewhere?
306 2016-07-18T15:10:25  <jonasschnelli> I'm hooking into static void BlockTipChanged(ClientModel *clientmodel, bool initialSync, const CBlockIndex *pIndex, bool fHeader) (clientmodel.cpp)
307 2016-07-18T15:11:05  <jonasschnelli> Maybe initially I need to get the height from pindexBestHeader?
308 2016-07-18T15:11:23  <sipa> where else?
309 2016-07-18T15:11:41  <sipa> ah, pindex->nHeight should work
310 2016-07-18T15:11:44  <sipa> can i see the code?
311 2016-07-18T15:12:27  <jonasschnelli> it's highly WIP... but let me push it.
312 2016-07-18T15:13:20  <jonasschnelli> sipa: https://github.com/jonasschnelli/bitcoin/tree/2016/07/UI-out-of-sync
313 2016-07-18T15:13:33  <jonasschnelli> use https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...jonasschnelli:2016/07/UI-out-of-sync?expand=1
314 2016-07-18T15:14:29  <jonasschnelli> It works much better if i initially call pindexBestHeader->nHeight; then only "accept" header height over NotifyHeaderTips() if they are >
315 2016-07-18T15:14:47  <jonasschnelli> Although not sure if this works for reorgs
316 2016-07-18T15:15:19  <sipa> i'm very confused
317 2016-07-18T15:15:34  <sipa> where in that code you're showing me do you hook into the notification?
318 2016-07-18T15:16:56  <sipa> ah, you're adding to setNumBlocks
319 2016-07-18T15:17:01  <sipa> that's only called once every 250ms
320 2016-07-18T15:17:40  <jonasschnelli> ahh.. that could be the problem
321 2016-07-18T15:18:18  <sipa> the header reported through NotifyBestHeader should always be of increasing height
322 2016-07-18T15:18:29  <sipa> unless there is a very deep reorg to a lower height
323 2016-07-18T15:18:35  <sipa> but that's extremely unlikely
324 2016-07-18T15:18:42  <jonasschnelli> Argh.. yes. There is something like: if (!initialSync || now - nLastUpdateNotification > MODEL_UPDATE_DELAY) {
325 2016-07-18T15:18:57  <jonasschnelli> Thanks sipa!
326 2016-07-18T15:20:10  <jonasschnelli> we could pass through the fHeader=true  signal always...
327 2016-07-18T15:21:52  <luke-jr> wumpus: just think of how much more trouble it will be to change s/cost/weight/ *after* 0.13 gets released, if we end up back at that :/
328 2016-07-18T15:23:38  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
329 2016-07-18T15:23:46  <sipa> luke-jr, wumpus: i'm also a bit surprised by how large you fear the impact of the change is... the term cost (in externally-facing code) is only for blocks, not transactions
330 2016-07-18T15:24:02  <sipa> though i didn't try it myself, so i may be missing things
331 2016-07-18T15:24:42  <luke-jr> sipa: well, at least changing it in GBT will be annoying once cost is released
332 2016-07-18T15:25:39  <sipa> ah, GBT
333 2016-07-18T15:25:49  <sipa> i hadn't considered that we'd change things there as well
334 2016-07-18T15:25:51  <sipa> but i guess, yes
335 2016-07-18T15:26:20  <luke-jr> I guess we don't *have* to, but it will just be confusing if GBT was the odd thing out
336 2016-07-18T15:27:24  <sipa> agree
337 2016-07-18T15:27:24  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
338 2016-07-18T15:29:32  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
339 2016-07-18T15:30:54  <jtimon> yay branch 0.13 forked !
340 2016-07-18T15:39:03  <sdaftuar> hmm, it seems that "sigops cost" isn't explicitly defined in bip 141 (though i guess it's implied), yet we refer to that term in the output of gbt
341 2016-07-18T15:39:28  <sdaftuar> we didn't talk about it last week, but is "sigops cost" a term we want to keep?
342 2016-07-18T15:39:29  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: it was renamed to just "sigops"; I'm surprised GBT ever mentioned it O.o
343 2016-07-18T15:39:53  <sdaftuar>             "         \"sigops\" : n,               (numeric) total SigOps cost, as counted for purposes of block limits; if key is not present, sigop cost is unknown and clients MUST NOT assume it is zero\n"
344 2016-07-18T15:40:22  <luke-jr> oh, in Core; that's just a bug then IMO
345 2016-07-18T15:41:06  <sdaftuar> it seems strange to me that we'd choose to redefine a term...?  at the least we'd have to say "total BIP141-sigops" or something
346 2016-07-18T15:41:13  <sdaftuar> but that seems clunky!
347 2016-07-18T15:41:14  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: why?
348 2016-07-18T15:41:22  <luke-jr> sigops are just counted differently, not redefined
349 2016-07-18T15:41:34  <sdaftuar> it's a different unit now
350 2016-07-18T15:41:37  <luke-jr> P2SH counted them differently without a rename too
351 2016-07-18T15:41:49  <luke-jr> the old counting ceases to be relevant at the fork
352 2016-07-18T15:42:09  <sdaftuar> p2sh didn't change the units/scale of sigops for non-p2sh transactions though
353 2016-07-18T15:42:31  <luke-jr> …
354 2016-07-18T15:42:35  <sdaftuar> i don't think we can just multiply everything by 100 and not change the name, even if mathematically it's the same effect
355 2016-07-18T15:42:42  <luke-jr> so you want to rename it every softfork that affects how it's counted?
356 2016-07-18T15:42:51  <luke-jr> what's the point?
357 2016-07-18T15:57:53  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
358 2016-07-18T16:03:35  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
359 2016-07-18T16:04:31  *** Samdney has quit IRC
360 2016-07-18T16:04:56  <sdaftuar> luke-jr: i see that getblocktemplate also returns a "sigoplimit" which is explained as "(numeric) cost limit of sigops in blocks", assuming we change that language as well, is there any reason a gbt caller would care what scale the sigops counting is being done in?
361 2016-07-18T16:05:06  <sdaftuar> if not then fine, i agree this is all pointless
362 2016-07-18T16:05:40  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: a GBT caller cannot know the sigop counting; scale is not different from any other countign changes
363 2016-07-18T16:05:45  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
364 2016-07-18T16:10:56  <sipa> sdaftuar, luke-jr: imho we should change the name when the unit's scale changes
365 2016-07-18T16:11:10  <luke-jr> sigh.
366 2016-07-18T16:11:33  <sipa> luke-jr: in p2sh, users of non-p2sh transactions would not be affected by the new counting
367 2016-07-18T16:12:00  <sipa> here, everyone is affected - assuming that the old unit has the same meaning could lead to accidents
368 2016-07-18T16:12:11  <luke-jr> how?
369 2016-07-18T16:12:23  <sipa> that's why transaction's "size" is redefined in a backward-compatible way (and not the scaling)
370 2016-07-18T16:12:39  <sipa> i agree that for sigops it is unlikely to matter
371 2016-07-18T16:12:56  <sipa> but in general, it is a good practice to rename things when their meaning changes
372 2016-07-18T16:13:16  <luke-jr> IMO the meaning is essentially the same.
373 2016-07-18T16:13:29  <luke-jr> it's an arbitrary consensus-critical counting toward an arbitrary limit.
374 2016-07-18T16:13:34  <sipa> if someone were to charge based on #sigops, it is most definitely not the se
375 2016-07-18T16:13:40  <sipa> *same
376 2016-07-18T16:14:46  <sipa> do you agree that if we'd apply the same logic to size/cost, peoplr would be in trouble, because they may pay 4x too high a fee? (if they apply a feerate measured in bytes to a cost variable)?
377 2016-07-18T16:15:27  <sipa> i was fine with not renaming in GBT, but instead giving the consensus limit along with it
378 2016-07-18T16:15:31  <luke-jr> yes, because size is something they can calculate external to the consensus system
379 2016-07-18T16:15:52  <luke-jr> the same is not true of sigops - you can't calculate it independently from the UTXO set
380 2016-07-18T16:16:01  <sipa> i don't think that's relevant
381 2016-07-18T16:16:04  <luke-jr> (specifically the UTXOs you're spending)
382 2016-07-18T16:16:11  <sipa> it's a consensus-constrained resource
383 2016-07-18T16:16:22  <sipa> its usage may affect fees
384 2016-07-18T16:16:53  <sipa> this has traditionally not been the case for sigops, so i think it is unlikely to matter
385 2016-07-18T16:17:21  <sipa> but in general, i don't think we can apply the argument "it needs UTXOs to calculate, thus it is safe to arbitrarily rescale"
386 2016-07-18T16:17:34  <sipa> those two properties are completely unrelated
387 2016-07-18T16:18:32  <luke-jr> if you can't calculate it in the first place, then you can't try to do a sigop-feerate independently
388 2016-07-18T16:18:37  <sdaftuar> sipa: luke-jr: speaking of sigops, i just noticed this, looks like a bug? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/miner.cpp#L190
389 2016-07-18T16:18:47  <sdaftuar> shouldn't that quantity be scaled?
390 2016-07-18T16:19:13  <sipa> sdaftuar: indeed!
391 2016-07-18T16:19:28  <sipa> luke-jr: wallets can calculate sigops in advance
392 2016-07-18T16:20:05  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: I guess so. Although I wonder if it ought to be scaled in GetLegacy…
393 2016-07-18T16:22:01  <jtimon> MarcoFalke: would it make sense to use the "easy to implement" label for #7829 ?
394 2016-07-18T16:24:55  <jtimon> MarcoFalke: thanks!
395 2016-07-18T16:28:11  *** netsin has quit IRC
396 2016-07-18T16:33:22  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
397 2016-07-18T16:35:56  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
398 2016-07-18T16:40:53  *** Lysanders has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
399 2016-07-18T16:41:43  <jtimon> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/cbda71cf04ef6f2abe6eaa56c3140a6f5cff4feb#commitcomment-18286185
400 2016-07-18T16:42:15  <GitHub116> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #8362: Scale legacy sigop count in CreateNewBlock (master...coinbase-sigops-scale) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8362
401 2016-07-18T16:42:15  <wumpus> luke-jr sipa I just think there's more important things to focus on than changing words now
402 2016-07-18T16:42:54  <wumpus> I thought it was simply a matter of changing that option, but I severly underestimated things
403 2016-07-18T16:43:33  <wumpus> and as horrible names go, I don't think anything beats 'segregated withness' itself :)
404 2016-07-18T16:44:54  <sdaftuar> wumpus: i've started to make an attempt at the change myself.  agreed that it's a bit tedious!  but i think if we're willing to consider merging, it'd be better to clear the language now than be saddled with it indefinitely
405 2016-07-18T16:46:06  *** netsin has quit IRC
406 2016-07-18T16:46:25  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
407 2016-07-18T16:46:37  <wumpus> my experience is that people will get used to any term, but if you really think pushing on with it makes sense I'm not opposed to it
408 2016-07-18T16:46:53  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
409 2016-07-18T16:47:09  <wumpus> at some point I got to GetTransactionCost and stopped bothering
410 2016-07-18T16:47:12  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
411 2016-07-18T16:47:23  <wumpus> (did I really need to change that to GetTransactionWeight?)
412 2016-07-18T16:47:40  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
413 2016-07-18T16:47:42  <sdaftuar> i think yes
414 2016-07-18T16:47:48  <sdaftuar> :)
415 2016-07-18T16:48:01  <sdaftuar> anyway i will try to wrap up and see what it looks like
416 2016-07-18T16:48:42  <sdaftuar> sipa: what is your preferred language for the new sigop metric, if you have one?
417 2016-07-18T16:48:54  <sdaftuar> i guess the existing language, not in the BIP, is "sigop cost"
418 2016-07-18T16:49:38  <luke-jr> can we just leave sigops alone? unlike cost/weight, at least sigops becomes a complete non-issue over time :x
419 2016-07-18T16:49:44  <wumpus> I was almost afraid that people would complain the unit needs to be Kg after this change :-)
420 2016-07-18T16:49:53  <luke-jr> wumpus: srsly?
421 2016-07-18T16:50:01  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422 2016-07-18T16:50:23  <wumpus> no, not really, but GetTransactionWeight sounds weird to me too, though it's lots better than GetTransactionCost
423 2016-07-18T16:50:38  <jtimon> wumpus: lol then maybe some would prefer the imperial system...
424 2016-07-18T16:50:41  <sdaftuar> right, GetTransactionCost sounds like fee!
425 2016-07-18T16:50:45  <luke-jr> "impact" may work as well.
426 2016-07-18T16:50:50  <wumpus> agree sdaftuar
427 2016-07-18T16:50:59  <btcdrak> jtimon: ack on imperial measurement.
428 2016-07-18T16:51:00  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
429 2016-07-18T16:51:04  <luke-jr> jtimon: tonal !
430 2016-07-18T16:53:24  <sipa> sdaftuar: i don't care strongly about sigops
431 2016-07-18T16:53:41  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432 2016-07-18T16:53:48  <sipa> and cost is inconsistent, as the other is not called "size cost" either
433 2016-07-18T16:54:15  <sdaftuar> i think we could just add "sigops cost" as a term in the BIP, and be done with the issue
434 2016-07-18T16:54:27  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
435 2016-07-18T16:54:53  <luke-jr> I think "BIP 141 sigops" would make for a reasonable compromise since it makes it easy to drop "BIP 141" in the future
436 2016-07-18T16:55:38  <wumpus> there's also at least one other implementation of segwit that will have to be changed with the BIP141 change (the btcd implementation)
437 2016-07-18T16:55:45  <Chris_Stewart_5> So weight is signifying the subsidy segwit txs receive right?
438 2016-07-18T16:56:20  <luke-jr> Chris_Stewart_5: no, weight is the replacement for size limits
439 2016-07-18T16:56:37  <Chris_Stewart_5> luke-jr: size limits of..?
440 2016-07-18T16:56:43  <luke-jr> of prior versions of Bitcoin
441 2016-07-18T16:56:58  <luke-jr> it used to be that each byte of the block counted as 1 byte toward a 1 MB limit
442 2016-07-18T16:57:10  <Chris_Stewart_5> So this is modifying the Script program size, tx size, block size...?
443 2016-07-18T16:57:12  <luke-jr> now we count bytes as different "weights" toward a 4,000,000 limit
444 2016-07-18T16:57:17  <Chris_Stewart_5> oh, ok
445 2016-07-18T16:57:42  <luke-jr> more expensive data affecting the UTXO set have a weight of 4 per byte
446 2016-07-18T16:57:59  <luke-jr> less expensive data (witness scripts) have a weight of 1 per byte
447 2016-07-18T16:59:47  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
448 2016-07-18T17:00:06  <wumpus> sdaftuar: this is how far I got: https://github.com/laanwj/bitcoin/commit/d259111512380e692188d0086d92451085b79c2f
449 2016-07-18T17:00:16  <Chris_Stewart_5> luke-jr: At the risk of asking a stupid question, why is this needed? Shouldn't segwit txs literally be smaller than old txs? Why have this artificial multiplier
450 2016-07-18T17:00:29  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: they're not smaller
451 2016-07-18T17:00:34  <sipa> where did you get that idea
452 2016-07-18T17:00:44  <sipa> segwit is a block size increase
453 2016-07-18T17:00:59  <Chris_Stewart_5> When segwit txs are serialized and sent over the network they don't include scripts, making them smaller?
454 2016-07-18T17:01:10  <sdaftuar> wumpus: heh, i'm at 19 files, 70 lines changed
455 2016-07-18T17:01:21  <Chris_Stewart_5> You have to request the scripts, which is what fully validating nodes would do?
456 2016-07-18T17:01:21  <luke-jr> Chris_Stewart_5: no, segwit txns are no smaller.
457 2016-07-18T17:01:31  <luke-jr> they do include scripts
458 2016-07-18T17:02:16  <jtimon> sdaftuar: s/GetTransactionCost/GetTransactionValidationCost/ ? or is that very disruptive too?
459 2016-07-18T17:02:50  <sdaftuar> jtimon: i'm changing to GetTransactionWeight instead
460 2016-07-18T17:03:01  <sdaftuar> that makes it consistent with max block weight
461 2016-07-18T17:03:23  <Chris_Stewart_5> full scripts right? With witnesses included?
462 2016-07-18T17:04:28  *** NicolasDorier has quit IRC
463 2016-07-18T17:04:28  <jtimon> sdaftuar: but we're not changing max block weight are we?
464 2016-07-18T17:05:06  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
465 2016-07-18T17:05:06  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
466 2016-07-18T17:05:11  <sdaftuar> jtimon: that's what's under discussion.  i'm preparing a PR for discussion
467 2016-07-18T17:05:12  <jtimon> I was talking about fixing your concern without changing to max  block weight
468 2016-07-18T17:05:36  <jtimon> ok, great
469 2016-07-18T17:05:44  *** sipa has quit IRC
470 2016-07-18T17:05:45  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
471 2016-07-18T17:05:54  *** jyap has quit IRC
472 2016-07-18T17:05:54  *** helo has quit IRC
473 2016-07-18T17:06:05  <sdaftuar> ah yes in that event your function rename shouldn't be too disruptive
474 2016-07-18T17:06:22  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
475 2016-07-18T17:06:22  *** musalbas- has quit IRC
476 2016-07-18T17:06:22  *** musalbas has quit IRC
477 2016-07-18T17:06:22  *** michagogo has quit IRC
478 2016-07-18T17:06:23  *** nsh has quit IRC
479 2016-07-18T17:06:23  *** cfields has quit IRC
480 2016-07-18T17:07:35  <instagibbs> Chris_Stewart_5, there is no support for grabbing only the scripts or no scripts(if you're upgraded ofc)
481 2016-07-18T17:08:49  *** netsin has quit IRC
482 2016-07-18T17:09:03  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
483 2016-07-18T17:09:03  *** NicolasDorier has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
484 2016-07-18T17:09:04  *** cfields has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
485 2016-07-18T17:09:37  *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
486 2016-07-18T17:10:07  *** michagogo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
487 2016-07-18T17:10:35  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
488 2016-07-18T17:10:40  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
489 2016-07-18T17:10:58  *** musalbas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
490 2016-07-18T17:11:03  <sipa> what did i miss?
491 2016-07-18T17:11:24  *** jyap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492 2016-07-18T17:11:24  *** jyap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
493 2016-07-18T17:12:53  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
494 2016-07-18T17:14:37  *** adamg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
495 2016-07-18T17:14:56  *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
496 2016-07-18T17:16:00  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: FOMO??? :-). Nothing much was said
497 2016-07-18T17:16:26  <sipa> fomo?
498 2016-07-18T17:17:24  <Chris_Stewart_5> fear of missing out, gotta catch up on your contemporary culture
499 2016-07-18T17:17:29  <sipa> ah
500 2016-07-18T17:18:10  *** musalbas- has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
501 2016-07-18T17:19:10  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
502 2016-07-18T17:19:37  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
503 2016-07-18T17:22:49  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
504 2016-07-18T17:24:33  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
505 2016-07-18T17:32:21  *** helo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
506 2016-07-18T17:46:39  <GitHub36> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #8363: Rename "block cost" to "block weight" (master...cost-to-weight) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8363
507 2016-07-18T17:46:40  *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
508 2016-07-18T17:47:31  *** Sosumi has quit IRC
509 2016-07-18T17:50:08  <GitHub50> [bitcoin] f139975 opened pull request #8364: Fix counting of sigops cost in mempool check (master...fix-mempool-sigops) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8364
510 2016-07-18T17:55:56  <arubi> sipa, and what if a miner does it?  wrt ^
511 2016-07-18T17:56:07  *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512 2016-07-18T17:56:35  <sipa> arubi: what if a miner does what?
513 2016-07-18T17:57:53  <arubi> well, I guess I'm asking if creating large legacy sigops blocks will be easy for a miner in case the sigops limit is high
514 2016-07-18T17:58:13  <sipa> i don't understand
515 2016-07-18T17:58:38  <sipa> arubi: the problem that #7081 fixed was that the mining code produces very suboptimal blocks when there are high-legacy-sigops transactions in the mempool
516 2016-07-18T17:58:48  <sipa> #7081 fixed it by refusing transactions that have high sigops but low size
517 2016-07-18T17:59:03  <sipa> i think the correct solution is just to treat those transactions as if they had the corresponding size
518 2016-07-18T17:59:03  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
519 2016-07-18T18:00:40  <arubi> sipa, I think I understand.  the reason I'm interested is because I've experienced this on segnet4.  broadcasting bare multisig txs was impossible without setting bytespersigop=1
520 2016-07-18T18:01:04  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
521 2016-07-18T18:01:20  *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522 2016-07-18T18:02:14  *** Sosumi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
523 2016-07-18T18:02:44  <arubi> it was confusing, something like a 1-of-16 would go through, but not a "sane" 1-of-2 or 2-3,  iirc.  I eventually just set bytesper..=1 and forgot about it
524 2016-07-18T18:03:38  <arubi> and you mentioned a vulnerability (which you explained), so.. hence the first question :)
525 2016-07-18T18:05:56  *** netsin has quit IRC
526 2016-07-18T18:06:34  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
527 2016-07-18T18:10:08  *** netsin has quit IRC
528 2016-07-18T18:10:22  *** netsin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
529 2016-07-18T18:11:51  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
530 2016-07-18T18:15:51  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
531 2016-07-18T18:15:56  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532 2016-07-18T18:15:57  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
533 2016-07-18T18:16:02  *** teward has quit IRC
534 2016-07-18T18:22:03  *** netsin has quit IRC
535 2016-07-18T18:23:31  *** teward has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
536 2016-07-18T18:37:34  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
537 2016-07-18T18:41:07  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
538 2016-07-18T18:41:07  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
539 2016-07-18T18:42:44  <BlueMatt> jtimon: its an obvious change (current time is context by most definitions) which removes one more #include for the single CheckBlock call in blockencodings.cpp
540 2016-07-18T18:42:50  <BlueMatt> (that one line adds like 4 deps, at least)
541 2016-07-18T18:45:23  <sipa> longer term i think CheckBlock and ContextualCheckBlock can probably be merged, as we never validate a block anymore without having its context
542 2016-07-18T18:45:56  <sipa> though some parts of validation need to be factored out... for consistency checking and the verification compact blocks need
543 2016-07-18T19:01:30  <GitHub89> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8365: Treat high-sigop transactions as larger rather than rejecting them (master...unifysigopcost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8365
544 2016-07-18T19:05:13  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
545 2016-07-18T19:08:31  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
546 2016-07-18T19:11:44  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
547 2016-07-18T19:13:01  <BlueMatt> sipa: yea, I mean not a bad idea, indeed
548 2016-07-18T19:13:13  <BlueMatt> but, yea, need to pull out the mutation-possible checks
549 2016-07-18T19:24:11  <jtimon> BlueMatt: well, yeah, i guess strictly is context, but any caller can have time. In contrast, not all callers may have access to the the block index. If we were to expose checkblockheader and contextualcheckblockheader in libconsensus separately maybe some SPV callers use checkblockheader but not contextualblockheader...anyway, I guess we can move it back later when we're talking about exposing things
550 2016-07-18T19:24:43  <jtimon> maybe exposing verifyheader (calling both) is enough and we don't care where the check is for this
551 2016-07-18T19:30:18  <BlueMatt> jtimon: I mean the only thing that the compact blocks stuff cares about is the IsCorruptionPossible() checks
552 2016-07-18T19:30:54  <BlueMatt> jtimon: those need to be factored out to simplify the compact block code anyway...everything else, whatever
553 2016-07-18T19:33:58  <jtimon> anyway, not important at the moment I think, I was just surprised to see it moved
554 2016-07-18T19:40:16  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
555 2016-07-18T19:49:59  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
556 2016-07-18T20:01:25  *** anu1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
557 2016-07-18T20:04:42  *** anu0 has quit IRC
558 2016-07-18T20:08:12  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
559 2016-07-18T20:08:20  *** LeMiner has quit IRC
560 2016-07-18T20:10:24  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
561 2016-07-18T20:12:26  *** LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
562 2016-07-18T20:19:42  *** achow101 has quit IRC
563 2016-07-18T20:20:17  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
564 2016-07-18T20:35:54  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
565 2016-07-18T20:42:41  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
566 2016-07-18T20:45:35  *** nibor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
567 2016-07-18T20:54:00  <GitHub175> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8366: [Wallet] Ensure <0.13 clients can't open HD wallets (0.13...2016/07/hd_minversion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8366
568 2016-07-18T20:55:20  <GitHub57> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #8343: [Wallet] Ensure <0.13 clients can't open HD wallets (master...2016/07/hd_minversion) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8343
569 2016-07-18T20:55:41  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
570 2016-07-18T20:58:22  <GitHub83> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8367: [Wallet] Ensure <0.13 clients can't open HD wallets (master...2016/07/hd_minversion_014) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8367
571 2016-07-18T21:08:02  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572 2016-07-18T21:13:32  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
573 2016-07-18T21:13:50  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
574 2016-07-18T22:01:17  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
575 2016-07-18T22:01:58  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
576 2016-07-18T22:16:05  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
577 2016-07-18T22:24:10  *** Samdney has left #bitcoin-core-dev
578 2016-07-18T22:25:02  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
579 2016-07-18T22:26:01  *** cryptapus_ is now known as cryptapus
580 2016-07-18T22:28:37  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
581 2016-07-18T22:28:57  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
582 2016-07-18T22:32:34  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
583 2016-07-18T22:32:34  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
584 2016-07-18T22:33:41  *** supasonic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
585 2016-07-18T22:37:50  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
586 2016-07-18T22:37:51  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
587 2016-07-18T22:54:34  *** ebfull has quit IRC
588 2016-07-18T22:57:57  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
589 2016-07-18T23:29:40  *** NicLin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
590 2016-07-18T23:44:35  *** NicLin has quit IRC
591 2016-07-18T23:56:08  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC