1 2016-08-10T00:01:35  *** d_t has quit IRC
  2 2016-08-10T00:45:53  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
  3 2016-08-10T00:49:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2016-08-10T00:53:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
  5 2016-08-10T00:54:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  6 2016-08-10T01:15:51  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  7 2016-08-10T01:23:27  *** Alopex has quit IRC
  8 2016-08-10T01:24:32  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2016-08-10T01:28:37  *** FNinTak has quit IRC
 10 2016-08-10T01:29:45  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
 11 2016-08-10T01:34:12  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 12 2016-08-10T01:35:17  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 13 2016-08-10T01:35:36  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2016-08-10T01:51:52  *** FNinTak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2016-08-10T01:59:49  <Chris_Stewart_5> How do you distinguish between a txid node and non txid node in a MerkleBlock message? Is it simply the fact that that we have hit the maximum height on the binary tree?
 16 2016-08-10T01:59:51  <Chris_Stewart_5> https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#parsing-a-merkleblock-message
 17 2016-08-10T02:09:14  *** aalex has quit IRC
 18 2016-08-10T02:10:28  <achow101> sipa: well clearly it doesn't work
 19 2016-08-10T02:11:10  <sipa> achow101: sorry, can you give a link to your compile output again?
 20 2016-08-10T02:11:14  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: eh...
 21 2016-08-10T02:12:30  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: right, you do by knowing the transaction count
 22 2016-08-10T02:13:38  *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2016-08-10T02:14:20  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: Is there any other way with just a merkle block message? The docs distinguish between txids nodes (leaves in the full merkle tree) and non txid nodes
 24 2016-08-10T02:14:55  <Chris_Stewart_5> but, from what I can tell, you still need to compute the full tree with empty nodes to make that distinguishment? Am I missing something?
 25 2016-08-10T02:17:07  *** dstadulis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 26 2016-08-10T02:20:35  <achow101> sipa: https://gist.github.com/achow101/841c0c5bedaa3e0a6f641fa94b8e8c67
 27 2016-08-10T02:26:21  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: no you don't
 28 2016-08-10T02:28:24  <sipa> achow101: that really looks like you're compiling without c++11
 29 2016-08-10T02:29:59  <achow101> any idea on how to                                                                                                                                                      fix it?I'm using the lates versions I caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 30 2016-08-10T02:29:59  <achow101> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 31 2016-08-10T02:30:00  <achow101> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan get
 32 2016-08-10T02:30:22  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 33 2016-08-10T02:30:53  <sipa> achow101: what are you doing exactly?
 34 2016-08-10T02:30:56  <sipa> achow101: is this gitian?
 35 2016-08-10T02:31:22  *** achow101_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2016-08-10T02:31:39  <achow101_> sorry the keyboard on my other computer spazzed out
 37 2016-08-10T02:31:49  <achow101_> it isn't gitian
 38 2016-08-10T02:32:05  <achow101_> gitian works fine
 39 2016-08-10T02:32:11  <sipa> so what are you doing?
 40 2016-08-10T02:32:44  <achow101_> cross compiling master for windows on Ubuntu 15.10
 41 2016-08-10T02:35:39  <sipa> using depends?
 42 2016-08-10T02:36:11  <achow101_> yes
 43 2016-08-10T02:37:13  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 44 2016-08-10T02:37:29  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: What is the trick then to distinguish, the docs say:
 45 2016-08-10T02:37:40  <sipa> you just walk the tree
 46 2016-08-10T02:37:52  <sipa> you know the depth of each node you traverse
 47 2016-08-10T02:38:03  <sipa> you know the total depth of the tree at every point
 48 2016-08-10T02:38:18  <sipa> the rules tell you whether to descend or not
 49 2016-08-10T02:38:48  <Chris_Stewart_5> ugh thank you for the help -- been talking (or thinking) myself in circles all day. That makes sense
 50 2016-08-10T02:39:04  <Chris_Stewart_5> wait -- you derive the height from the tx count right?
 51 2016-08-10T02:39:15  <Chris_Stewart_5> 2 ^ n?
 52 2016-08-10T02:39:51  <sipa> yes
 53 2016-08-10T02:40:53  <Chris_Stewart_5> much appreciated. Did you have a chance to look at my pull request for property based testing? Thoughts if so?
 54 2016-08-10T02:43:12  *** achow101_ has quit IRC
 55 2016-08-10T02:44:17  *** achow101_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 56 2016-08-10T02:44:44  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: i haven't looked at it, but no concerns about adding such a framework
 57 2016-08-10T02:44:57  * sipa dinner
 58 2016-08-10T02:57:32  *** dstadulis has quit IRC
 59 2016-08-10T02:59:16  *** dstadulis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2016-08-10T03:03:32  *** achow101_ has quit IRC
 61 2016-08-10T03:14:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 62 2016-08-10T03:15:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2016-08-10T03:15:22  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 64 2016-08-10T03:18:32  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 65 2016-08-10T03:22:35  *** sdfsdfsdfdsf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2016-08-10T03:24:00  *** sdfsdfsdfdsf has quit IRC
 67 2016-08-10T03:24:55  *** nibor has quit IRC
 68 2016-08-10T03:25:22  *** nibor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 69 2016-08-10T03:27:21  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 70 2016-08-10T03:28:26  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 71 2016-08-10T03:32:50  *** afk11 has quit IRC
 72 2016-08-10T03:40:07  *** mojan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 73 2016-08-10T03:40:22  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 74 2016-08-10T03:41:27  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2016-08-10T03:50:17  *** dstadulis has quit IRC
 76 2016-08-10T03:51:09  *** mojan has quit IRC
 77 2016-08-10T03:51:26  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 78 2016-08-10T03:52:31  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 79 2016-08-10T04:14:12  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 80 2016-08-10T04:15:17  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 81 2016-08-10T04:25:09  *** nibor has quit IRC
 82 2016-08-10T04:25:33  *** nibor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 83 2016-08-10T04:29:07  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 84 2016-08-10T04:29:47  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
 85 2016-08-10T04:30:12  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2016-08-10T04:40:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
 87 2016-08-10T04:43:17  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 88 2016-08-10T04:44:22  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2016-08-10T04:50:08  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 90 2016-08-10T04:54:21  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 91 2016-08-10T04:54:33  *** d_t has quit IRC
 92 2016-08-10T04:55:26  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 93 2016-08-10T05:03:37  *** davec has quit IRC
 94 2016-08-10T05:14:06  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 95 2016-08-10T05:15:11  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2016-08-10T05:29:29  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2016-08-10T05:32:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 98 2016-08-10T05:33:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2016-08-10T05:43:16  *** Alopex has quit IRC
100 2016-08-10T05:44:21  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
101 2016-08-10T05:48:21  *** execut3 has quit IRC
102 2016-08-10T05:48:29  *** shesek has quit IRC
103 2016-08-10T05:49:38  <GitHub128> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6e6ab2c32382...484312bda2d4
104 2016-08-10T05:49:38  <GitHub128> bitcoin/master 4a35e0f Pavel Janík: Do not shadow members in dbwrapper
105 2016-08-10T05:49:39  <GitHub128> bitcoin/master 484312b Pieter Wuille: Merge #8467: [Trivial] Do not shadow members in dbwrapper...
106 2016-08-10T05:49:49  <GitHub86> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #8467: [Trivial] Do not shadow members in dbwrapper (master...20160805_Wshadow_dbwrapper) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8467
107 2016-08-10T06:09:33  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2016-08-10T06:10:36  *** jannes has quit IRC
109 2016-08-10T06:13:01  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2016-08-10T06:39:16  *** davec has quit IRC
111 2016-08-10T06:43:34  <GitHub189> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8494: [init, wallet] ParameterInteraction() iff wallet enabled (master...Mf1608-initWalletParamInt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8494
112 2016-08-10T06:50:10  *** BashCo has quit IRC
113 2016-08-10T06:50:49  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2016-08-10T06:55:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
115 2016-08-10T06:55:44  *** crudel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
116 2016-08-10T06:56:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2016-08-10T06:59:16  *** tucenaber has quit IRC
118 2016-08-10T07:03:02  <jonasschnelli> Does bitcoin-cores UPNP (or UPNP in general) uses nat traversal or ICE? Or is the only way to get connection from the outside if your router supports uPNP and opens the port?
119 2016-08-10T07:07:45  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2016-08-10T07:14:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
121 2016-08-10T07:15:06  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2016-08-10T07:16:59  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
123 2016-08-10T07:18:48  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
124 2016-08-10T07:19:48  *** BashCo__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
125 2016-08-10T07:19:50  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
126 2016-08-10T07:19:56  <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: only opening the port.
127 2016-08-10T07:20:08  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: Okay. Thanks.
128 2016-08-10T07:20:24  <sipa> and for discovering external ip
129 2016-08-10T07:20:50  <jonasschnelli> Would ICE works for Bitcoin? Or would that require UDP? (maybe off-topic here)
130 2016-08-10T07:22:05  <GitHub4> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/484312bda2d4...edebf425a2df
131 2016-08-10T07:22:06  <GitHub4> bitcoin/master 160f895 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Use pre-BIP141 sigops until segwit activates
132 2016-08-10T07:22:06  <GitHub4> bitcoin/master 239cbd2 Luke Dashjr: qa/rpc-tests/segwit: Test GBT sigops before and after activation
133 2016-08-10T07:22:07  <GitHub4> bitcoin/master edebf42 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8489: Bugfix: Use pre-BIP141 sigops until segwit activates (GBT)...
134 2016-08-10T07:22:20  <GitHub114> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8489: Bugfix: Use pre-BIP141 sigops until segwit activates (GBT) (master...bugfix_gbt_sigops_presegwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8489
135 2016-08-10T07:22:23  *** BashCo has quit IRC
136 2016-08-10T07:23:11  <GitHub28> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/114f7e944b1c...edc2c700a75c
137 2016-08-10T07:23:11  <GitHub28> bitcoin/0.13 3f65ba2 Pieter Wuille: Treat high-sigop transactions as larger rather than rejecting them
138 2016-08-10T07:23:11  <GitHub79> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8438: [0.13] backport: Treat high-sigop transactions as larger rather than rejecting them (0.13...btc-13-sigops) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8438
139 2016-08-10T07:23:12  <GitHub28> bitcoin/0.13 edc2c70 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8438: [0.13] backport: Treat high-sigop transactions as larger rather than rejecting them...
140 2016-08-10T07:23:42  <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: general traversal requires third party introduction, and no one technique generally works (and traversal for TCP almost never works)... I think firefox has a significant fraction of a million lines of code for nat traversal w/ rtcweb.
141 2016-08-10T07:24:06  <jonasschnelli> heh.. okay. I see.
142 2016-08-10T07:24:48  <gmaxwell> IMO, using tor hidden services is a /simpler/ way to bypass nat, as crazy as that sounds.
143 2016-08-10T07:25:10  * jonasschnelli is thinking...
144 2016-08-10T07:27:41  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: So using tor hidden service over 443 would probably allow bypassing firewalls (assume some large company firewalls where only 80,443 is open) to connect to the bitcoin network?
145 2016-08-10T07:28:48  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2016-08-10T07:30:21  <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: normally tor connections are on 443 and look superficially like regular https connections.
147 2016-08-10T07:30:38  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: thanks.
148 2016-08-10T07:30:44  <gmaxwell> and as long as you can connect out to the tor network you can run a hidden service where people can connect in.
149 2016-08-10T07:31:51  *** BashCo__ has quit IRC
150 2016-08-10T07:32:42  <gmaxwell> sipa: we need to think about a replacement for addr messages at some point.
151 2016-08-10T07:32:57  <gmaxwell> In particular, I2P and tor NG hidden services need more than 128 bits.
152 2016-08-10T07:33:14  <gmaxwell> and it would be good to be able to carry a bit more metadata.
153 2016-08-10T07:34:42  *** rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
154 2016-08-10T07:35:35  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
155 2016-08-10T07:35:50  <sipa> gmaxwell: well in light of bip151... should they also carry a host pubkey?
156 2016-08-10T07:36:14  <jonasschnelli> sipa: that would open the trust network problem?
157 2016-08-10T07:36:28  <jonasschnelli> I think only pre-sharing makes more sense?
158 2016-08-10T07:37:35  <jonasschnelli> Or what if malicious peers change the host in the addr messages?
159 2016-08-10T07:37:43  *** BashCo has quit IRC
160 2016-08-10T07:38:02  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2016-08-10T07:39:02  *** so_ is now known as so
162 2016-08-10T07:39:20  <gmaxwell> sipa: I don't think thats very useful.
163 2016-08-10T07:39:43  <GitHub30> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8465: [0.13] Document reindexing changes (0.13...docreindex) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8465
164 2016-08-10T07:39:45  <GitHub185> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/edc2c700a75c...45c656b914f0
165 2016-08-10T07:39:45  <GitHub185> bitcoin/0.13 b49d963 Pieter Wuille: Document reindexing changes
166 2016-08-10T07:39:46  <GitHub185> bitcoin/0.13 45c656b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8465: [0.13] Document reindexing changes...
167 2016-08-10T07:40:12  <gmaxwell> largely unrelated to BIP151 there is a question of it you'd like to have long lived node identities.
168 2016-08-10T07:40:30  <gmaxwell> and then support a 'connect to identity'
169 2016-08-10T07:40:52  <gmaxwell> allowing you to, e.g. maintain connections to known well performing peers.
170 2016-08-10T07:41:16  <gmaxwell> But that is basically 180degrees off of all the fingerprinting resistance we've worked on in the past.
171 2016-08-10T07:41:57  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I guess theres nothing holding back power users of doing this with the current bip151 (+auth) specification..
172 2016-08-10T07:42:05  <gmaxwell> in that model you wouldn't have a 'addr' message, you'd have a 'nodeid' message, which is announcing a pubkey and one or more addresses it can be reached on, signed by that key.
173 2016-08-10T07:42:20  <jonasschnelli> ah
174 2016-08-10T07:42:57  <gmaxwell> so then there is a 'what if peers change the host' -- nothing can be changed because it's signed. And thing addrman would track is not addresses but IDs.. (and then when it wants to connect to an ID it would take that ID's latest addr announcement).
175 2016-08-10T07:43:37  <sipa> gmaxwell: hmm, that's not what i'm thinking of
176 2016-08-10T07:43:49  * jonasschnelli hears Eric Voskuil grumbling... 
177 2016-08-10T07:43:51  <gmaxwell> I know, but what you were thinking of is not useful.
178 2016-08-10T07:44:01  <sipa> gmaxwell: more: we currently treat IP addresses as identities
179 2016-08-10T07:44:12  <sipa> when you connect to the same IP again, you expect it to be the same identity
180 2016-08-10T07:44:35  <gmaxwell> just stapling a pubkey to an addr message accomplishes nothing useful, anyone can and would change it in flight. If it doesn't match 'oh well, someone changed it in flight or the host changed'.
181 2016-08-10T07:44:57  <gmaxwell> you might as well have just asked the host for a pubkey when you connected to it. :)
182 2016-08-10T07:44:57  <jonasschnelli> Only if there would be a signature of the ip/port?
183 2016-08-10T07:45:28  <sipa> when a peer tells you about a particular IP, you want to make sure that what you're connecting to is actually who they meant
184 2016-08-10T07:46:10  <gmaxwell> but thats not really part of the addr message, its non-transitive.
185 2016-08-10T07:46:37  <sipa> agree
186 2016-08-10T07:46:46  <sipa> and i don't think we want a web-of-trust between nodes :)
187 2016-08-10T07:47:25  <gmaxwell> I don't think thats very useful. If nodes really did have a persistant tracable identity, "this node was good in the past, I want to find it again" would be a useful service.
188 2016-08-10T07:47:36  <gmaxwell> But it's in conflict with avoiding fingerprinting.
189 2016-08-10T07:49:50  <GitHub120> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #8495: [0.13] Bugfix: Use pre-BIP141 sigops until segwit activates (GBT) (0.13...bugfix_gbt_sigops_presegwit-0.13.x) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8495
190 2016-08-10T07:49:51  <gmaxwell> I suppose there is a middle ground where you can relay messages signed by P + H(P||blockhash[height//144*144]) or the like, and so if you know P (e.g. having previously been configured to authenticate towards that node), you can locate its updated addr messages.
191 2016-08-10T07:50:07  <gmaxwell> But to everyone else host with key P does not have a long lived identity.
192 2016-08-10T08:28:57  *** Naphex has quit IRC
193 2016-08-10T08:37:12  *** harrymm has quit IRC
194 2016-08-10T09:17:40  <GitHub177> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8477: [qa] Temporarily disable ipv6 in rpcbind test (master...Mf1608-qaIpv6) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8477
195 2016-08-10T09:35:13  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
196 2016-08-10T09:43:32  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
197 2016-08-10T09:45:27  *** Justinus has quit IRC
198 2016-08-10T10:17:12  *** thesnark has quit IRC
199 2016-08-10T10:18:41  *** Ginnarr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
200 2016-08-10T10:33:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
201 2016-08-10T10:48:36  *** thesnark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202 2016-08-10T11:17:53  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2016-08-10T11:17:53  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2016-08-10T11:18:04  *** cryptapus_ is now known as cryptapus
205 2016-08-10T11:20:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
206 2016-08-10T11:21:17  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
207 2016-08-10T11:24:46  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2016-08-10T11:28:40  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
209 2016-08-10T11:28:59  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
210 2016-08-10T11:32:56  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2016-08-10T11:32:57  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212 2016-08-10T11:33:04  *** BashCo has quit IRC
213 2016-08-10T11:39:14  *** Ginnarr has quit IRC
214 2016-08-10T11:59:12  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
215 2016-08-10T12:56:03  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
216 2016-08-10T12:56:27  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2016-08-10T13:04:52  <GitHub52> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8b0eee66e9c9057b6e53bb1f4a0a3821083e5df0
218 2016-08-10T13:04:52  <GitHub52> bitcoin/0.13 8b0eee6 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Use pre-BIP141 sigops until segwit activates...
219 2016-08-10T13:05:22  <GitHub7> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8495: [0.13] Bugfix: Use pre-BIP141 sigops until segwit activates (GBT) (0.13...bugfix_gbt_sigops_presegwit-0.13.x) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8495
220 2016-08-10T13:06:37  *** sgeisler has quit IRC
221 2016-08-10T13:30:20  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222 2016-08-10T13:30:20  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2016-08-10T13:33:18  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
224 2016-08-10T13:41:53  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
225 2016-08-10T13:45:42  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2016-08-10T13:57:28  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
227 2016-08-10T13:57:47  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2016-08-10T14:05:53  *** davec has quit IRC
229 2016-08-10T14:27:35  *** whphhg_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
230 2016-08-10T14:30:20  *** whphhg has quit IRC
231 2016-08-10T14:32:31  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232 2016-08-10T14:39:40  *** whphhg_ is now known as whphhg
233 2016-08-10T14:40:21  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2016-08-10T14:40:58  *** cryptapus_ has quit IRC
235 2016-08-10T14:41:11  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2016-08-10T14:59:05  *** cryptapus_ is now known as cryptapus
237 2016-08-10T15:03:06  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2016-08-10T15:08:38  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
239 2016-08-10T15:23:58  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
240 2016-08-10T15:29:22  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2016-08-10T15:32:03  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
242 2016-08-10T15:38:56  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
243 2016-08-10T15:44:58  *** rubensayshi has quit IRC
244 2016-08-10T15:46:04  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
245 2016-08-10T16:10:19  *** FNinTak has quit IRC
246 2016-08-10T16:11:51  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
247 2016-08-10T16:11:51  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
248 2016-08-10T16:17:17  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
249 2016-08-10T16:19:56  *** AtashiCon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
250 2016-08-10T16:23:19  *** BashCo has quit IRC
251 2016-08-10T16:49:40  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252 2016-08-10T16:49:40  *** afk11 has quit IRC
253 2016-08-10T16:49:40  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
254 2016-08-10T16:52:45  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
255 2016-08-10T16:56:14  *** afk11 has quit IRC
256 2016-08-10T17:00:11  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
257 2016-08-10T17:05:51  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
258 2016-08-10T17:10:31  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
259 2016-08-10T17:10:31  *** afk11 has quit IRC
260 2016-08-10T17:10:31  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
261 2016-08-10T17:13:07  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262 2016-08-10T17:27:11  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
263 2016-08-10T17:46:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
264 2016-08-10T17:52:14  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2016-08-10T17:53:23  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
266 2016-08-10T18:01:54  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
267 2016-08-10T18:19:59  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
268 2016-08-10T18:35:36  <cfields> luke-jr: ping. gbt sends out the !segwit rule even if there are no segwit transactions included. that goes against my reading of the spec.
269 2016-08-10T18:35:52  <cfields> luke-jr: (i'm implementing the bip9 gbt changes in ckpool)
270 2016-08-10T18:36:34  <luke-jr> MAY != MUST
271 2016-08-10T18:36:58  <gmaxwell> cfields: hm. It would be pretty surprising if the behavior modulates based on tx in mempool. I.e. your stuff catches fire when you're not looking.
272 2016-08-10T18:37:40  <sipa> cfields: agree with luke-jr and gmaxwell here: you'd rather have mining infrastructure break at upgrade time than at segwit activation time
273 2016-08-10T18:37:51  <sipa> where it potentially happen across all miners simultaneously
274 2016-08-10T18:37:53  <luke-jr> '!' is required if there are such transactions, but optional (for non-segwit miners only) if there are not.
275 2016-08-10T18:38:07  <gmaxwell> !segwit is super confusing. :(
276 2016-08-10T18:38:08  <gribble> Error: "segwit" is not a valid command.
277 2016-08-10T18:38:20  <gmaxwell> it even confuses gribble.
278 2016-08-10T18:38:23  <luke-jr> lol
279 2016-08-10T18:38:25  <cfields> heh, has not activated on gribble yet
280 2016-08-10T18:38:28  <sipa> haha
281 2016-08-10T18:38:57  <luke-jr> '*' would have probably made more sense, but I think it's too late to change it now?
282 2016-08-10T18:39:23  <sipa> i never considered that '!' as part of a name would be interpreted as "not"
283 2016-08-10T18:39:51  <sipa> and agree - i think it's not worth changing at this point
284 2016-08-10T18:40:02  <cfields> heh. I read it as "segwit!" rather than "!segwit" and it's more clear :)
285 2016-08-10T18:40:18  <sipa> yeah. it's "segwit! be aware!"
286 2016-08-10T18:40:56  <cfields> either way, i'd say it's not entirely clear in the spec. I (wrongly) first implemented coinbase insertion based on the "!segwit" flag's presence.
287 2016-08-10T18:41:10  <sipa> cfields: that's fine
288 2016-08-10T18:41:18  <cfields> "On the other hand, when this prefix is used, it indicates a more subtle change to the block structure or generation transaction; examples of this would be BIP 34 (because it modifies coinbase construction)..."
289 2016-08-10T18:41:29  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
290 2016-08-10T18:41:42  <sipa> cfields: ah, no
291 2016-08-10T18:42:05  <sipa> it means "you must understand why segwit means before you can mine on top of this, because things may have changed beyond normal transaction inclusion selection"
292 2016-08-10T18:43:18  <cfields> got it. Ok, I'll PR a few clarifications there. Was trying to implement soley based on reading of bip9 changes.
293 2016-08-10T18:43:19  <luke-jr> cfields: what's wrong with how you implemented it?
294 2016-08-10T18:43:40  <sipa> but i don't see why "!segwit" -> "make coinbase commitment" would be a problem
295 2016-08-10T18:43:48  <cfields> luke-jr: causes cb insertion even with no witness data
296 2016-08-10T18:43:54  <sipa> cfields: which is fine
297 2016-08-10T18:43:59  <sipa> just slightly wasteful
298 2016-08-10T18:44:04  <gmaxwell> s/fine/desirable as far as I know.
299 2016-08-10T18:44:36  <cfields> mm, i assumed the opposite. why desirable?
300 2016-08-10T18:44:51  <sipa> because you'd test your infrastructures' compatibility ahead of time
301 2016-08-10T18:45:01  <gmaxwell> Then the miner (and the network) can see their system correctly functioning.
302 2016-08-10T18:45:12  <sipa> so things don't break all over the network when segwit activates
303 2016-08-10T18:45:16  <gmaxwell> Otherwise you get the 'segwit tx shows up, now all the hashpower drops offline'
304 2016-08-10T18:45:46  <cfields> ok, sure.
305 2016-08-10T18:50:15  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
306 2016-08-10T18:50:31  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
307 2016-08-10T18:57:35  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
308 2016-08-10T18:57:38  *** execut3 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
309 2016-08-10T18:59:20  <cfields> sipa: in that case, can we append default_witness_commitment based on activation status rather than witness data presence?
310 2016-08-10T19:00:05  <sipa> cfields: sure
311 2016-08-10T19:00:18  <sipa> it's optional even when there are no witnesses in any transaction
312 2016-08-10T19:00:53  <sipa> the rule is (after activation): 1) if the witness commitment is present, it must be correct 2) if there are any witnesses in any transaction, the witness commitment must be present
313 2016-08-10T19:02:15  * luke-jr suspects nobody will care if it's present before activation either, but that's probably less of a good idea
314 2016-08-10T19:02:47  <gmaxwell> I think it's a good idea to have it present as soon as software is updated.
315 2016-08-10T19:02:59  <gmaxwell> otherwise there is a behavior change at activation that might go wrong.
316 2016-08-10T19:03:45  <sipa> it even gives us a way to observe miner adoption before the start date
317 2016-08-10T19:04:21  <luke-jr> hmm, that's a point
318 2016-08-10T19:04:48  <cfields> sure, i can do it unconditionally if desired
319 2016-08-10T19:06:01  <cfields> we could also have 13.0 warn on 1), though it's a bit late for that
320 2016-08-10T19:06:03  *** achow101 has quit IRC
321 2016-08-10T19:18:17  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322 2016-08-10T19:21:03  *** jannes has quit IRC
323 2016-08-10T19:23:58  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
324 2016-08-10T19:40:23  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
325 2016-08-10T19:58:52  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
326 2016-08-10T20:00:46  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
327 2016-08-10T20:12:19  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
328 2016-08-10T20:13:44  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
329 2016-08-10T20:23:58  *** jtimon has quit IRC
330 2016-08-10T20:28:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
331 2016-08-10T20:29:54  *** afk11 has quit IRC
332 2016-08-10T20:35:58  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
333 2016-08-10T20:35:58  *** afk11 has quit IRC
334 2016-08-10T20:35:58  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
335 2016-08-10T21:10:11  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
336 2016-08-10T21:18:28  *** Yogh has quit IRC
337 2016-08-10T21:19:13  *** alfas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
338 2016-08-10T21:19:33  <alfas> luke
339 2016-08-10T21:20:01  *** Yogh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
340 2016-08-10T21:23:58  *** alfas has quit IRC
341 2016-08-10T21:25:03  *** murch has quit IRC
342 2016-08-10T21:25:27  *** alfas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
343 2016-08-10T21:30:18  *** afk11 has quit IRC
344 2016-08-10T22:10:59  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
345 2016-08-10T22:14:35  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
346 2016-08-10T22:20:28  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
347 2016-08-10T22:24:50  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
348 2016-08-10T22:25:14  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
349 2016-08-10T22:28:10  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
350 2016-08-10T22:28:17  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
351 2016-08-10T22:31:37  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
352 2016-08-10T22:44:57  <jtimon> kanzure: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8493 looks like a long branch (because it has many tiny steps commits that could be squashed) but it's only  +373 −94 , please check it out
353 2016-08-10T22:45:41  <kanzure> i have no bandwidth to physically test this
354 2016-08-10T22:46:07  <kanzure> oh it looks like nothing added
355 2016-08-10T22:46:23  <jtimon> BlueMatt: adviced to just move to the next simplest things to expose instead of trying to encapsulate verifyBlock without exposing anything new
356 2016-08-10T22:46:26  <sipa> i now envision kanzure implementing this patch on a babbage machine, and then furiously turning the handles until it works
357 2016-08-10T22:46:58  <kanzure> sipa: yeah i can be fairly serious about my esoteric architectures
358 2016-08-10T22:47:34  <jtimon> kanzure: alternative APIs very welcomed
359 2016-08-10T22:48:11  <kanzure> btw there is a typo in your pull request title
360 2016-08-10T22:48:37  <jtimon> or alternative refactors, whatever, let's just try to force that PR to rebase and become smaller than +373 −94
361 2016-08-10T22:49:49  <jtimon> kanzure: mhmm, it seems I wrote Expose correctly and I made up the other 3 words, can you be more specific?
362 2016-08-10T22:50:03  <kanzure> 'libcosnensus'
363 2016-08-10T22:50:10  <jtimon> oh, right
364 2016-08-10T22:51:11  *** d_t has quit IRC
365 2016-08-10T22:54:37  <kanzure> small concerns about name of 'ContextualCheckHeader' but this is only a nit
366 2016-08-10T22:55:11  <kanzure> and i think this name is inherited from old code anyway, so it's a tough nit to do anything about
367 2016-08-10T22:57:50  <jtimon> BlueMatt:  also adviced not to be afraid of creating ugly wrappers or duplicating code if that was simpler to expose something
368 2016-08-10T22:58:58  <jtimon> in this case I'm renaming main::ContextualCheckBlockHeader to Consensus::ContextualCheckHeader, but I'm keeping one with the original name in cppwrappers.o to avoid disruption in main
369 2016-08-10T22:59:42  <jtimon> but yeah "Consensus::ContextualCheckHeader" it's a new name and it's open for bike-shedding, just like Consensus::VerifyHeader
370 2016-08-10T23:01:10  <jtimon> I added Pow as a prefix for the 2 pow.o functions that needed a wrapper, also open for bikeshedding (but ideally the necessary preparations for not needing the wrappers should be done beforehand IMO)
371 2016-08-10T23:03:11  <jtimon> if we do that, we don't even need to rename ContextualCheckBlockHeader,I don't care either way, for me it's just two paths to the same place
372 2016-08-10T23:04:19  <jtimon> but yeah please give your opinion
373 2016-08-10T23:05:58  <jtimon> I'm sure that some early nits can save me some work while turning jtimon/0.13-consensus-flags into another PR (WIP)
374 2016-08-10T23:06:40  <jtimon> I want to expose get_flags too, but that sounds more crazy than verifyHeaders I think
375 2016-08-10T23:09:36  <jtimon> where I would like more input is in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8493/files#diff-c2a099d775bac1dccc5f146a3cda81b8R11
376 2016-08-10T23:10:28  <jtimon> or alternatives
377 2016-08-10T23:13:09  <jtimon> and of course tests and testing
378 2016-08-10T23:14:33  <jtimon> anyway, spammed the channel enough already...just please review
379 2016-08-10T23:15:15  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
380 2016-08-10T23:15:53  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev