1 2016-10-19T00:15:00  <aj> question: re: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#compact-fraud-proofs -- as it turns out, that didn't make it in, right? those will need an additional merkle tree with an additional coinbase commitment with segwit as implemented, just as they would without segwit, yes/no?
  2 2016-10-19T00:15:50  <gmaxwell> aj: right, or get picked up as part of some other addition that needs an additional commitment.
  3 2016-10-19T00:17:22  <gmaxwell> it can be done with 'external commitments' in the same manner as the proposed commited bloom filters... meaning that it's possible to implement the whole software stack, but not get a commitment from the blockchain for it (instead get it from semitrusted servers or what not).. probably a good way to go to work out the design.
  4 2016-10-19T00:19:14  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2016-10-19T00:19:41  <gmaxwell> aj: why do you ask?
  6 2016-10-19T00:24:34  <aj> gmaxwell: have been pondering a companion segwit-costs/risks page, and when reviewing the benefits page thought that one seemed mistaken now
  7 2016-10-19T00:26:54  <gmaxwell> yea, it's out of date, when god knows who announced segwit would be done in design and implemenation complete in April it just didn't give any time to finalize a design... and better to have fewer commitments than commitments you regret. :)
  8 2016-10-19T00:27:41  <gmaxwell> they same deployment approach could be used though, so basically a straightforward extension.
  9 2016-10-19T00:30:05  <GitHub75> [bitcoin] rebroad closed pull request #8958: Improve logic for advertising blocks (master...BetterBroadcastLogic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8958
 10 2016-10-19T00:30:10  <GitHub120> [bitcoin] rebroad reopened pull request #8958: Improve logic for advertising blocks (master...BetterBroadcastLogic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8958
 11 2016-10-19T00:31:47  <aj> yeah. i thought i remembered some other feature being mentioned that was implemented but wasn't in that list too. not coming to mind immediately though
 12 2016-10-19T00:32:10  <gmaxwell> I don't think there was anything else.
 13 2016-10-19T00:33:20  <gmaxwell> maybe the fact that pruned nodes could skip downloading stuff they wouldn't vakidate or keep?  thats stull true though, commitment structure wise.
 14 2016-10-19T00:33:56  <gmaxwell> maybe you were thinking of the n^2 sighash fix--- for a while that was implemented in the commitment structure but core wasn't making use of it to reduce the hashing, it does now.. however.
 15 2016-10-19T00:45:53  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 16 2016-10-19T00:46:16  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 17 2016-10-19T00:46:24  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
 18 2016-10-19T00:48:20  *** testnet has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2016-10-19T00:48:49  <aj> gmaxwell: ah, my irc logs remind me that it was the fix for the "sighash single bug" -- but i'm not entirely sure what that bug is precisely
 20 2016-10-19T00:50:44  <gmaxwell> oh? I don't really consider that much of a bug, it's just a surprising feature. It has some vaguely constructive uses, in theory.
 21 2016-10-19T00:52:05  <aj> gmaxwell: i think it's that "if you use SIGHASH_SINGLE on an input with a higher index in a transaction than the number of outputs, then that signature can be used by anyone to spend any UTXO sent to that address", but post segwit it can only spend that particular coin?
 22 2016-10-19T00:56:31  <gmaxwell> aj: thats not incorrect.
 23 2016-10-19T00:56:53  <aj> haha, high praise
 24 2016-10-19T00:58:07  <gmaxwell> for non SW txn an out of bound single causes to to sign the 32 byte value 1. For SW it just causes you to sign no particular outputs for that input.
 25 2016-10-19T00:58:24  <gmaxwell> but you still sign the prevouts.
 26 2016-10-19T01:04:28  <Victorsueca> gmaxwell: the how is it prevented that somebody changes the outputs?
 27 2016-10-19T01:04:51  <Victorsueca> then*
 28 2016-10-19T01:07:04  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 29 2016-10-19T01:11:37  * Victorsueca wonders if he just asked the whole point of segwit and should read the docs instead
 30 2016-10-19T01:14:06  <gmaxwell> Victorsueca: it's sighash single-- you're specifically flagging the signature so people can change outputs.
 31 2016-10-19T01:38:41  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 32 2016-10-19T01:53:01  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 33 2016-10-19T02:05:22  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2016-10-19T02:06:59  *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 35 2016-10-19T02:10:51  <Victorsueca> OMG
 36 2016-10-19T02:11:08  <Victorsueca> A wild bitcoin-qt.exe appeared
 37 2016-10-19T02:11:25  *** whphhg has quit IRC
 38 2016-10-19T02:11:34  <Victorsueca> it's finally compiled
 39 2016-10-19T02:13:54  *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 40 2016-10-19T02:14:37  *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
 41 2016-10-19T02:14:53  *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2016-10-19T02:16:05  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2016-10-19T02:36:19  *** ill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 44 2016-10-19T02:43:08  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 45 2016-10-19T02:43:20  *** bluerazor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 46 2016-10-19T02:43:22  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 47 2016-10-19T02:50:37  *** alpalp has quit IRC
 48 2016-10-19T02:57:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 49 2016-10-19T02:58:12  *** ill has quit IRC
 50 2016-10-19T02:58:17  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2016-10-19T02:59:15  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 52 2016-10-19T03:01:50  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 53 2016-10-19T03:05:22  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2016-10-19T03:05:55  *** Victor_sueca has quit IRC
 55 2016-10-19T03:32:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 56 2016-10-19T03:33:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 57 2016-10-19T03:44:57  *** testnet has quit IRC
 58 2016-10-19T04:03:26  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 59 2016-10-19T04:04:31  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2016-10-19T04:07:12  *** JackH has quit IRC
 61 2016-10-19T04:17:32  *** kadoban has quit IRC
 62 2016-10-19T04:28:12  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 63 2016-10-19T04:28:47  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 64 2016-10-19T04:29:17  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 65 2016-10-19T04:39:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 66 2016-10-19T04:40:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 67 2016-10-19T04:49:55  <tulip> neat, I now have 11 peers with NODE_WITNESS (but all inbound, less than ideal).
 68 2016-10-19T04:54:30  <gmaxwell> 4 on my bog standard host, all inbound.
 69 2016-10-19T04:54:49  <tulip> that was on my bog standard host, too.
 70 2016-10-19T04:55:37  <luke-jr> there's probably significantly fewer peers that they'll be willing to connect to
 71 2016-10-19T04:56:15  <tulip> restarted the patched node and it managed 7/8 outbound peers as segwit, ha.
 72 2016-10-19T04:57:33  <luke-jr> I thought it won't tolerate non-witness outbound peers at all?
 73 2016-10-19T04:58:36  <tulip> in r1 you can end up with no NODE_WITNESS peers.
 74 2016-10-19T04:59:04  <tulip> with #8949 you will continuously search until at least 4 as NODE_WITNESS.
 75 2016-10-19T05:01:53  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no, it makes 40 requests to addrman, and if it doesn't get any node_witness results, it gives up and uses a non-nodewitness one.
 76 2016-10-19T05:02:02  <luke-jr> hm
 77 2016-10-19T05:02:17  <gmaxwell> it turns out on mainnet there are so many non-nodewitness peers and such.. that it's pretty easy for it to get no node witness outbound peers at all, thus my PR.
 78 2016-10-19T05:05:40  *** bluerazor has quit IRC
 79 2016-10-19T05:06:15  *** bluerazor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2016-10-19T05:18:30  <luke-jr> what are things coming to, when we can't even find a witness peer anymore? :<
 81 2016-10-19T05:19:11  <luke-jr> oh wait, that comment was meant for 2026, but this is 2016
 82 2016-10-19T05:20:28  <jl2012> why 0.13.1rc1 binary is not yet released?
 83 2016-10-19T05:21:43  <jl2012> aj: re SIGHASH_SINGLE: yes, BIP143 sort of fixed the bug
 84 2016-10-19T05:22:19  <jl2012> or removed the unintentional "feature" of making a replay-able signature
 85 2016-10-19T05:27:17  <gmaxwell> jl2012: in the past when we've encountered issues that would call for an RC2 before we shipped the RC1 binary we've sometimes just skipped it. I'm not sure if wumpus is planning on doing that.
 86 2016-10-19T05:35:04  <btcdrak> jl2012: we are skippng RC1 because of the non version bump iirc
 87 2016-10-19T05:37:06  <jl2012> btcdrak: it should be announced earlier so people won't waste time on building.....
 88 2016-10-19T05:39:08  <gmaxwell> good practice? (sorry)
 89 2016-10-19T05:40:32  *** bluerazor has quit IRC
 90 2016-10-19T05:50:37  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 91 2016-10-19T05:51:19  *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2016-10-19T05:55:12  *** d_t has quit IRC
 93 2016-10-19T06:10:09  *** aalex has quit IRC
 94 2016-10-19T06:10:32  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 95 2016-10-19T06:10:32  *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
 96 2016-10-19T06:11:37  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2016-10-19T06:11:40  *** bluerazo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2016-10-19T06:13:24  *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2016-10-19T06:33:17  *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
100 2016-10-19T06:47:40  *** BashCo has quit IRC
101 2016-10-19T06:59:15  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
102 2016-10-19T07:03:43  <wumpus>  it should be announced earlier so people won't waste time on building <- still makes sense to build to make sure that your gitian infrastructure is working an capable of building deterministic 0.13.1 executables
103 2016-10-19T07:04:08  <wumpus> also dependencies are cached by gitian so rc2 build will be faster
104 2016-10-19T07:06:29  <GitHub108> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8962: Correct checksum error message (and debug node id) (master...CorrectChecksumError) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8962
105 2016-10-19T07:08:19  <GitHub6> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8957: Additional UpdateBlockAvailability (master...AddUpdateBlockAvailability) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8957
106 2016-10-19T07:09:00  *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2016-10-19T07:09:23  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2016-10-19T07:10:12  <GitHub111> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8963: NodeId missing from this debug line (master...SocketSendErrorNodeId) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8963
109 2016-10-19T07:12:29  <sipa> wumpus: wow, do you sleep?
110 2016-10-19T07:12:49  <wumpus> I've slept a bit
111 2016-10-19T07:13:14  <wumpus> back to whack-a-mole now...
112 2016-10-19T07:14:46  *** aalex has quit IRC
113 2016-10-19T07:15:02  <wumpus> and merging #8951 and tagging rc2 I guess
114 2016-10-19T07:17:31  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2016-10-19T07:17:32  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
116 2016-10-19T07:19:38  <wumpus> anything else that needs to go into rc2 but doesn't have a 'Needs backport' tag?
117 2016-10-19T07:20:47  <wumpus> sipa: better question, do *you* sleep? You're still here afterall :)
118 2016-10-19T07:21:22  <tulip> wumpus: #8949 maybe? seems sort of critical.
119 2016-10-19T07:21:33  <sipa> 8949?
120 2016-10-19T07:21:46  <tulip> "Be more agressive in getting connections to peers with relevant services."
121 2016-10-19T07:21:47  <sipa> wumpus: currently at the airport
122 2016-10-19T07:22:27  <wumpus> thanks added tag
123 2016-10-19T07:22:39  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
124 2016-10-19T07:22:41  <sipa> wumpus: my comment is more aimed "8 hours ago you were merging/closing PRs, and now again" :)
125 2016-10-19T07:23:05  <sipa> i'm just hanging out on irc
126 2016-10-19T07:28:42  *** nibor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
127 2016-10-19T07:31:45  <gmaxwell> I expect 8949 to apply cleanly to 0.13 or nearly so, it's a trivial patch in any case.
128 2016-10-19T07:31:46  *** bluerazo_ has quit IRC
129 2016-10-19T07:32:21  *** bluerazor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2016-10-19T07:37:20  *** achow101 has quit IRC
131 2016-10-19T07:40:21  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
132 2016-10-19T07:41:21  <wumpus> leave it up to rebroad to come up with lousy suggestions
133 2016-10-19T07:42:31  *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
134 2016-10-19T07:42:38  <gmaxwell> what PR?
135 2016-10-19T07:42:47  <sipa> 8949
136 2016-10-19T07:43:16  *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2016-10-19T07:43:23  <gmaxwell> lol
138 2016-10-19T07:43:52  <Victorsueca> morning
139 2016-10-19T07:43:53  <wumpus> I mean you're runnig a P2P network with decentralized propagation of node addresses, and what would you want to do, query centralized servers automatically periodically? :p
140 2016-10-19T07:44:01  <wumpus> morning Victorsueca
141 2016-10-19T07:44:09  <gmaxwell> better that he asked instead of submitting a patch "Improve DNSseeding."
142 2016-10-19T07:44:10  <btcdrak> yeah wumpus I replied to him
143 2016-10-19T07:44:16  *** shangzhou has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2016-10-19T07:44:21  <wumpus> true gmaxwell , very true
145 2016-10-19T07:44:37  <gmaxwell> had I added the skip I would have written a comment in the code that explained why it was there.
146 2016-10-19T07:44:48  <gmaxwell> perhaps I should have done so when editing that section.
147 2016-10-19T07:44:48  <Victorsueca> left 0.13.1rc1 running all night
148 2016-10-19T07:44:54  <Victorsueca> seems to work good
149 2016-10-19T07:45:27  *** AtashiCon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2016-10-19T07:45:30  <wumpus> gmaxwell: you could do it at the same time as the c++11 nit if you want, if not I'll just merge it as-is
151 2016-10-19T07:45:31  <gmaxwell> Victorsueca: do you have nodewitness peers?
152 2016-10-19T07:47:09  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2016-10-19T07:47:43  <gmaxwell> wumpus: Didn't know if we wanted the range based for. Okay, doing.
154 2016-10-19T07:47:58  <wumpus> 13 witness peers on ereshkigal, two outgoing, rest incoming
155 2016-10-19T07:48:06  <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes,we do :)
156 2016-10-19T07:48:15  <wumpus> for new code, absolutely
157 2016-10-19T07:48:25  <Victorsueca> gmaxwell: have 4
158 2016-10-19T07:48:36  <gmaxwell> Victorsueca: inbound or outbound?
159 2016-10-19T07:49:34  <Victorsueca> 3 outbound 1 inbound
160 2016-10-19T07:53:01  <gmaxwell> will push an update as soon as this compiles.
161 2016-10-19T07:53:38  <wumpus> going to kick my non-witness outbound peers until they're witness too :)
162 2016-10-19T07:54:13  <Victorsueca> wumpus: lol, you'll hardfork the network if everybody does that
163 2016-10-19T07:54:34  <wumpus> Victorsueca: I don't think so, I have plenty of non-witness inbound peers
164 2016-10-19T07:54:53  <gmaxwell> Victorsueca: nah, it won't partition due to inbounds-- SW is intended to be witness only on outbound.
165 2016-10-19T07:55:43  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2016-10-19T07:55:45  <gmaxwell> We don't want the topology to suddenly change when SW activates, if something goes wrong it's better if it goes wrong for people as they upgrade.
167 2016-10-19T07:55:56  <gmaxwell> and once SW is active we'll need to only fetch new blocks from SW peers.
168 2016-10-19T07:56:08  <sipa> Victorsueca: and if that actually happened, we could set up some proxy nodes to relay across (though that is an emergency only, obviously)
169 2016-10-19T07:57:25  <wumpus> Victorsueca: though, arguably if everyone did the same things as me it'd be a weird place
170 2016-10-19T07:57:34  <gmaxwell> yes, if there are any partioning problems as a result of some oversight there, the partition can be healed by even a single fixed node.
171 2016-10-19T07:58:46  *** bluerazor has quit IRC
172 2016-10-19T08:03:16  <wumpus> it's somewhat working: gained one more outgoing witness peer
173 2016-10-19T08:08:44  <gmaxwell> I updated #8949 but did not rerun tests locally (laptop slow, took all that time to just compile it. :) )
174 2016-10-19T08:09:29  *** mkarrer_ has quit IRC
175 2016-10-19T08:10:21  *** mkarrer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2016-10-19T08:10:21  *** davec has quit IRC
177 2016-10-19T08:10:47  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
178 2016-10-19T08:12:41  *** timothy has quit IRC
179 2016-10-19T08:15:19  <wumpus> gmaxwell: luckily there's travis, and also if you just changes the loop type I'm not terribly afraid of that messing up :)
180 2016-10-19T08:16:38  <gmaxwell> just letting you know.
181 2016-10-19T08:16:40  <sipa> it's not like we're merging things and then immediately after marking it as release candidate
182 2016-10-19T08:16:44  <sipa> oh, wait
183 2016-10-19T08:16:53  <btcdrak> XD
184 2016-10-19T08:17:38  <wumpus> noo, we woudl never do something ill-advised like that
185 2016-10-19T08:18:35  <Victorsueca> lol
186 2016-10-19T08:19:48  <gmaxwell> maybe we should think about having a non-mandatory beta as part of the process. I noticed RC picked up a lot of testing pretty much instantly.. way more than what we had going on with 0.13 before it.
187 2016-10-19T08:20:48  <wumpus> non-mandatory beta?
188 2016-10-19T08:21:07  <wumpus> sounds intruiging, how do you suggest forcing people to install it :)
189 2016-10-19T08:21:40  <gmaxwell> hah I mean when we think were close to an rc, tagging something as 'beta' as inspiration to get people to switch their attention.
190 2016-10-19T08:21:50  <wumpus> oh, never mind, NON-mandatory. Boo.
191 2016-10-19T08:21:56  <gmaxwell> lol
192 2016-10-19T08:22:02  *** rebroad has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2016-10-19T08:22:14  <gmaxwell> We only have mandatory fun.
194 2016-10-19T08:22:15  <wumpus> well the good news is that we can use the word 'beta' now in releases
195 2016-10-19T08:22:23  <rebroad> is testnet broken?
196 2016-10-19T08:22:27  <Victorsueca> if you think more testing is required then the beta release is pretty much mandatory
197 2016-10-19T08:22:38  <wumpus> as it's no longer a static part of the release naming, as it used to be
198 2016-10-19T08:23:34  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2016-10-19T08:23:57  <gmaxwell> rebroad: looks fine to me, can you be more specific?
200 2016-10-19T08:24:30  <rebroad> My node and my peers are al stuck on block 998938
201 2016-10-19T08:24:40  <rebroad> all
202 2016-10-19T08:24:54  <rebroad> have raised an issue for it
203 2016-10-19T08:25:33  <gmaxwell> rebroad: why are you saying they're stuck?
204 2016-10-19T08:25:50  <rebroad> based on their reported startheight and my last new best
205 2016-10-19T08:26:20  <gmaxwell> if your height is 998938 and all of their height is 998938 ... then perhaps you are all one big happy family.
206 2016-10-19T08:26:32  <rebroad> have been for over an hour now
207 2016-10-19T08:26:38  <tulip> receive version message: /Satoshi:0.11.0/: version 70002, blocks=1002280
208 2016-10-19T08:26:50  <Victorsueca> rebroad: have you considered the possibility that 998938 is the best block right now?
209 2016-10-19T08:27:05  <gmaxwell> it looks like the best block to me.
210 2016-10-19T08:27:10  <tulip> rebroad: that's pretty normal for testnet though, and even the main network, frequently there's no blocks for hours at a time.
211 2016-10-19T08:27:16  <gmaxwell> may just be no one is actively mining at the moment.
212 2016-10-19T08:27:42  <rebroad> I am seeing many headers for higher heights though
213 2016-10-19T08:28:07  <Victorsueca> maybe testnet is hard-forked
214 2016-10-19T08:28:15  <gmaxwell> Yes, and?
215 2016-10-19T08:28:20  <Victorsueca> that's why some nodes have a higher height
216 2016-10-19T08:28:42  <Victorsueca> there's nothing to do with that
217 2016-10-19T08:28:44  <gmaxwell> it has been for something like 6 months now, rogerver's "bitcoin.com" pool.
218 2016-10-19T08:28:47  <rebroad> why isn't my node sending getdata requests for headers that are new to the block index though?
219 2016-10-19T08:28:59  <gmaxwell> Not being sent by witness peers.
220 2016-10-19T08:29:06  <tulip> that's not really a good view to have as your first diagnosis. testnet is very frequently completely hosed, it's par for the course.
221 2016-10-19T08:29:34  <rebroad> unless proof of work is too low or something.. i guess more debug is needed
222 2016-10-19T08:29:39  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2016-10-19T08:30:09  <rebroad> AcceptBlockHeader returns true and AddToBlockIndex was called... but it needs more debug to debug
224 2016-10-19T08:30:37  <Victorsueca> "needs more debug to debug" -genius
225 2016-10-19T08:32:36  <rebroad> either it's broken or my understanding is wrong. probably the latter
226 2016-10-19T08:32:42  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
227 2016-10-19T08:34:02  <sipa> rebroad: < gmaxwell> Not being sent by witness oeers.
228 2016-10-19T08:35:19  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
229 2016-10-19T08:36:37  <GitHub170> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/05998da5a7e2...1230890a6d04
230 2016-10-19T08:36:38  <GitHub170> bitcoin/master a1919ad R E Broadley: Report NodeId in misbehaving debug
231 2016-10-19T08:36:38  <GitHub170> bitcoin/master 1230890 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8936: Report NodeId in misbehaving debug...
232 2016-10-19T08:36:45  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2016-10-19T08:36:47  <GitHub189> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8936: Report NodeId in misbehaving debug (master...NodeIdWhenMisbehaving) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8936
234 2016-10-19T08:39:24  <gmaxwell> https://www.blocktrail.com/tBTC appears to be having fun, it's a non-SW testnet explorer and it seems to be jumping back in forth between different chains.
235 2016-10-19T08:39:59  <wumpus> we have a blocktrail contact
236 2016-10-19T08:41:34  <gmaxwell> pretty interesting to reload it and watch the block numbers constantly change but continue reading 1 hr 48m ago.
237 2016-10-19T08:42:23  <gmaxwell> may be nothing wrong there, I currently don't have any non-SW testnet nodes, but that chain may be flapping around in a reorg war.
238 2016-10-19T08:42:24  <wumpus> hehe
239 2016-10-19T08:44:21  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
240 2016-10-19T08:44:23  <GitHub181> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1230890a6d04...e44753c06794
241 2016-10-19T08:44:25  <GitHub181> bitcoin/master 9583477 Gregory Maxwell: Be more aggressive in connecting to peers with relevant services....
242 2016-10-19T08:44:25  <GitHub181> bitcoin/master 4630479 Gregory Maxwell: Make dnsseed's definition of acute need include relevant services....
243 2016-10-19T08:44:25  <GitHub181> bitcoin/master e44753c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8949: Be more agressive in getting connections to peers with relevant services....
244 2016-10-19T08:44:38  <GitHub25> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8949: Be more agressive in getting connections to peers with relevant services. (master...more_agressive_witness_connect) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8949
245 2016-10-19T08:48:09  <Victorsueca> has somebody actually tried to fill a block over 1MB on testnet too see if the whole witness thing works and doesn't hard-fork the chain due to a invalid block size?
246 2016-10-19T08:48:27  *** mkarrer_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
247 2016-10-19T08:48:34  <aj> Victorsueca: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/blocks?sort=size
248 2016-10-19T08:49:02  <tulip> Victorsueca: you're not being at all helpful by continuously saying that.
249 2016-10-19T08:49:32  <Victorsueca> tulip: when did I say it previously?
250 2016-10-19T08:49:49  <Victorsueca> aj: thanks
251 2016-10-19T08:50:11  <wumpus> SegWit has been extensively tested, if  we weren't sure "the whole witness thing works" it certainly wouldn't have been merged
252 2016-10-19T08:50:53  <Victorsueca> wumpus: I guess so, just couldn't find any block that went over 1MB
253 2016-10-19T08:51:00  <wumpus> and certainly no activation parameter would have been set on mainnet
254 2016-10-19T08:51:02  <gmaxwell> Victorsueca: yes, there are many very large blocks on testnet (and segnet before it)
255 2016-10-19T08:51:25  <gmaxwell> Victorsueca: https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000000000000896420b918a83d05d028ad7d61aaab6d782f580f2d98984a392
256 2016-10-19T08:51:35  <wumpus> Victorsueca: sure, then just ask a question, instead of injecting fud into it
257 2016-10-19T08:51:51  *** mkarrer has quit IRC
258 2016-10-19T08:52:01  <Victorsueca> wumpus: sorry, didn't mean to FUD stuff
259 2016-10-19T08:52:40  <wumpus> okay :)
260 2016-10-19T08:54:03  <GitHub172> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8972: [Qt] make warnings label selectable (master...Mf1610-qtWarnSelJS) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8972
261 2016-10-19T08:55:31  *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262 2016-10-19T08:55:37  <btcdrak> wumpus: rubensayshi and afk11 are Blocktrail contacts
263 2016-10-19T08:56:07  <btcdrak> but Blocktrail isnt segwitty, so use https://testnet.smartbit.com.au/ for the time being
264 2016-10-19T08:56:16  *** cdecker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2016-10-19T08:56:35  <wumpus> btcdrak: thanks
266 2016-10-19T08:57:52  <rebroad> MarcoFalke, how did you find that commit by jonasschnelli to fix #8970 so quickly?!
267 2016-10-19T08:58:31  <wumpus> search the current pulls / issues before opening a new one
268 2016-10-19T08:58:32  <MarcoFalke> out of memory :P
269 2016-10-19T08:59:33  <MarcoFalke> rebroad: I think it helps if "trivial" pull don't come in massive batches. If you see there is still a "trivial" pull open on your name, make sure to queue up additional ones locally.
270 2016-10-19T08:59:35  <GitHub169> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e44753c06794...b2df292e341d
271 2016-10-19T08:59:36  <GitHub169> bitcoin/master 59daa58 Luke Dashjr: RPC/Mining: getblocktemplate: Update and fix formatting of help
272 2016-10-19T08:59:36  <GitHub169> bitcoin/master b2df292 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8951: RPC/Mining: getblocktemplate: Update and fix formatting of help...
273 2016-10-19T08:59:45  <MarcoFalke> You can submit a new one when the old one got merged.
274 2016-10-19T08:59:49  <MarcoFalke> or closed
275 2016-10-19T08:59:50  <GitHub139> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8951: RPC/Mining: getblocktemplate: Update and fix formatting of help (master...gbt_help_update) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8951
276 2016-10-19T09:00:05  <rebroad> MarcoFalke, "locally"?
277 2016-10-19T09:00:11  <MarcoFalke> on your machine
278 2016-10-19T09:00:21  <MarcoFalke> in your .git folder
279 2016-10-19T09:00:23  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: interesting, why did the original change never get merged? it looks fine
280 2016-10-19T09:00:33  <rebroad> MarcoFalke, you mean some sort of "rate limiting"?
281 2016-10-19T09:00:41  <MarcoFalke> ^
282 2016-10-19T09:00:57  <MarcoFalke> Jup, we have over 100 open pulls and there is lack of review.
283 2016-10-19T09:00:59  <wumpus> yes, rate limiting, to avoid DoSing other people
284 2016-10-19T09:02:01  <rebroad> MarcoFalke, to hold back branches on my end would create more rebase work for me. I tend to work in bursts, so the PRs get raised in bursts too.
285 2016-10-19T09:02:19  <MarcoFalke> Then wumpus has to go ahead and merge something and later on people complain that there are bugs in master.
286 2016-10-19T09:02:20  <wumpus> which is fine if the topics of the branches are wildly different
287 2016-10-19T09:02:30  <btcdrak> each comment, or action taken on the tracker mails 1230 people...
288 2016-10-19T09:02:41  <MarcoFalke> rebroad: But it seems you don't even compile the changes sometimes
289 2016-10-19T09:02:46  <wumpus> but if they are the same or simlar (e.g. change a log message) then group them or add them to an existing PR
290 2016-10-19T09:03:04  <MarcoFalke> Please make sure to put work in a pull before you send it to a thousand people
291 2016-10-19T09:03:20  <MarcoFalke> at least: compile, run tests, run python tests
292 2016-10-19T09:03:33  <MarcoFalke> Also, mention the motivation in the commit body or pull body
293 2016-10-19T09:03:47  <MarcoFalke> (I know I don't do it either, sometimes)
294 2016-10-19T09:04:05  <MarcoFalke> but it is good practice and helps review
295 2016-10-19T09:04:09  <wumpus> I don't think there's ever a good reason for one person to submit 8 pulls at once, I'm sure some are similar or part of similar intent
296 2016-10-19T09:04:39  <wumpus> working on 8 completely disparate things at the same time is beyond the scope of human memory :p
297 2016-10-19T09:05:05  <rebroad> MarcoFalke, I am sometimes guilty of not compiling after what looks like a very simple rebase...  I do need to revise my workflow admittedly
298 2016-10-19T09:05:13  <MarcoFalke> I stole the commit from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7134/commits
299 2016-10-19T09:05:16  <MarcoFalke> :P
300 2016-10-19T09:05:53  <rebroad> MarcoFalke, I am only just starting to familiarise myself with the tests.... do you mean "make check" or something else?
301 2016-10-19T09:06:18  <MarcoFalke> ./qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py
302 2016-10-19T09:06:24  <rebroad> wumpus, "8 pulls at once"? why ever not?
303 2016-10-19T09:06:27  <wumpus> rebroad: so did #8972 solve your problem?
304 2016-10-19T09:06:48  <MarcoFalke> We need more people running the pull tester suite, anyway
305 2016-10-19T09:07:34  <wumpus> rebroad: because a) it comes over as horribly spammy, there are 120 pulls open by many different people, you're monoolizing the pull list with trivial stuff b) as I said above, if there's so many changes you must be able to combine a few as they will share a theme
306 2016-10-19T09:08:24  <wumpus> 'shoot a buckshot at the codebase and see what sticks' is not a strategy for development
307 2016-10-19T09:09:23  <wumpus> at least not one that respects the time constraints and priorities of other people partaking in the project
308 2016-10-19T09:12:07  <wumpus> to get started on testing, read https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin#automated-testing , it mentions the kinds of tests available
309 2016-10-19T09:12:19  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
310 2016-10-19T09:14:01  <rebroad> wumpus, how does it make any difference between raising 1 PR a day, and 7 only on Saturdays?
311 2016-10-19T09:14:16  <wumpus> please, dont' keep arguing this
312 2016-10-19T09:15:01  <rebroad> wumpus, you put forward an argument (based on false assumptions) and then complain when I correct those assumptions. I am not interested in hearing your rants.
313 2016-10-19T09:15:10  <tulip> for anyone following, there's progress on testnet now.
314 2016-10-19T09:15:21  <wumpus> then just go away
315 2016-10-19T09:15:43  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o wumpus
316 2016-10-19T09:16:20  *** wumpus sets mode: +b *!*@180.183.72.230
317 2016-10-19T09:16:23  *** rebroad was kicked by wumpus (rebroad)
318 2016-10-19T09:16:43  *** ChanServ sets mode: -o wumpus
319 2016-10-19T09:20:00  *** bluerazor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
320 2016-10-19T09:25:17  <GitHub106> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2c0913d0b3e1...7c2bf4b1759b
321 2016-10-19T09:25:18  <GitHub106> bitcoin/0.13 33cd553 Gregory Maxwell: Be more aggressive in connecting to peers with relevant services....
322 2016-10-19T09:25:18  <GitHub106> bitcoin/0.13 91ae0b0 Gregory Maxwell: Make dnsseed's definition of acute need include relevant services....
323 2016-10-19T09:25:19  <GitHub106> bitcoin/0.13 7c2bf4b Luke Dashjr: RPC/Mining: getblocktemplate: Update and fix formatting of help...
324 2016-10-19T09:27:47  <GitHub93> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b2df292e341d...d736a6eb1f91
325 2016-10-19T09:27:47  <GitHub93> bitcoin/master ef0c9ee Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] make warnings label selectable
326 2016-10-19T09:27:48  <GitHub93> bitcoin/master d736a6e Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8972: [Qt] make warnings label selectable (jonasschnelli)...
327 2016-10-19T09:27:52  <wumpus> MarcoFalke:  #8972 for 0.13 too?
328 2016-10-19T09:27:57  <GitHub37> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8972: [Qt] make warnings label selectable (jonasschnelli) (master...Mf1610-qtWarnSelJS) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8972
329 2016-10-19T09:28:21  <MarcoFalke> Should not matter
330 2016-10-19T09:28:47  <wumpus> ok, going to update the release notes lists and pulling in new translations and tagging rc2
331 2016-10-19T09:30:21  <gmaxwell> oops.
332 2016-10-19T09:30:29  <gmaxwell> backport is going to fail to compile.
333 2016-10-19T09:30:45  <wumpus> we'll hear from travis soon I guess
334 2016-10-19T09:30:47  <gmaxwell> net.cpp:1718:108: error: ‘nMaxOutbound’ was not declared in this scope if ((addr.nServices & nRelevantServices) != nRelevantServices && (nTries < 40 || nOutbound >= (nMaxOutbound >> 1)))
335 2016-10-19T09:32:44  <Victorsueca> RIP backport
336 2016-10-19T09:33:36  <gmaxwell> replace with MAX_OUTBOUND_CONNECTIONS
337 2016-10-19T09:33:54  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o wumpus
338 2016-10-19T09:33:59  *** wumpus sets mode: -b *!*@180.183.72.230
339 2016-10-19T09:34:03  *** ChanServ sets mode: -o wumpus
340 2016-10-19T09:35:11  *** rebroad has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
341 2016-10-19T09:35:29  <rebroad> Apologies for earlier. I need to learn to get less emotionally involved in my pull requests.
342 2016-10-19T09:36:09  <wumpus> we all do, np, it's kind of a stressful time and not a good time to pick fights now :)
343 2016-10-19T09:36:34  <rebroad> oh.. I didn't realise that? stress due to SegWit...? bitcoin related?
344 2016-10-19T09:36:52  <btcdrak> releases are always stressful. lots to get done.
345 2016-10-19T09:37:03  <MarcoFalke> rebroad: Also the pull request backlog
346 2016-10-19T09:37:17  <rebroad> ah ok. will bear that in mind. PRT (pre-release-tension)
347 2016-10-19T09:37:22  <btcdrak> ha!
348 2016-10-19T09:38:19  *** PRab_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
349 2016-10-19T09:39:01  <rebroad> I am inclined to think of the backlog in the same way I think of my browser tabs. I have so many I struggle to keep track of them.. I do need to find a new system to organise them rather than a simple list as they currently are. Perhaps there might be a similar way to organise the issues - i.e. it's not the large number that's the issue but they way they are organised/sorted..?
350 2016-10-19T09:40:30  <btcdrak> rebroad: well the first thing we can do is be good citizens and consider the whole process - submitting a PR is just one part of the process. Think of reviewers and the effort they have to go through to verify and review. This is why grouping things is important. Etiquette starts from there.
351 2016-10-19T09:40:44  <rebroad> if there is anything I can do to help make the backlog seem less daunting, please do let me know
352 2016-10-19T09:40:46  *** PRab has quit IRC
353 2016-10-19T09:40:52  *** PRab_ is now known as PRab
354 2016-10-19T09:41:01  <btcdrak> rebroad: review more PRs
355 2016-10-19T09:41:24  <btcdrak> review and _test_
356 2016-10-19T09:42:07  <wumpus> "error: use of undeclared identifier 'nMaxOutbound'; did you mean 'nOutbound'" eh, no thangs clang
357 2016-10-19T09:42:26  *** bluerazor has quit IRC
358 2016-10-19T09:42:38  <rebroad> btcdrak, I certainly could do that, although it's hard to know which ones to review and test. is there an easy way to see which ones require greater attention or are the more useful/desired PRs?
359 2016-10-19T09:42:49  <gmaxwell> wumpus: yea, helpful compiler suggestions: Good news, your code compiles. You really didn't want that nice compiler static analysis to actually help you find bugs, right?
360 2016-10-19T09:43:10  <btcdrak> rebroad: right, so putting yourself in the POV of the reviewers is very good practice...
361 2016-10-19T09:43:19  <MarcoFalke> rebroad: Those tagged for 0.14, right now.
362 2016-10-19T09:43:36  <rebroad> MarcoFalke, ah... great starting point. thanks
363 2016-10-19T09:44:36  <MarcoFalke> We have also different labels where you can group by. E.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3AP2P
364 2016-10-19T09:45:18  *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
365 2016-10-19T09:50:53  <GitHub144> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7c2bf4b1759b...0dbc48a5bd83
366 2016-10-19T09:50:54  <GitHub144> bitcoin/0.13 53e6196 Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: pre-rc2 translations update
367 2016-10-19T09:50:54  <GitHub144> bitcoin/0.13 0dbc48a Wladimir J. van der Laan: nMaxOutbound is MAX_OUTBOUND_CONNECTIONS on 0.13...
368 2016-10-19T09:52:25  <rebroad> has anyone else notices that the arrows point the wrong way in the peer table in the debug window? I've raised #8959 to fix this
369 2016-10-19T09:52:50  <rebroad> (the arrows to indicate sort direction)
370 2016-10-19T09:53:12  <wumpus> I haven't noticed, but don't think I've ever paid close attention to it so it's certainly possible
371 2016-10-19T09:53:46  <Victorsueca> you mean the ones on the table sort?
372 2016-10-19T09:53:52  <rebroad> Victorsueca, yes
373 2016-10-19T09:54:14  *** drizztbsd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
374 2016-10-19T09:54:25  <Victorsueca> ahh yeah, I aalways felt weird when sorting that table, now I know why
375 2016-10-19T09:54:38  <rebroad> I wasn't sure if I fixed it in the best pace. the way I did it makes columns default to descending when you first click to sort them
376 2016-10-19T09:54:45  *** drizztbsd is now known as timothy
377 2016-10-19T09:55:09  <rebroad> which is fine as descending is the more useful for most of the columns, IMHO
378 2016-10-19T09:56:03  <rebroad> an extra click to make it ascending, of course
379 2016-10-19T09:56:30  <wumpus> for things such as ping that makes sense, I guess, the only time descending is annoying is in text columns
380 2016-10-19T09:58:04  <Victorsueca> I think the arrow should be a bit darker to make it more visible, this is pure aesthetics tho
381 2016-10-19T09:58:28  *** maluzek_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382 2016-10-19T09:58:45  <wumpus> that's up to your theme
383 2016-10-19T09:59:16  <Victorsueca> ahh windows theme
384 2016-10-19T10:00:24  <Victorsueca> but it seems to be rendered as text, why is it lighter than the rest of text?
385 2016-10-19T10:00:26  <wumpus> I don't know where qt takes the theme from on windows
386 2016-10-19T10:01:07  <wumpus> in any case it's not something that should be micro-managed, e.g. I have a theme that is pretty much black on black so marking the arrow *darker* would make it invisible :)
387 2016-10-19T10:02:28  <Victorsueca> that could be solved with a white outline
388 2016-10-19T10:02:40  <Victorsueca> but anyway, it's ok now, no reason to bother on that
389 2016-10-19T10:03:05  <wumpus> that's up to the theme, too
390 2016-10-19T10:04:02  <wumpus> some of the altcoins set up their own qt theme instead of using the system theme, but I think that's kind of pushy, no need to push your asthethic preferences to others
391 2016-10-19T10:04:49  <Victorsueca> yeah, dogecoin for example uses a funny typography
392 2016-10-19T10:05:03  <GitHub156> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6e8936032fb865c0448bec0e0f168e041a586285
393 2016-10-19T10:05:04  <GitHub156> bitcoin/0.13 6e89360 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Update release notes for rc2
394 2016-10-19T10:07:42  *** maluzek_ has quit IRC
395 2016-10-19T10:11:48  <Victorsueca> 3 outbound 2 inbound right now
396 2016-10-19T10:13:16  <wumpus> 4 outbound 10 inbound SW connections here
397 2016-10-19T10:13:34  <Victorsueca> found a fail on the peers screen
398 2016-10-19T10:13:58  <Victorsueca> some peers display "via 127.0.0.1:8333" instead of the address bitcoin is bound to
399 2016-10-19T10:15:00  <gmaxwell> Victorsueca: you have tor HS peers.
400 2016-10-19T10:15:54  <Victorsueca> tor peers display "via mytoraddress.onion:8333"
401 2016-10-19T10:17:37  <gmaxwell> Victorsueca: no, _outbound_ hs peers do, inbound ones are 127,0,0,1.
402 2016-10-19T10:17:54  <Victorsueca> ahh, makes sense
403 2016-10-19T10:18:15  <tulip> there's no meaningful identifier for them other than "hey there's a tcp connection"
404 2016-10-19T10:18:21  *** testnet has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
405 2016-10-19T10:18:46  <gmaxwell> I expect someday we'll listen on a special port for those... and then we'll be able to display "onion" or whatnot.
406 2016-10-19T10:19:08  <Victorsueca> it's a bit deceptive to invert a "something via something" sentence without explanation
407 2016-10-19T10:21:04  <Victorsueca> maybe we should rephrase that to "Local address:...." and "Remote address:..."
408 2016-10-19T10:21:37  *** testnet0 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
409 2016-10-19T10:21:37  *** testnet has quit IRC
410 2016-10-19T10:27:16  *** testnet0 is now known as testnet
411 2016-10-19T10:27:53  *** rebroad has quit IRC
412 2016-10-19T10:29:14  <wumpus> yes, listening on a special port would make a lot of sense
413 2016-10-19T10:29:32  <wumpus> not sure why we haven't chosen to do that esp. for the auto-torcontrol stuff
414 2016-10-19T10:30:25  <wumpus> another things some hs hosts do is to use alternative localhost interfaces, e.g. 127.0.0.2, but the alternative port is a no-brainer
415 2016-10-19T10:33:54  *** testnet has quit IRC
416 2016-10-19T10:35:06  *** Victorsueca is now known as Victor_sueca
417 2016-10-19T10:35:41  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca|Mob
418 2016-10-19T10:35:48  *** Victorsueca|Mob is now known as aceusrotciV
419 2016-10-19T10:35:56  *** aceusrotciV is now known as Tipper
420 2016-10-19T10:36:02  *** Tipper is now known as ErroneousNicknam
421 2016-10-19T10:36:07  *** ErroneousNicknam is now known as Victorsueca
422 2016-10-19T10:40:23  <gmaxwell> yea, for autocontrol its especially a no-brainer... other than needing to find another reliably free port.
423 2016-10-19T10:40:52  <gmaxwell> (it could be ephemeral, but better if not.. if I saw a random listning port on my host I'd be rather concerned. :) )
424 2016-10-19T10:41:15  <wumpus> won't TCP automatically choose a port for you if you listen() without setting one?
425 2016-10-19T10:41:15  <tulip> 6667 seems pretty unused.
426 2016-10-19T10:41:49  <tulip> if you attempt to listen on port 0, apparently that's the behaviour.
427 2016-10-19T10:41:56  <wumpus> oh, random is not good, okay wouldn't know then. Just pick a new fixed one one and put it in chainparams then
428 2016-10-19T10:42:19  <gmaxwell> just means that when you run multiple daemons on the same network and host, they'll collide.
429 2016-10-19T10:42:33  <gmaxwell> same as p2p/rpc.
430 2016-10-19T10:43:01  <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8973  in the issue I propose ` hsport` option for that
431 2016-10-19T10:43:06  <tulip> random would also have the weird effect of killing other daemons that try to bind to something after bitcoind
432 2016-10-19T10:43:14  <gmaxwell> wumpus: sounds great to me.
433 2016-10-19T10:43:31  <Victorsueca> what about random but exclude common ports?
434 2016-10-19T10:43:37  <wumpus> why would it kill other daemons?
435 2016-10-19T10:43:50  <gmaxwell> the special port would also allow more than labling, e.g. preferrential relay to HS peers.. which we can only do for outbound hs peers right now.
436 2016-10-19T10:43:58  <tulip> wumpus: say bitcoind came up, randomly chose 22, and then openssh tried to come up.
437 2016-10-19T10:44:00  <wumpus> I'm all for daemon-kiliing functionality in bitcoind, but arguably it should happen intentionally :p
438 2016-10-19T10:44:04  <btcdrak> is that everything now for rc2?
439 2016-10-19T10:44:13  <gmaxwell> tulip: it won't randomly choose 22. It will get some port over 32768.
440 2016-10-19T10:44:41  <tulip> gmaxwell: talking hypothetical, but ok.
441 2016-10-19T10:45:02  <gmaxwell> kernel reserves some range of ports for ephemeral use that is outside of the range normally used for services.
442 2016-10-19T10:45:10  <wumpus> I wonder if tor can create some kind of private, non-TCP socket
443 2016-10-19T10:45:23  <wumpus> anyhow that's not relevant to solving the issue, but for the far future would be nice list
444 2016-10-19T10:45:58  <tulip> gmaxwell: so there's privileged 1-1023, and >32768 for ephemeral. are there any other ranges?
445 2016-10-19T10:46:03  <wumpus> btcdrak: I think so!
446 2016-10-19T10:46:20  <btcdrak> wumpus: my gitian VM is ready!
447 2016-10-19T10:46:51  <wumpus> tulip: ranges are configurable and depend on the OS, although <1024 private is pretty ingrained (I think windows is an exception there?)
448 2016-10-19T10:46:55  <gmaxwell> tulip: not coming to mind. keep in mind these are local policy... there are sysctls to change them.
449 2016-10-19T10:47:28  <gmaxwell> yea, for a long time if you could get access to ports <1024 you could escilate to root access on other hosts that rhosts trusted your host.
450 2016-10-19T10:48:01  <tulip> I hate to think what caused that to be implemented.
451 2016-10-19T10:49:05  <wumpus> yeah rsh :-(
452 2016-10-19T10:51:13  *** shangzhou has quit IRC
453 2016-10-19T10:51:20  <wumpus>  * [new tag]         v0.13.1rc2 -> v0.13.1rc2
454 2016-10-19T10:52:29  <wumpus> I guess that was a time in which the number of people having enough knowledge to circumvent that was so small that you could just trust them not to do it, sysadmin-inside-knowledge-based-access-control or so:p
455 2016-10-19T10:52:41  * Victorsueca starts compiling
456 2016-10-19T10:52:58  <gmaxwell> wumpus: yea, that time lasted about 10 minutes.
457 2016-10-19T10:53:57  * btcdrak starts gitian
458 2016-10-19T10:56:35  <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes I can't imagine it taking long. And after that the long period it was (mis)configured by default on some OSes
459 2016-10-19T10:59:32  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
460 2016-10-19T11:09:59  *** fengling has quit IRC
461 2016-10-19T11:13:18  <Victorsueca> so... rc2 has gmaxwell's aggressive witness node search right?
462 2016-10-19T11:13:25  <wumpus> yes
463 2016-10-19T11:18:33  <btcdrak> that sounds so mafia
464 2016-10-19T11:19:02  <Victorsueca> lol
465 2016-10-19T11:19:37  <btcdrak> the node needs a witnesss protection program
466 2016-10-19T11:24:51  <sipa> bitcoind --aggressive=passive
467 2016-10-19T11:34:52  <Victorsueca> done building, now starting
468 2016-10-19T11:45:49  <jonasschnelli> [22:07:48] <wumpus:#bitcoin-core-dev> jonasschnelli: could you elaborate in #8546 what you mean with " I think its acceptable if it breaks wallets used back in 0.3.x in conjunction with IP transaction". I don't think it'd be acceptable if the client suddenly crashes if someone happens to be using a wallet that still has a pay-to-IP transaction in it.
469 2016-10-19T11:45:58  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Your probably right...
470 2016-10-19T11:46:44  <jonasschnelli> I don't have enough informations about the field-usage of IP transactions...
471 2016-10-19T11:47:22  <jonasschnelli> Better keep the code as it is
472 2016-10-19T11:51:22  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
473 2016-10-19T11:53:06  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
474 2016-10-19T11:53:06  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
475 2016-10-19T11:53:17  <arubi> is it bad to symlink the database directory which is in datadir (contains log.0000000001 like files) to a tmpfs filesystem like /dev/shm ?  It makes things like importing scripts and generating keys much quicker for me, e.g. initial keypool population takes 14418ms vs. 4236ms with the database dir in /dev/shm
476 2016-10-19T11:53:40  <arubi> I did (superficially with iotop) notice that a lot of writing is done to this log.0000.. file when I import many scripts, so this is why I ask.
477 2016-10-19T12:02:40  <Victorsueca> 7 witness peers now, all outbound
478 2016-10-19T12:04:32  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
479 2016-10-19T12:12:00  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
480 2016-10-19T12:19:25  <wumpus> arubi: I don't know about berkeleydb specifics but having the wallet database crossing filesystem boundaries is reasonably dangerous
481 2016-10-19T12:19:52  <achow101> was rc1 DOA?
482 2016-10-19T12:20:04  <wumpus> arubi: also tmpfs is lost on reboot, which means you may lose data
483 2016-10-19T12:22:39  <arubi> wumpus, yea I'm aware about the second point. thought about copying it back to the hard drive periodically, but didn't take into account if bdb itself might not like it.  I'll rtfm about bdb
484 2016-10-19T12:25:48  <jonasschnelli> BDB has some really strange way of storing data...
485 2016-10-19T12:26:44  <jonasschnelli> Look at http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/48070/format-of-mkey-field-in-encrypted-wallet-dat-file
486 2016-10-19T12:27:20  <jonasschnelli> I tried to track this down and found out, that the chunks of the records value are stored in different locations.
487 2016-10-19T12:31:29  <luke-jr> https://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2016-10/0076.html sigh
488 2016-10-19T12:32:57  <arubi> thanks for the lead jonasschnelli
489 2016-10-19T12:33:22  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
490 2016-10-19T12:44:25  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: yeah I wouldn't mind changing the 'transaction details' window if anyone has a good plan to do so, but this just seemed like ripping out a few things at semi-random, not sure either whether it would affect things such as watch-only or payment requests
491 2016-10-19T12:44:53  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: Yes. Indeed.
492 2016-10-19T12:44:59  <wumpus> with so many more urgent pulls open, it didn't seem worth the bother
493 2016-10-19T12:46:26  <wumpus> gah instead of building rc2 I re-built rc1
494 2016-10-19T12:46:42  <wumpus> achow101: yes
495 2016-10-19T12:47:12  <wumpus> it didn't have the version bumped and BlueMatt discovered a crash issue within a few minutes
496 2016-10-19T12:48:58  <wumpus> (probably in an RPC command that only he uses, but okay that's clearly a bug that shouldn't be in a release)
497 2016-10-19T12:49:12  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: what crash? The wallet/init one? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8928
498 2016-10-19T12:49:20  <wumpus> addnode
499 2016-10-19T12:49:45  <wumpus> #8928 issue doesn't exist in 0.13
500 2016-10-19T12:49:58  <wumpus> fairly sure it was introduced in the refactoring
501 2016-10-19T12:50:11  <jonasschnelli> We should extend addnode's RPC tests
502 2016-10-19T12:50:16  <wumpus> yes
503 2016-10-19T12:52:28  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: The RPC command-structure refactoring (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8788) includes your JSONRPCRequestObj renaming now. Would be nice to get this in soon to escape the rebase-hamster-wheel
504 2016-10-19T12:53:42  <luke-jr> I still prefer 8775 :x
505 2016-10-19T12:54:08  <luke-jr> it's just ugly to have request.params everywhere
506 2016-10-19T12:57:54  <wumpus> I like request.params
507 2016-10-19T12:58:13  <wumpus> it's literally "request parameters", what naming could be better
508 2016-10-19T12:58:21  <jonasschnelli> I think request.param improves readability
509 2016-10-19T12:58:26  <luke-jr> params is clear and much shorter. but whatever
510 2016-10-19T12:58:55  <jonasschnelli> params is to generic and could be interpreted as local scope var
511 2016-10-19T12:59:13  <luke-jr> obviously when it comes to taste, majority rules, so if everyone else disagrees, just go ahead and do it
512 2016-10-19T12:59:27  <wumpus> yes it's a bit of a taste issue
513 2016-10-19T12:59:48  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
514 2016-10-19T12:59:49  <jonasschnelli> Right. The important thing is, that we have a flexible container in the RPC command function structure.
515 2016-10-19T13:01:24  <wumpus> right
516 2016-10-19T13:20:08  <BlueMatt> who is mining testnet-segwit?
517 2016-10-19T13:20:13  <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: or Lightsword, maybe?
518 2016-10-19T13:24:06  <tulip> BlueMatt: me, problem?
519 2016-10-19T13:25:07  <GitHub21> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d736a6eb1f91...97c7f7362f9b
520 2016-10-19T13:25:08  <GitHub21> bitcoin/master 23c32a9 Wladimir J. van der Laan: rpc: Change JSONRPCRequest to JSONRPCRequestObj...
521 2016-10-19T13:25:08  <GitHub21> bitcoin/master 69d1c25 Jonas Schnelli: [RPC] Give RPC commands more information about the RPC request
522 2016-10-19T13:25:09  <GitHub21> bitcoin/master e7156ad Jonas Schnelli: [RPC] pass HTTP basic authentication username to the JSONRequest object
523 2016-10-19T13:25:17  <GitHub131> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8788: [RPC] Give RPC commands more information about the RPC request (master...2016/09/rpc_container) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8788
524 2016-10-19T13:28:16  <BlueMatt> tulip: yes, we havent addnode'd between the new fibre test network and your mining bitcoind :p
525 2016-10-19T13:34:10  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: darn now #7551 needs rebase again
526 2016-10-19T13:34:22  <luke-jr> :p
527 2016-10-19T13:39:27  <wumpus> I really think we should merge that one soon, it's been open for ages and he's been rebasing time after time and fixing load of nits after load of nits. And it has tests. I'm not convinced that it is bugless (it adds a lot of functionality) but it'd probably be better to merge it so it gets more testing.
528 2016-10-19T13:40:02  <wumpus> but it's very useful functionality that definitely needs to be in 0.14
529 2016-10-19T13:44:58  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
530 2016-10-19T13:46:42  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
531 2016-10-19T13:47:32  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
532 2016-10-19T14:00:42  *** wumpus has quit IRC
533 2016-10-19T14:01:46  *** wumpus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
534 2016-10-19T14:01:47  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
535 2016-10-19T14:02:01  *** wumpus has quit IRC
536 2016-10-19T14:03:39  *** wumpus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
537 2016-10-19T14:05:28  <btcdrak> BlueMatt: Lightsword, but he stopped mining yesterday to let cfields test out cgminer I believe.
538 2016-10-19T14:07:04  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
539 2016-10-19T14:08:22  *** adiabat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
540 2016-10-19T14:18:16  <luke-jr> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/flaw-in-intel-chips-could-make-malware-attacks-more-potent/ :/
541 2016-10-19T14:20:49  <wumpus> the branch prediction profiling makes local attacks (e.g. against the kernel) somewhat easier, ASLR is still a good measure against remote attacks
542 2016-10-19T14:23:03  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
543 2016-10-19T14:24:18  <wumpus> also think function-level ASLR (selfrando) would make this harder to exploit, as you cannot just guess one offset and compute others from it
544 2016-10-19T14:25:27  <wumpus> haven't heard about using that at the kernel level though :)
545 2016-10-19T14:27:11  <BlueMatt> hey-o, fibre works on segwit
546 2016-10-19T14:27:13  <BlueMatt> look at that
547 2016-10-19T14:27:20  <BlueMatt> anyone need high-speed testnet blocks? :p
548 2016-10-19T14:27:37  <wumpus> awesome!
549 2016-10-19T14:27:48  <BlueMatt> even worked on the first try :)
550 2016-10-19T14:29:23  <wumpus> of course we need fast testnet blocks
551 2016-10-19T14:31:58  <adiabat> repost from wizards, but anyone know what's up with testnet3?
552 2016-10-19T14:32:07  <adiabat> seem to be 2 chains
553 2016-10-19T14:32:09  <BlueMatt> what about it?
554 2016-10-19T14:32:23  <BlueMatt> all my nodes ended up on the same chain when i synced them last night?
555 2016-10-19T14:32:27  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
556 2016-10-19T14:32:29  <BlueMatt> adiabat: is classic forked off again?
557 2016-10-19T14:32:35  <adiabat> could be
558 2016-10-19T14:32:52  <adiabat> test.webbtc.com is where I can see another one, that's longer
559 2016-10-19T14:33:06  <adiabat> seems to diverge at 996198, but not sure why
560 2016-10-19T14:33:14  <BlueMatt> 2016-10-19 14:25:57.059547 UpdateTip: new best=00000000000f939a09a192c06dec99490018fa8dc488cb25cc9141612eb57bf2 height=1003480 version=0x20000000 log2_work=68.579739 tx=11657519 date='2016-10-19 14:45:27' progress=1.000000 cache=0.3MiB(1882tx)
561 2016-10-19T14:33:47  *** rebroad has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
562 2016-10-19T14:38:33  <GitHub143> [bitcoin] s-matthew-english opened pull request #8974: readability improvement (master...patch-5) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8974
563 2016-10-19T14:40:13  <adiabat> BlueMatt: yeah I'm on that one as well.  Guess it doesn't really matter, just curious why there's a longer (presumably invalid) chain
564 2016-10-19T14:41:47  <BlueMatt> adiabat: well at least tulip and Lightsword are both mining
565 2016-10-19T14:41:50  <BlueMatt> maybe they're not peered.....
566 2016-10-19T14:42:27  <GitHub129> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/97c7f7362f9b...5d2c8e524e10
567 2016-10-19T14:42:28  <GitHub129> bitcoin/master fc14609 mruddy: RPC: augment getblockchaininfo bip9_softforks data
568 2016-10-19T14:42:28  <GitHub129> bitcoin/master 5d2c8e5 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7948: RPC: augment getblockchaininfo bip9_softforks data...
569 2016-10-19T14:42:33  <GitHub154> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7948: RPC: augment getblockchaininfo bip9_softforks data (master...version_bits_locked_in_block) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7948
570 2016-10-19T14:50:41  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: Yes. 7551 should go in soon. I gave it my tested ACK (tested pretty well), though, some comments where added/amend-changed afterwards.
571 2016-10-19T14:50:50  <jonasschnelli> sipa said he want to test it as well (before we merge)
572 2016-10-19T14:51:10  <jonasschnelli> I think we should merge it and fix (possible) issues later
573 2016-10-19T14:51:16  <jonasschnelli> but the rebase needs to be done
574 2016-10-19T14:51:47  <jonasschnelli> I guess 8788 will lead to plenty of rebases
575 2016-10-19T14:58:07  <btcdrak> Lightsword wanna connect to FIBRE?
576 2016-10-19T14:59:34  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
577 2016-10-19T15:06:44  <GitHub37> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8974: readability improvement (master...patch-5) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8974
578 2016-10-19T15:07:08  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
579 2016-10-19T15:07:25  <tulip> adiabat: BlueMatt: 00000000000f939a09a192c06dec99490018fa8dc488cb25cc9141612eb57bf2 is my chain and is valid with 0.13.1. I don't know why webbtc is showing a different one, I noticed that before.
580 2016-10-19T15:07:36  *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
581 2016-10-19T15:08:35  <GitHub48> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5d2c8e524e10...3e942a7060fe
582 2016-10-19T15:08:36  <GitHub48> bitcoin/master 1880aeb Luke Dashjr: Qt: Get the private key for signing messages via WalletModel
583 2016-10-19T15:08:37  <GitHub48> bitcoin/master 178cd88 Luke Dashjr: Qt/splash: Specifically keep track of which wallet(s) we are connected to for later disconnecting
584 2016-10-19T15:08:37  <GitHub48> bitcoin/master 3e942a7 Jonas Schnelli: Merge #8774: Qt refactors to better abstract wallet access...
585 2016-10-19T15:08:49  <GitHub155> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #8774: Qt refactors to better abstract wallet access (master...multiwallet_prefactor_qt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8774
586 2016-10-19T15:09:27  <tulip> I have >30 peers connected to that node, 11 of which are NODE_WITNESS. if there's a peering problem it's unlikely to be mine.
587 2016-10-19T15:23:22  *** LeMiner has quit IRC
588 2016-10-19T15:29:09  <GitHub135> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #8775: RPC refactoring: Never access wallet directly, only via new CRPCRequestInfo (master...multiwallet_prefactor_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8775
589 2016-10-19T15:34:30  <Lightsword> btcdrak, sure
590 2016-10-19T15:40:28  *** Anduck has quit IRC
591 2016-10-19T15:42:06  <GitHub16> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3e942a7060fe...475d68252e9c
592 2016-10-19T15:42:06  <GitHub16> bitcoin/master acf853d Johnson Lau: Add script tests for FindAndDelete in pre-segwit and segwit scripts
593 2016-10-19T15:42:06  <GitHub16> bitcoin/master 475d682 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8927: Add script tests for FindAndDelete in pre-segwit and segwit scripts...
594 2016-10-19T15:42:15  <GitHub87> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8927: Add script tests for FindAndDelete in pre-segwit and segwit scripts (master...findanddeletetest) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8927
595 2016-10-19T15:45:05  *** mkarrer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
596 2016-10-19T15:49:06  *** mkarrer_ has quit IRC
597 2016-10-19T15:53:08  *** Anduck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
598 2016-10-19T16:00:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
599 2016-10-19T16:06:56  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
600 2016-10-19T16:11:44  <GitHub183> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/475d68252e9c...c5875773561c
601 2016-10-19T16:11:44  <GitHub183> bitcoin/master 37aefff Matt Corallo: Fix init segfault where InitLoadWallet() calls ATMP before genesis
602 2016-10-19T16:11:44  <GitHub183> bitcoin/master c587577 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8928: Fix init segfault where InitLoadWallet() calls ATMP before genesis...
603 2016-10-19T16:11:59  <GitHub121> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8928: Fix init segfault where InitLoadWallet() calls ATMP before genesis (master...2016-10-fix-segfault) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8928
604 2016-10-19T16:24:38  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
605 2016-10-19T16:28:54  *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
606 2016-10-19T16:29:38  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
607 2016-10-19T16:30:21  <goatpig> is someone trolling the testnet?
608 2016-10-19T16:34:55  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
609 2016-10-19T16:36:25  <btcdrak> goatpig: what do you mean?
610 2016-10-19T16:41:53  <goatpig> someone pointed me to a 4k long fork
611 2016-10-19T16:42:36  <goatpig> got me thinking
612 2016-10-19T16:42:47  <rabidus_> how did your software manage that? :P
613 2016-10-19T16:42:56  <goatpig> no idea, someone showed that to me
614 2016-10-19T16:43:15  <goatpig> so, say i create a SW anyone can spend output
615 2016-10-19T16:43:16  <goatpig> mine it
616 2016-10-19T16:43:18  <goatpig> spend it
617 2016-10-19T16:43:32  <goatpig> that would fork the chain for any 0.13 testnet node
618 2016-10-19T16:43:40  <goatpig> but 0.12 nodes would see it as valid
619 2016-10-19T16:43:51  <goatpig> say I throw in a couple asics and mine the hell out of that fork
620 2016-10-19T16:44:00  <goatpig> I could maintain a testnet fork for a wihle, right?
621 2016-10-19T16:46:33  <arubi> it really doesn't matter what you do.  sure the partitioning of post fork and pre fork nodes is obvious, but that's any soft fork.  you're really fighting hashpower, which is what pow is about
622 2016-10-19T16:46:52  <goatpig> im trying to figure out if someone could pull that out on the testnet
623 2016-10-19T16:47:08  <goatpig> im not concerned about the mainnet because, precisely because of the hashpower competition there
624 2016-10-19T16:47:34  <arubi> you could probably do that on testnet, sure
625 2016-10-19T16:47:41  <goatpig> ok
626 2016-10-19T16:49:48  *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
627 2016-10-19T16:51:46  <Victorsueca> testnet shows "Warning: unknown new rules activate (versionbit 28)
628 2016-10-19T16:51:58  <Victorsueca> activated*
629 2016-10-19T16:52:27  <jtimon> oh, rc already?
630 2016-10-19T16:52:31  <jtimon> oh, rc2 already?
631 2016-10-19T16:53:13  <Victorsueca> yep
632 2016-10-19T16:53:43  *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
633 2016-10-19T16:54:48  *** echonaut has quit IRC
634 2016-10-19T16:55:50  *** echonaut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
635 2016-10-19T16:56:45  <wumpus> yes, rc1 was doa
636 2016-10-19T16:59:01  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
637 2016-10-19T17:00:06  <wumpus> for rc2 we're actually going to upload executables
638 2016-10-19T17:00:10  *** timothy has quit IRC
639 2016-10-19T17:00:13  *** drizztbsd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
640 2016-10-19T17:00:44  *** drizztbsd is now known as timothy
641 2016-10-19T17:02:20  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
642 2016-10-19T17:03:11  <cbit> I'm getting hit with spy nodes again. Running RC1, and just checked the peers connected after running it all night.
643 2016-10-19T17:05:52  <GitHub127> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #8975: Chainparams: Trivial: In AppInit2(), s/Params()/chainparams/ (master...0.13-chainparams-init) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8975
644 2016-10-19T17:07:04  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
645 2016-10-19T17:16:00  *** face has quit IRC
646 2016-10-19T17:22:51  <btcdrak> testnet is a total mess at the moment. Not sure this diff 1 thing is working out very well.
647 2016-10-19T17:31:17  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
648 2016-10-19T17:34:01  *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
649 2016-10-19T17:42:43  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
650 2016-10-19T17:49:27  <Chris_Stewart_5> Yeah, I was trying to figure out what the heck is going on
651 2016-10-19T17:49:53  <Chris_Stewart_5> btcdrak: What is the difficult 1 thing?
652 2016-10-19T17:52:54  <rabidus_> if there is no mined blocks within x minutes, difficulty drops to 1
653 2016-10-19T17:53:21  <rabidus_> so no one can make difficulty bomb at testnet
654 2016-10-19T17:53:24  <Chris_Stewart_5> rabidus_: Yes, but blocks are clearly being mined within the 20 minute threshold, unless it was dropped or something
655 2016-10-19T17:54:07  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
656 2016-10-19T17:55:29  <cbit> uh. 58 connections off a fresh rc2. Everything inbound: 52.xx.... At least I have 6 outbound witness peers off the bat, one being wumpus ha
657 2016-10-19T18:01:21  <molz> how can you tell if your node and other nodes are witness nodes or not?
658 2016-10-19T18:02:28  <rabidus_> i know how to tell that my node is :P
659 2016-10-19T18:03:31  <molz> mine is  0.13.1rc2 but bitnodes doesn't list it as a witness node
660 2016-10-19T18:04:24  <goatpig> shoudn't that be advertized in the services?
661 2016-10-19T18:04:45  <Lauda> cbit just ban it all
662 2016-10-19T18:05:13  *** cbit has quit IRC
663 2016-10-19T18:08:26  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
664 2016-10-19T18:10:56  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
665 2016-10-19T18:18:35  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
666 2016-10-19T18:18:35  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
667 2016-10-19T18:21:36  <achow101> wtf. gitian is failing to build the binaries.
668 2016-10-19T18:23:38  <wumpus> what error? mac/linux/win all built fine here
669 2016-10-19T18:24:12  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
670 2016-10-19T18:25:09  <achow101> it fails for all three for me
671 2016-10-19T18:25:38  <achow101> here's the log starting from actually building the binaries for windows http://pastebin.com/rSDHf76d
672 2016-10-19T18:25:41  <Victorsueca> windows built correctly here using WSL
673 2016-10-19T18:26:16  <wumpus> "
674 2016-10-19T18:26:17  <wumpus> x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1plus)"
675 2016-10-19T18:26:43  <wumpus> either out of memory, or memory corruption/CPU overheat
676 2016-10-19T18:27:14  <wumpus> could also be a compiler bug, but those are extrememly rare, usually it's a hw issue :/
677 2016-10-19T18:27:24  <rabidus_> hot stuff
678 2016-10-19T18:27:29  <achow101> ok... The memory is whatever gitian's default is
679 2016-10-19T18:28:44  <achow101> If it's a hardware issue, i'm not too surprised then. This computer I'm using has some hardware issues.
680 2016-10-19T18:30:35  <wumpus> you could try with lower parallelism
681 2016-10-19T18:30:57  <wumpus> -j8 is a lot, esp. if you didn't increase the amount of memory available
682 2016-10-19T18:31:53  <achow101> ok. I didn't set the -m parameter this time. so I guess I should set that?
683 2016-10-19T18:33:00  <wumpus> --memory 3000 is recommended by reease-process.md
684 2016-10-19T18:33:12  <wumpus> that is if you don't change -j from the default
685 2016-10-19T18:34:04  <achow101> well. I just set it to -j8 and -m 9000 because I have cores and memory to spare
686 2016-10-19T18:54:06  <btcdrak> i just use -j4 and nothing else, works nicely for me
687 2016-10-19T19:00:49  *** BashCo has quit IRC
688 2016-10-19T19:01:25  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
689 2016-10-19T19:02:20  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
690 2016-10-19T19:06:00  *** BashCo has quit IRC
691 2016-10-19T19:06:18  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
692 2016-10-19T19:14:52  *** JackH has quit IRC
693 2016-10-19T19:14:55  *** cbit has quit IRC
694 2016-10-19T19:21:05  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
695 2016-10-19T19:21:30  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
696 2016-10-19T19:27:56  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
697 2016-10-19T19:42:17  *** cbit has quit IRC
698 2016-10-19T19:55:32  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
699 2016-10-19T19:56:41  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
700 2016-10-19T19:59:03  <sipa> wumpus: maybe you know: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/49077/208
701 2016-10-19T19:59:21  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
702 2016-10-19T20:16:55  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
703 2016-10-19T20:19:26  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
704 2016-10-19T20:23:26  *** cbit has quit IRC
705 2016-10-19T20:34:48  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
706 2016-10-19T20:43:29  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
707 2016-10-19T20:47:47  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
708 2016-10-19T20:51:18  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
709 2016-10-19T20:52:18  <michagogo> rc2 detached sigs coming soon?
710 2016-10-19T20:55:30  *** cbit has quit IRC
711 2016-10-19T20:56:06  <michagogo> Oh, right, that's still cfields_
712 2016-10-19T20:56:23  <michagogo> Why did I think wumpus was doing those these days
713 2016-10-19T20:56:59  <cfields_> michagogo: will do in a bit, my cpus are tied up atm
714 2016-10-19T20:58:56  *** cryptapus_afk is now known as cryptapus
715 2016-10-19T21:00:39  <michagogo> cfields_: np
716 2016-10-19T21:02:27  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
717 2016-10-19T21:04:02  <michagogo> cfields_: I think my shell should now be retrying it every 10 minutes until it works
718 2016-10-19T21:04:24  <michagogo> so whenever you push them up, my result should show up
719 2016-10-19T21:05:18  <michagogo> (until <myscript>; do sleep 600; done)
720 2016-10-19T21:05:51  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
721 2016-10-19T21:05:52  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
722 2016-10-19T21:23:15  *** cdecker has quit IRC
723 2016-10-19T21:29:03  <BlueMatt> so there was a reasonably large performance regression in block acceptance time jeremyrubin found a while back...what are folks opinions on https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/2016-10-fix-tx-regression ?
724 2016-10-19T21:29:16  <BlueMatt> it switches ProcessNewBlock's block pointer to a shared_ptr to a const CBlock
725 2016-10-19T21:29:46  <BlueMatt> ehh, fuck it, I'ma just pr it
726 2016-10-19T21:30:35  <sipa> BlueMatt: which pr caused the regression?
727 2016-10-19T21:30:46  <BlueMatt> the one where we moved tx wallet callbacks out of main
728 2016-10-19T21:30:53  <BlueMatt> because now we keep a vector of every tx we connected
729 2016-10-19T21:30:57  <BlueMatt> which requires lots of copies
730 2016-10-19T21:31:10  <BlueMatt> solution: keep a shared_ptr to the block itself either as you deserialize it or as you call into ProcessNewBlock
731 2016-10-19T21:31:33  <BlueMatt> later we should change the CValidationState callback to just take that shared_ptr instead of calling it for each tx
732 2016-10-19T21:31:54  <sipa> does #8515 affect it?
733 2016-10-19T21:32:39  <BlueMatt> sipa: I'm talking about txChanged, not txConflicted
734 2016-10-19T21:32:44  <BlueMatt> so, no
735 2016-10-19T21:32:48  <sipa> ok
736 2016-10-19T21:32:50  <BlueMatt> though probably conflicts like a motherfucker
737 2016-10-19T21:33:15  <BlueMatt> sipa: if you go ahead and rebase that I'll ack it and then we dont have to have two open prs that conflict so much
738 2016-10-19T21:33:19  <BlueMatt> (if you have time)
739 2016-10-19T21:33:43  <sipa> BlueMatt: about to land in SF, i can rebase 8515 in a few hours
740 2016-10-19T21:34:14  <BlueMatt> sipa: alright, I'll hold off until tomorrow
741 2016-10-19T21:34:21  <BlueMatt> sipa: give gmaxwell a big hug from me :p
742 2016-10-19T21:37:07  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
743 2016-10-19T21:37:07  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
744 2016-10-19T21:37:48  <sipa> :)
745 2016-10-19T21:39:40  * gmaxwell guesses he should go into the office.
746 2016-10-19T21:46:12  *** goatpig has quit IRC
747 2016-10-19T21:54:31  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
748 2016-10-19T22:03:51  *** cbit has quit IRC
749 2016-10-19T22:05:59  * achow101 is about to throw his computer out the window
750 2016-10-19T22:06:44  <sipa> achow101: graphics acceleration at 9.81 m/s^2?
751 2016-10-19T22:08:00  <achow101> :)
752 2016-10-19T22:18:30  *** achow101 has quit IRC
753 2016-10-19T22:22:39  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
754 2016-10-19T22:25:15  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
755 2016-10-19T22:28:36  *** cbit has quit IRC
756 2016-10-19T22:31:21  <cfields_> gitian builders: detached sigs for 0.13.1rc2 pushed
757 2016-10-19T22:34:48  *** jannes has quit IRC
758 2016-10-19T22:37:01  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
759 2016-10-19T22:39:16  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
760 2016-10-19T22:40:25  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
761 2016-10-19T22:43:24  *** cbit has quit IRC
762 2016-10-19T22:51:33  <sipa> test
763 2016-10-19T22:51:49  *** sipa has left #bitcoin-core-dev
764 2016-10-19T22:52:01  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
765 2016-10-19T22:52:12  <sipa> d_t: yow
766 2016-10-19T22:54:42  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
767 2016-10-19T22:55:12  *** cbit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
768 2016-10-19T22:56:08  <d_t> sipa: yow
769 2016-10-19T22:56:15  <sipa> :)
770 2016-10-19T23:04:14  *** aalex has quit IRC
771 2016-10-19T23:07:40  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
772 2016-10-19T23:08:32  *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
773 2016-10-19T23:27:04  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
774 2016-10-19T23:27:08  *** alpalp has quit IRC
775 2016-10-19T23:50:18  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev