1 2016-11-03T00:09:13  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
  2 2016-11-03T00:12:03  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  3 2016-11-03T00:13:07  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2016-11-03T00:13:15  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2016-11-03T00:18:09  *** fengling has quit IRC
  6 2016-11-03T00:21:47  *** waxwing has quit IRC
  7 2016-11-03T00:22:32  *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2016-11-03T00:30:26  <GitHub32> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #9071: Declare wallet.h functions inline (master...walletinline) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9071
  9 2016-11-03T00:47:54  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
 10 2016-11-03T00:56:05  *** abpa has quit IRC
 11 2016-11-03T01:06:18  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 12 2016-11-03T01:11:55  <luke-jr> hmm, CAddrMan::Unserialize is insane slow in valgrind
 13 2016-11-03T01:14:17  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2016-11-03T01:16:47  *** zooko has quit IRC
 15 2016-11-03T01:19:12  *** fengling has quit IRC
 16 2016-11-03T01:20:37  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2016-11-03T01:25:45  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2016-11-03T01:30:10  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 19 2016-11-03T01:31:00  *** zooko has quit IRC
 20 2016-11-03T01:37:45  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2016-11-03T01:53:47  *** echonaut5 has quit IRC
 22 2016-11-03T01:53:55  *** echonaut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2016-11-03T01:58:17  *** tunafizz has quit IRC
 24 2016-11-03T01:59:50  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 25 2016-11-03T02:03:05  *** zooko has quit IRC
 26 2016-11-03T02:15:08  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2016-11-03T02:16:17  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2016-11-03T02:36:03  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 29 2016-11-03T02:42:46  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 30 2016-11-03T02:49:50  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2016-11-03T03:06:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 32 2016-11-03T03:12:11  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2016-11-03T03:22:27  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2016-11-03T03:36:28  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
 35 2016-11-03T03:37:52  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2016-11-03T03:40:55  *** rebroad has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 37 2016-11-03T03:41:26  <rebroad> I've enabled debugging and I'm seeing POTENTIAL DEADLOCK DETECTED messages... are these bad?
 38 2016-11-03T03:51:13  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 39 2016-11-03T03:57:12  *** To7 has quit IRC
 40 2016-11-03T04:07:24  *** rebroad has quit IRC
 41 2016-11-03T04:52:07  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2016-11-03T04:59:30  *** justanotheruser is now known as justanother|CHI
 43 2016-11-03T05:28:06  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 44 2016-11-03T05:29:12  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2016-11-03T05:41:17  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 46 2016-11-03T05:42:22  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 47 2016-11-03T05:55:02  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2016-11-03T06:29:30  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
 49 2016-11-03T06:36:46  <GitHub5> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c9bdf9a75f9f...ed0cc50afed1
 50 2016-11-03T06:36:47  <GitHub5> bitcoin/master 0fdf810 Wladimir J. van der Laan: wallet: Change default confirm target from 2 to 6...
 51 2016-11-03T06:36:47  <GitHub5> bitcoin/master ed0cc50 Pieter Wuille: Merge #9036: wallet: Change default confirm target from 2 to 6...
 52 2016-11-03T06:37:00  <GitHub44> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #9036: wallet: Change default confirm target from 2 to 6 (master...2016_10_txconfirmtarget) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9036
 53 2016-11-03T07:09:21  <GitHub46> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ed0cc50afed1...508404de98a8
 54 2016-11-03T07:09:21  <GitHub46> bitcoin/master fd46136 Gregory Maxwell: IBD check uses minimumchain work instead of checkpoints....
 55 2016-11-03T07:09:22  <GitHub46> bitcoin/master 2082b55 Gregory Maxwell: Remove GetTotalBlocksEstimate and checkpoint tests that test nothing....
 56 2016-11-03T07:09:22  <GitHub46> bitcoin/master e141beb Gregory Maxwell: IsInitialBlockDownload no longer uses header-only timestamps....
 57 2016-11-03T07:09:29  <GitHub127> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #9053: IBD using chainwork instead of height and not using header timestamps (master...no_checkpoint_for_ibd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9053
 58 2016-11-03T07:24:38  *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
 59 2016-11-03T07:31:44  *** kadoban has quit IRC
 60 2016-11-03T07:40:46  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2016-11-03T07:51:53  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 62 2016-11-03T08:16:29  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2016-11-03T08:35:12  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2016-11-03T08:38:38  *** atroxes has quit IRC
 65 2016-11-03T08:47:10  *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2016-11-03T09:14:50  <GitHub156> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9061: Ignore getheaders prior to passing all checkpoints. (master...FixGetheadersResponseWhenSyncing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9061
 67 2016-11-03T09:19:25  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
 68 2016-11-03T09:22:38  <luke-jr> lol 2016-11-03 08:34:25 Flushed 65607 addresses to peers.dat  13896962ms
 69 2016-11-03T09:22:41  <GitHub127> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/508404de98a8...d1871da7fe63
 70 2016-11-03T09:22:41  <GitHub127> bitcoin/master 2ca882a Pieter Wuille: Declare wallet.h functions inline
 71 2016-11-03T09:22:42  <GitHub127> bitcoin/master d1871da Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9071: Declare wallet.h functions inline...
 72 2016-11-03T09:22:50  <GitHub139> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9071: Declare wallet.h functions inline (master...walletinline) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9071
 73 2016-11-03T09:32:41  *** Sosumi has quit IRC
 74 2016-11-03T09:45:43  <GitHub52> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d1871da7fe63...fcf61b80fa2c
 75 2016-11-03T09:45:44  <GitHub52> bitcoin/master aff6584 Cory Fields: net: constify a few CNode vars to indicate that they're threadsafe
 76 2016-11-03T09:45:44  <GitHub52> bitcoin/master 59ac5c5 Cory Fields: net: Use deterministic randomness for CNode's nonce, and make it const
 77 2016-11-03T09:45:45  <GitHub52> bitcoin/master fcf61b8 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9050: net: make a few values immutable, and use deterministic randomness for the localnonce...
 78 2016-11-03T09:45:53  <GitHub54> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9050: net: make a few values immutable, and use deterministic randomness for the localnonce (master...connman-const) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9050
 79 2016-11-03T09:46:16  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2016-11-03T09:46:54  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 81 2016-11-03T09:53:49  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 82 2016-11-03T10:02:49  *** Tiraspol has quit IRC
 83 2016-11-03T10:05:55  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 84 2016-11-03T10:07:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 85 2016-11-03T10:12:20  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2016-11-03T10:27:03  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2016-11-03T10:28:34  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2016-11-03T11:05:21  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 89 2016-11-03T11:09:37  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 90 2016-11-03T11:13:03  *** fengling has quit IRC
 91 2016-11-03T11:31:26  *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2016-11-03T11:33:52  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 93 2016-11-03T11:34:28  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2016-11-03T11:46:48  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2016-11-03T11:51:54  *** fengling has quit IRC
 96 2016-11-03T12:09:34  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2016-11-03T12:16:58  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2016-11-03T12:19:52  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 99 2016-11-03T12:27:39  *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
100 2016-11-03T12:35:52  *** xinxi has quit IRC
101 2016-11-03T12:36:19  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102 2016-11-03T12:40:44  *** xinxi has quit IRC
103 2016-11-03T12:41:20  *** To7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2016-11-03T12:47:49  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
105 2016-11-03T12:52:57  *** fengling has quit IRC
106 2016-11-03T12:53:06  *** atroxes has quit IRC
107 2016-11-03T12:53:23  *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2016-11-03T12:59:52  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
109 2016-11-03T13:00:49  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2016-11-03T13:03:05  *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
111 2016-11-03T13:09:16  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112 2016-11-03T13:09:38  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2016-11-03T13:19:59  *** xinxi has quit IRC
114 2016-11-03T13:20:26  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2016-11-03T13:24:56  *** xinxi has quit IRC
116 2016-11-03T13:48:49  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2016-11-03T13:54:00  *** fengling has quit IRC
118 2016-11-03T13:58:02  <GitHub2> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #9073: Trivial: Add common failure cases for rpc server connection failure (master...rpcnoconnectstring) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9073
119 2016-11-03T14:01:47  *** abpa has quit IRC
120 2016-11-03T14:14:42  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
121 2016-11-03T14:20:02  *** xinxi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2016-11-03T14:23:09  *** xinxi has quit IRC
123 2016-11-03T14:30:02  <BlueMatt> wumpus: any update on #8969? Should I solicit more review?
124 2016-11-03T14:30:03  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8969 | Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connection-logic (#2) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #8969 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
125 2016-11-03T14:30:12  <BlueMatt> thanks gribble!
126 2016-11-03T14:31:06  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
127 2016-11-03T14:33:45  <wumpus> seems ok to me
128 2016-11-03T14:41:07  *** eenoch has quit IRC
129 2016-11-03T14:46:14  <BlueMatt> lol, go to test some latency issues i was observing on fibre network....realize i cant because all the chinese peering in tokyo is currently entirely fucked
130 2016-11-03T14:46:22  <BlueMatt> oh well, good thing i have other routes....
131 2016-11-03T14:47:41  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2016-11-03T14:49:58  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2016-11-03T14:52:20  <instagibbs> where is the rpc test cache directory by default?
134 2016-11-03T14:52:41  <BlueMatt>  /tmp/${shit}
135 2016-11-03T14:52:48  <sdaftuar> qa/
136 2016-11-03T14:52:56  <BlueMatt> oh, cache, yea, qa/
137 2016-11-03T14:53:00  <BlueMatt> test runs are /tmp/thing
138 2016-11-03T14:53:01  <sdaftuar> qa/cache, i guess
139 2016-11-03T14:53:31  <wumpus> yes
140 2016-11-03T14:54:45  <instagibbs> ok, looking thanks
141 2016-11-03T14:55:03  *** fengling has quit IRC
142 2016-11-03T14:57:58  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
143 2016-11-03T14:59:46  <instagibbs> actually it appears to be top level directory
144 2016-11-03T14:59:50  <instagibbs> bitcoin/cache
145 2016-11-03T15:02:03  <sdaftuar> actually i think it depends on where you run the tests from, there are relative paths used in test_framework.py
146 2016-11-03T15:03:46  <instagibbs> Ah, I'm running individually from top-level
147 2016-11-03T15:04:10  <instagibbs> My cache somehow got corrupted and tests were failing due to this
148 2016-11-03T15:04:36  <instagibbs> and if it finds all the nodeX's directories, it never tries to rebuilt it
149 2016-11-03T15:07:41  <wumpus> sdaftuar: I'm fairly sure that was made consistent recently
150 2016-11-03T15:12:03  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
151 2016-11-03T15:32:05  <GitHub173> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fcf61b80fa2c...3665483be7be
152 2016-11-03T15:32:07  <GitHub173> bitcoin/master 65f35eb Matt Corallo: Move FlushStateToDisk call out of ProcessMessages::TX into ATMP
153 2016-11-03T15:32:07  <GitHub173> bitcoin/master fc0c24f Matt Corallo: Move MarkBlockAsReceived out of ProcessNewMessage
154 2016-11-03T15:32:07  <GitHub173> bitcoin/master d6ea737 Matt Corallo: Remove network state wipe from UnloadBlockIndex....
155 2016-11-03T15:32:20  <GitHub146> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8969: Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connection-logic (#2) (master...net_processing_2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8969
156 2016-11-03T15:33:10  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
157 2016-11-03T15:42:23  *** eenoch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2016-11-03T15:50:58  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2016-11-03T15:56:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
160 2016-11-03T16:18:13  *** Sosumi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2016-11-03T16:26:55  *** notmike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162 2016-11-03T16:27:10  *** notmike has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2016-11-03T16:33:15  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
164 2016-11-03T16:40:06  *** echonaut has quit IRC
165 2016-11-03T16:40:10  *** echonaut6 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2016-11-03T16:41:39  *** notmike has quit IRC
167 2016-11-03T16:46:22  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2016-11-03T16:52:00  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
169 2016-11-03T16:54:07  *** roidster has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2016-11-03T16:54:25  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
171 2016-11-03T16:54:46  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
172 2016-11-03T16:57:09  *** fengling has quit IRC
173 2016-11-03T16:58:12  *** ryanofsky has quit IRC
174 2016-11-03T17:01:17  <jtimon> the meeting is in 2 hours, right?
175 2016-11-03T17:01:24  <Chris_Stewart_5> Yes
176 2016-11-03T17:01:30  <jtimon> thanks
177 2016-11-03T17:01:37  <sipa> indeed
178 2016-11-03T17:08:45  <cfields_> I won't make the meeting today, boarding a flight now
179 2016-11-03T17:10:41  *** ryanofsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2016-11-03T17:12:20  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
181 2016-11-03T17:14:53  <wumpus> cfields_: no problem, have a good flight
182 2016-11-03T17:16:23  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
183 2016-11-03T17:25:44  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
184 2016-11-03T17:41:11  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
185 2016-11-03T17:44:13  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
186 2016-11-03T17:45:25  <instagibbs> any tricks on attaching gdb to an rpc node instance?
187 2016-11-03T17:45:34  <instagibbs> rpc test*
188 2016-11-03T17:47:42  <jonasschnelli> instagibbs: i do that often... let me check...
189 2016-11-03T17:49:34  <jonasschnelli> instagibbs: this is my snipped:
190 2016-11-03T17:49:35  <jonasschnelli> http://0bin.net/paste/jZuj8LLRSDoQdNkJ#XXGoCkylN0Cjy3v1iDov9l6dzT-eaaQ/6xFz+gKmMBV
191 2016-11-03T17:50:06  <jonasschnelli> I start a node with my local IDE&debugger(lldb) and add it via self.nodes.append(proxy)
192 2016-11-03T17:50:32  <jonasschnelli> I guess you could also add a sleep or a readline and attach gdb and continue after a successfull attach
193 2016-11-03T17:51:30  *** jtimon has quit IRC
194 2016-11-03T17:52:46  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
195 2016-11-03T17:57:35  *** fengling has quit IRC
196 2016-11-03T18:01:57  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
197 2016-11-03T18:05:44  *** atroxes has quit IRC
198 2016-11-03T18:06:17  <instagibbs> (after digging solution) I just set_trace like normal in python, then used gdb attach. Thanks jonasschnelli
199 2016-11-03T18:07:24  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
200 2016-11-03T18:13:53  *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
201 2016-11-03T18:20:34  <GitHub83> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3665483be7be...82077ef6e49a
202 2016-11-03T18:20:34  <GitHub83> bitcoin/master 8f329f9 instagibbs: Add common failure cases for rpc server connection failure
203 2016-11-03T18:20:35  <GitHub83> bitcoin/master 82077ef Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9073: Trivial: Add common failure cases for rpc server connection failure...
204 2016-11-03T18:20:47  <GitHub32> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9073: Trivial: Add common failure cases for rpc server connection failure (master...rpcnoconnectstring) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9073
205 2016-11-03T18:21:47  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2016-11-03T18:27:15  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
207 2016-11-03T18:39:15  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2016-11-03T18:48:28  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
209 2016-11-03T18:53:54  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
210 2016-11-03T18:58:38  *** fengling has quit IRC
211 2016-11-03T18:59:34  <luke-jr> morning :p
212 2016-11-03T19:00:20  <achow101> meeting?
213 2016-11-03T19:00:31  <instagibbs> i believe so
214 2016-11-03T19:00:33  <Chris_Stewart_5> ding?
215 2016-11-03T19:00:39  <wumpus> #startmeeting
216 2016-11-03T19:00:39  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Nov  3 19:00:39 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
217 2016-11-03T19:00:39  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
218 2016-11-03T19:00:44  <sipa> meeting!
219 2016-11-03T19:00:53  <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012
220 2016-11-03T19:01:02  <gmaxwell> hi
221 2016-11-03T19:01:03  <jonasschnelli> here
222 2016-11-03T19:01:08  <jtimon> hello
223 2016-11-03T19:01:17  <GitHub136> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #9075: Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connection-logic (#3) (master...net_processing_4) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9075
224 2016-11-03T19:01:18  <BlueMatt> second to last one ^
225 2016-11-03T19:01:39  <wumpus> BlueMatt: you just keep reopening it after we merge it, isn't it :)
226 2016-11-03T19:01:45  <wumpus> proposed topics?
227 2016-11-03T19:02:10  <BlueMatt> wumpus: E_NO_PARSE, but, yes, all this stuff is pretty much queued up, once one gets merged another gets pr'd
228 2016-11-03T19:02:59  <wumpus> no topics at all for this meeting?
229 2016-11-03T19:03:20  <wumpus> did the pre-final alert go out gmaxwell?
230 2016-11-03T19:03:24  <achow101> it did
231 2016-11-03T19:03:29  <wumpus> ok, great
232 2016-11-03T19:03:38  <sipa> did anyone see it?
233 2016-11-03T19:03:41  <btcdrak> hi
234 2016-11-03T19:03:42  <sdaftuar> i did
235 2016-11-03T19:03:50  <achow101> I caught it on a 0.12.0 node I fired up just for it
236 2016-11-03T19:04:21  <arubi> I have it on onlynet=onion
237 2016-11-03T19:04:25  <sipa> gmaxwell and i were talking recently about some improvements to the block/header fetch logic
238 2016-11-03T19:04:50  <wumpus> #topic block header/fetch logic
239 2016-11-03T19:05:03  <sipa> there are a bunch of related points there
240 2016-11-03T19:05:14  <sipa> one is that we don't have a timeout for headers requests
241 2016-11-03T19:05:36  <jtimon> BlueMatt: is there a long branch where I can see the code movements you're planning?
242 2016-11-03T19:05:54  <BlueMatt> jtimon: working on an updated version now
243 2016-11-03T19:05:55  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
244 2016-11-03T19:05:59  <sipa> and that we don't respond to headers requests while in IBD, which can cause stalls if nodes mistakenly believe they are in IBD
245 2016-11-03T19:06:21  <sipa> bit it goes even further... the block fetch logic only disconnects peers who slow down the process
246 2016-11-03T19:06:41  <sipa> we may just have a peer who has no blocks we can fetch at all from, and we never try, and we never disconnect them
247 2016-11-03T19:07:01  *** Chris_St1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
248 2016-11-03T19:07:04  <sdaftuar> sipa: eg non-NODE_WITNESS nodes?
249 2016-11-03T19:07:11  <jtimon> BlueMatt: cool
250 2016-11-03T19:07:15  <sipa> sdaftuar: or nodes who are legitimately behind
251 2016-11-03T19:07:18  <sdaftuar> ah, right
252 2016-11-03T19:07:50  <sipa> so it seems there is a simple solution: disconnect outgoing connections you're not downloading from while in IBD
253 2016-11-03T19:07:58  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
254 2016-11-03T19:08:13  <sipa> but remove the non-response to getheaders in IBD
255 2016-11-03T19:08:30  <jonasschnelli> sipa: ack
256 2016-11-03T19:08:35  <sipa> if the peer actually is behind, we won't fetch from them, and we'll disconnect them instead of stalling yhem
257 2016-11-03T19:09:30  <sipa> gmaxwell suggested something even stronger: ever minute, disconnect the peer that is slowest to give you blocks overall (during IBD)
258 2016-11-03T19:09:35  <sdaftuar> if we remove the non-response to getheaders in IBD, mightn't we disconnect people who are downloading from us?
259 2016-11-03T19:09:54  <jonasschnelli> During IBD?
260 2016-11-03T19:10:05  <sipa> sdaftuar: note that this is only for outgoing connections
261 2016-11-03T19:10:14  <sdaftuar> ah
262 2016-11-03T19:10:48  <sipa> i think serving blocks to someone who is even more behind than us, whike we are in IBD, is perfectly fine
263 2016-11-03T19:10:58  <gmaxwell> I believe my suggestion went further, if you have MAX outbound, and it's been a minute since you disconnected anyone, and you're downloading blocks, disconnect the outbound peer you recieved the fewest blocks from in the last minute. (or, least recently recieved a block from). Presumably excempting -connect peers.
264 2016-11-03T19:11:06  <gmaxwell> (ah pieter just said some of that)
265 2016-11-03T19:11:42  <jonasschnelli> What about prioritize peers that can server "faster" (don't know if it's really measurable)
266 2016-11-03T19:12:05  <sdaftuar> sipa: one complication with serving headers during IBD is that we might be on a bogus chain
267 2016-11-03T19:12:14  <sipa> jonasschnelli: that's what we already do... the slowest ones get disconnected if they slow your overall sync speed down
268 2016-11-03T19:12:28  <jonasschnelli> sipa: ah
269 2016-11-03T19:12:58  <sipa> sdaftuar: that's something better IBD/chainpoint replacement is for, i guess?
270 2016-11-03T19:13:09  <sipa> *checkpoint
271 2016-11-03T19:13:23  <jonasschnelli> during my SPV work I encountered some stalling because of peers serving blocks each in a ~5min rhythm.
272 2016-11-03T19:13:30  <sdaftuar> i thought gmaxwell's PR to replcae the checkpointed-height with a checkpointed work as a way to determine if you're in IBD makes sense
273 2016-11-03T19:14:07  <sdaftuar> so if we eliminate the IBD restriction on serving headers, we'd still want to keep some version of that checkpointed-work requirement i think
274 2016-11-03T19:15:09  <sdaftuar> which i guess would be fine?
275 2016-11-03T19:15:15  <sdaftuar> and an improvement over the current situation
276 2016-11-03T19:15:18  <sdaftuar> ?
277 2016-11-03T19:15:20  <kanzure> hi.
278 2016-11-03T19:15:22  <sipa> i think so
279 2016-11-03T19:15:54  <sipa> it's hard to reason about this. if you're truly sybilled during IBD, none of this will have an effect
280 2016-11-03T19:16:07  <sipa> if not, you'll quickly learn about the real chain anyway
281 2016-11-03T19:16:24  *** atroxes has quit IRC
282 2016-11-03T19:17:22  <Chris_St1> sipa: So that pull request does not help if you are fully sybilled? Won't you at least be able to determine if there was a lot of work expended in the sybil attack? (not sure how reassuring that is)
283 2016-11-03T19:17:41  <gmaxwell> this is going offtopic. :)
284 2016-11-03T19:18:17  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
285 2016-11-03T19:18:17  <gmaxwell> sipa: sdaftuar is pointing out that if we're on a checkpoint invalid chain, and serve headers for it, our peers will ban us. So thats a complication with serving headers while below the top checkpoint.
286 2016-11-03T19:18:45  <sipa> ah.
287 2016-11-03T19:19:17  <sdaftuar> right, so assuming we are keeping the checkpoint-work-requirement (or some version of it) as a gate on responding to a getheaders, then which of the IBD checks are we trying to eliminate?
288 2016-11-03T19:19:42  <sdaftuar> from past conversations i think the concern is that we might have some long headers chain that we can't access/download blocks towards, like on testnet or something
289 2016-11-03T19:19:46  <sdaftuar> is that basicalyl right?
290 2016-11-03T19:20:14  <gmaxwell> We'd like to eliminate all cases where we simply ignore a getheaders request (potentially replace it with hanging up on the peer)-- because it DOS attacks peers unlucky enough to select us for their initial headers fetch.
291 2016-11-03T19:20:27  <sipa> we only serve headers for blocks in our main chain, no?
292 2016-11-03T19:20:35  <sdaftuar> sipa: yes
293 2016-11-03T19:20:38  <sipa> which indeed may contains dummy low difficulty blocks
294 2016-11-03T19:21:40  <gmaxwell> In any case, the download part of this can be done first before any change to how we respond to getheaders.
295 2016-11-03T19:21:51  <sipa> right
296 2016-11-03T19:21:59  <morcos> gmaxwell: thanks, i think it was important to clearly delineate the problem.  i didn't know what we were trying to accomplish.  it doesn't seem that having a bunch of IBD nodes able to serve each other as much as they have is _that_ beneficial
297 2016-11-03T19:22:19  <morcos> however freeing them up to ask someone else for headers withotu waiting for a long timeout seems valuable
298 2016-11-03T19:22:29  <GitHub84> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt closed pull request #8930: Move orphan processing to ActivateBestChain (master...net_processing_3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8930
299 2016-11-03T19:22:33  <gmaxwell> morcos: yes, thats mostly irrelevant, the concern is primarily that we cause harm to peers by not responding.
300 2016-11-03T19:22:54  *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2016-11-03T19:22:58  <gmaxwell> morcos: My recollection is that currently we don't even have a timeout for the initial headers fetch! the 'timeout' is a new block being offered by some other peer.
302 2016-11-03T19:23:14  <sdaftuar> so step 1: #9068?
303 2016-11-03T19:23:15  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9068 | Timeout for headers fetch · Issue #9068 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
304 2016-11-03T19:23:35  <sipa> morcos: right... i think by using a "kick peers that aren't useful for sync" generic approach, we won't need the "don't serve headers while in IBD" anyway... less comllexity
305 2016-11-03T19:23:40  <sipa> *complexity
306 2016-11-03T19:24:31  <luke-jr> (suggested topic: when to halt changes to BIPs; 0.13.1 is no longer BIP 152-compatible I think)
307 2016-11-03T19:24:35  <gmaxwell> That should be fixed as well, but even with it fixed it would be rude to make them wait.
308 2016-11-03T19:28:16  <wumpus> 0.13.1 is no longer BIP 152 compatible?
309 2016-11-03T19:28:25  <sdaftuar> well, it seems to have some bugs
310 2016-11-03T19:28:39  <BlueMatt> 0.13.1 is bip 152 compatible after sdaftuar's proposed changes
311 2016-11-03T19:28:52  <sipa> switch topic?
312 2016-11-03T19:28:59  <wumpus> #topic BIP 152 changes
313 2016-11-03T19:29:10  <BlueMatt> which was merged
314 2016-11-03T19:29:18  <sipa> 0.13.1 does not relayever before validating, right?
315 2016-11-03T19:29:21  <wumpus> but if it has bugs, was it ever BIP 152 compatible?
316 2016-11-03T19:29:29  <BlueMatt> sipa: yes, but it can ban in response to a peer doing that
317 2016-11-03T19:29:31  <wumpus> or were the bugsin the BIP
318 2016-11-03T19:29:34  <sdaftuar> sipa: correct
319 2016-11-03T19:29:42  <BlueMatt> sipa: the bip has been updated to say that you may no longer pre-relay unless there was a version bump
320 2016-11-03T19:29:56  <BlueMatt> which is #9026
321 2016-11-03T19:29:57  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9026 | Fix handling of invalid compact blocks by sdaftuar · Pull Request #9026 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
322 2016-11-03T19:30:05  <sipa> so the issue is only when potential other bip152 implementations are oresent on the network
323 2016-11-03T19:30:11  <sdaftuar> right
324 2016-11-03T19:30:27  <BlueMatt> sipa: yes, but no such implementations exist, and if they do it now they must wait for the protocol version
325 2016-11-03T19:30:30  <sipa> so i believe 0.13.1 is compliant with the updated bip152
326 2016-11-03T19:30:38  <BlueMatt> yes
327 2016-11-03T19:30:39  <sdaftuar> yes, i think so as well.
328 2016-11-03T19:30:45  <gmaxwell> sipa: unfortunately because of the checkpoint stupidity we may still. :(
329 2016-11-03T19:30:46  <gmaxwell> but lets think about that outside of the meeting.
330 2016-11-03T19:30:46  <gmaxwell> 0.13.0 did too.
331 2016-11-03T19:30:46  <gmaxwell> But I think what luke was referring to is that BIP152 didn't originally document version 2 compact blocks that use the wtxid instead.
332 2016-11-03T19:30:57  <luke-jr> wumpus: people are changing BIP 152 still
333 2016-11-03T19:31:14  <gmaxwell> Luke's question was really about when should someone be told 'write a new BIP' rather than changing an existing one.
334 2016-11-03T19:31:26  <sipa> yes, this is a good question
335 2016-11-03T19:32:04  <luke-jr> I may be wrong about the current status of v0.13.1 and BIP 152, but yes, the general principle is what I think needs to be discussed
336 2016-11-03T19:32:30  <gmaxwell> Not really much of a question for this meeting though, perhaps solicit input on the mailing list?
337 2016-11-03T19:32:42  <luke-jr> I didn't realise v0.13.1 bumped the protocol version-number
338 2016-11-03T19:32:47  <sdaftuar> it didn't
339 2016-11-03T19:32:49  <luke-jr> hmm, ok
340 2016-11-03T19:33:10  <morcos> i don't think its realistic to think we're going to not want to make small tweaks to complicated BIP's like this after releasing implementations of it.  and it seems much clearer in the future to just edit the original bip to reflect the fully thought out final design
341 2016-11-03T19:33:14  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: then how is it BIP 152 compatible iwth your change?
342 2016-11-03T19:33:42  <sdaftuar> luke-jr: it imposes a restriction on code to not do something (which no one is currently doing) unless the recipient is at-or-above the bumped version number
343 2016-11-03T19:33:54  <sdaftuar> in this case, relay before full validation
344 2016-11-03T19:35:14  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: for the specifics here, 0.13.1 is compatible with BIP152 because it implements a new version number that the original bip152 was just silent on.
345 2016-11-03T19:35:30  <luke-jr> it says "nodes SHOULD NOT ban a peer for announcing a new block with a CMPCTBLOCK message that is invalid, but has a valid header" unconditionally, and says nodes should bump the version number
346 2016-11-03T19:36:16  <BlueMatt> oh, well that is a language mistake
347 2016-11-03T19:36:20  <gmaxwell> and BIP152 already explained how versions were to be handled in a compatible way.
348 2016-11-03T19:36:30  <BlueMatt> by that language, indeed, 0.13.1 violates a SHOULD NOT
349 2016-11-03T19:36:43  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: re banning it's just a bug that all prior versions have as well.
350 2016-11-03T19:37:14  <BlueMatt> however, this wont effect functionality, as we're a) fixing this as if it were a bug, b) we say you SHOULD NOT announce without validation if the number is below
351 2016-11-03T19:37:54  <luke-jr> ok
352 2016-11-03T19:37:59  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
353 2016-11-03T19:39:02  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: with this change, as the author are you comfortable with a freeze to the BIP so we can move it forward to Final status?
354 2016-11-03T19:39:21  *** Chris_St1 has quit IRC
355 2016-11-03T19:40:08  <gmaxwell> is there a reason to rush?
356 2016-11-03T19:40:44  <wumpus> is this about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9058? there was also talk of a protocol change there
357 2016-11-03T19:40:47  <BlueMatt> luke-jr: after https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/469, yea, probably
358 2016-11-03T19:40:51  <BlueMatt> but need to review tht
359 2016-11-03T19:40:52  <BlueMatt> at
360 2016-11-03T19:41:20  <wumpus> I thought it mentioned a BIP change, but doesn't seem to mention that anymore
361 2016-11-03T19:41:22  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: how will existing nodes react if they get a full block message there?
362 2016-11-03T19:41:45  <morcos> i don't see why we should Finalize it at all until we've stopped changing it for 6-12 mos
363 2016-11-03T19:42:28  <wumpus> morcos: makes sense to not finalize too soon, it's unrealistic to expect a bip to come into being completely perfect
364 2016-11-03T19:42:31  <sipa> i think it depends
365 2016-11-03T19:42:34  <gmaxwell> Agreed with Morcos. Though for things like consensus code, really being widely active on the network defines final.
366 2016-11-03T19:42:42  <sipa> there shouldn't be material changes to ideas
367 2016-11-03T19:42:47  <luke-jr> no particular reason to rush, I guess, just feels like a moving goal for anyone who wanted to be compatible with it
368 2016-11-03T19:43:07  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: at least they are minor alterations.
369 2016-11-03T19:43:09  <wumpus> that's always the case. Others could also report problems encountered during implementing it
370 2016-11-03T19:43:13  <sipa> but clarifications and elaborating on edge cases is something else
371 2016-11-03T19:43:22  <morcos> gmaxwell: heh, even there, its a matter of whether we are confident that we've really understood what the consensus is.   but yeah i agree it shoudl depend on the changes we want to make.
372 2016-11-03T19:43:26  <luke-jr> sipa: sure, we still make clarifications to Final BIPs even now I think
373 2016-11-03T19:43:29  <BlueMatt> luke-jr: agreed, it sucks that its still moving, but currently there are no other implementors (except XT, which I believe is still moving as well)
374 2016-11-03T19:43:53  <wumpus> it could also move because of problems other implementors find
375 2016-11-03T19:44:53  <luke-jr> since it's being used live on the network, changes also should probably address backwards compatibility, which they aren't in this case
376 2016-11-03T19:45:05  <wumpus> it's just unrealsitic to expect not even small issues in wording/clarity/definitions, although I guess if it is in a release there should not be substantial incompatible changes anymore
377 2016-11-03T19:45:48  <gmaxwell> morcos: so interesting point, say we discovered that BIP30 was implemented differently from the BIP tomorrow. What should we do?   IETF way would be to attach an erratum to the document right away. But I find that this often confuses people who manage to read the document without an erratum. Then later a new document is published that reflects reality.  Though this has a problem that people reme
378 2016-11-03T19:45:48  <gmaxwell> mber the original number.
379 2016-11-03T19:45:48  <gmaxwell> If no one of consequence actually implemented BIP30 as specified in the doc, what use does keeping the old doc around (except in the git history) serve?
380 2016-11-03T19:45:48  <wumpus> yes, those at least will need to address backwards compatibilty
381 2016-11-03T19:46:28  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I *think* we've fixed such issues in Final BIPs already
382 2016-11-03T19:46:45  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: we're not plaintext, lets highlight it in red! :p
383 2016-11-03T19:46:51  <luke-jr> >_<
384 2016-11-03T19:46:53  <morcos> yes, BIP 34 for example
385 2016-11-03T19:47:34  <morcos> ehh, i guess that was just wrong explanation
386 2016-11-03T19:47:50  <luke-jr> BIP 16
387 2016-11-03T19:48:01  <luke-jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki#520byte_limitation_on_serialized_script_size
388 2016-11-03T19:48:02  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/520 | log low-level network messages only when fDebug is set by tcatm · Pull Request #520 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
389 2016-11-03T19:48:03  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: the erratum link on the ietf website is red, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6716
390 2016-11-03T19:48:35  * luke-jr looks at gribble
391 2016-11-03T19:49:20  <gmaxwell> I warned about that!
392 2016-11-03T19:49:56  <gmaxwell> In any case, I still think that the BIP discussion belongs elsewhere. :)
393 2016-11-03T19:50:47  <morcos> well you come up with something else to talk about for 11 more minutes then!
394 2016-11-03T19:51:03  <gmaxwell> wumpus: sipa: thanks for merging lots of stuff!
395 2016-11-03T19:51:12  <BlueMatt> <3
396 2016-11-03T19:51:13  <sdaftuar> +1
397 2016-11-03T19:51:16  <wumpus> I think there was some pull where we wondered whether to backport to 0.13.2
398 2016-11-03T19:51:27  <wumpus> np :)
399 2016-11-03T19:51:48  <BlueMatt> making 0.14 great again!
400 2016-11-03T19:51:50  <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9053
401 2016-11-03T19:51:56  <jtimon> topic potential backports to 0.13.2 ?
402 2016-11-03T19:52:38  <wumpus> I don't think there's time enough to discuss all potential backports to 0.13.2, but that one would do
403 2016-11-03T19:53:18  <gmaxwell> I think it would be harmless to backport, and helpful for testnet nodes.  But I don't have a strong opinion.
404 2016-11-03T19:53:23  <gmaxwell> oh I see sipa mentioned testnet.
405 2016-11-03T19:54:12  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
406 2016-11-03T19:54:14  <wumpus> so I guess in practice it fixes testnet issues only on 0.13.2, so the question would be is that worth it to potential regressions?
407 2016-11-03T19:54:41  <sdaftuar> it's not that much of a fix for testnet right, it just allows you to reorg out the non-segwit chain?
408 2016-11-03T19:54:55  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
409 2016-11-03T19:55:09  <gmaxwell> it does actually fix a misbehavior that we see on testnet. <famous last words>I can't see it causing a regression.</famous last words>
410 2016-11-03T19:55:50  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: because of the 20 minute rule in general it's very easy to get testnet nodes into a state where they just stop mining. Trivial vulnerablity, the active issue is that the non-segwit chain there unintentionally triggers it from time to time.
411 2016-11-03T19:56:16  <gmaxwell> ('stop mining' is ambigious, they won't mine after they're restarted)
412 2016-11-03T19:56:31  *** LeMiner2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
413 2016-11-03T19:56:48  <sdaftuar> fwiw i have a few bridges of my own back up now that i hope will keep that from happening again
414 2016-11-03T19:56:58  <sdaftuar> can you elaborate on the 20 minute rule though?
415 2016-11-03T19:57:08  <sdaftuar> oh
416 2016-11-03T19:57:23  <wumpus> I think personally I'd prefer to keep it for 0.14, so the new rule/logic can prove itself a while
417 2016-11-03T19:57:44  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: the issue is that if anyone produces a lot of headers beyond your current tip which you accept (made computationally easy by the diff1 blocks) then you'll not leave IBD.
418 2016-11-03T19:58:29  <sdaftuar> got it
419 2016-11-03T19:58:40  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: the non-segwit chain does this by accident through a confluence of other behaviors (the not fetching blocks from non-witness peers). But the real bug is just using forward header count to cause you to not leave ibd.
420 2016-11-03T19:58:49  <gmaxwell> which that PR fixes.
421 2016-11-03T19:58:52  *** LeMiner has quit IRC
422 2016-11-03T19:58:52  *** LeMiner2 is now known as LeMiner
423 2016-11-03T19:58:58  <sipa> wumpus: ok, we can of course later decide to backport to whatever 0.13.x at that time
424 2016-11-03T19:59:07  <wumpus> sipa: yes
425 2016-11-03T19:59:16  <gmaxwell> sounds fine to me.
426 2016-11-03T19:59:19  <wumpus> that doesn't prohibit backporting it later
427 2016-11-03T19:59:36  <gmaxwell> because of the latching in IBD this code is pretty robust against mistbehavior to begin with.
428 2016-11-03T19:59:41  *** fengling has quit IRC
429 2016-11-03T20:00:05  <sipa> $-+(#(_+$+ PC LOAD LETTER
430 2016-11-03T20:00:22  <wumpus> #endmeeting
431 2016-11-03T20:00:22  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Nov  3 20:00:22 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
432 2016-11-03T20:00:22  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-11-03-19.00.html
433 2016-11-03T20:00:22  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-11-03-19.00.txt
434 2016-11-03T20:00:22  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-11-03-19.00.log.html
435 2016-11-03T20:00:45  <gmaxwell> Thanks all!
436 2016-11-03T20:02:58  *** BakSAj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
437 2016-11-03T20:03:03  <BakSAj> hi
438 2016-11-03T20:03:14  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
439 2016-11-03T20:03:48  <BakSAj> meeting in progress?
440 2016-11-03T20:04:05  <BlueMatt> over :/
441 2016-11-03T20:04:06  <jtimon> BakSAj: no, it just finished
442 2016-11-03T20:04:08  <GitHub16> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #9076: [WIP][Experimental] Add Hybrid full block SPV mode (master...2016/10/spv) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9076
443 2016-11-03T20:05:10  <BakSAj> oh, moved to 8pm or ...smth to do with daylight saving change?
444 2016-11-03T20:05:28  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
445 2016-11-03T20:05:51  <jtimon> BakSAj: it's fixed to UTC, so yes its because your time zone changed
446 2016-11-03T20:06:01  <gmaxwell> The meeting time is in GMT, otherwise it moves 6 times a year (for different people).
447 2016-11-03T20:06:43  <BakSAj> makes sense :-)
448 2016-11-03T20:06:51  <BakSAj> i will reread the log
449 2016-11-03T20:06:53  <wumpus> you should put it in your calendar in Reykjavik time, which is a city in an awesome country in UTC+0 that has no DST nonsense
450 2016-11-03T20:07:05  <BakSAj> btw, do we have feature list for 0.14 yet?
451 2016-11-03T20:07:26  <sipa> BakSAj: whatever makes it before the feature freeze :)
452 2016-11-03T20:07:30  <wumpus> master is always the most up to date branch, everything in there will make it into 0.14
453 2016-11-03T20:07:33  <jtimon> wumpus: I heard the country is governed by pirates
454 2016-11-03T20:07:35  <BlueMatt> BakSAj: rainbows and unicorns and ponies and shit
455 2016-11-03T20:07:38  <wumpus> unless reverted ofcourse but that's rare
456 2016-11-03T20:07:45  <BakSAj> :-D
457 2016-11-03T20:08:04  <sipa> wumpus: they have no need for DST... they either have 24 hour daylight or 24 hiur darkness :p
458 2016-11-03T20:08:13  <BakSAj> even my wife laughts at this :-)
459 2016-11-03T20:08:25  <wumpus> of the 125 PRs currently open, a few will likely make it too, you can help by testing and reviewing and posting your results
460 2016-11-03T20:08:32  <wumpus> sipa: hehe, good point :p
461 2016-11-03T20:08:49  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462 2016-11-03T20:09:18  <GitHub96> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #9077: [qa] Increase wallet-dump RPC timeout (master...fix-wallet-dump-timeout) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9077
463 2016-11-03T20:09:35  * BlueMatt is still hopeful that main.cpp gets split and compact block announcements in the background happen for 0.14
464 2016-11-03T20:09:40  <BakSAj> can I get just one feature which 0.14 will be remembered for? like 0.13 was for compact blocks, 0.13.1 segwit etc..
465 2016-11-03T20:09:41  <BlueMatt> happen at process-time, that is
466 2016-11-03T20:10:40  <wumpus> I wonder if we have any contributors from Iceland
467 2016-11-03T20:10:56  <BakSAj> polar bears?
468 2016-11-03T20:11:11  <sipa> BakSAj: seems there is a lot of focus on refactorings and performance imorovememts... so not necessarily user visiable changes
469 2016-11-03T20:11:11  * jtimon dreams of one or even 2 more functions exposed in libconsensus
470 2016-11-03T20:11:26  <sipa> BakSAj: i prefer cartesian bears
471 2016-11-03T20:11:51  <BakSAj> i will have to google that :-)
472 2016-11-03T20:11:55  <wumpus> polar bears don't live in iceland
473 2016-11-03T20:12:11  <sipa> iceland isn't even above the polar circle
474 2016-11-03T20:12:12  <BakSAj> not even in the zoo?
475 2016-11-03T20:13:02  <BakSAj> http://i.imgur.com/z0Sl2XP.jpg
476 2016-11-03T20:14:14  <BakSAj> sipa: ok thanks, thats also good, i guess schnorr is longrun task
477 2016-11-03T20:14:37  <BlueMatt> BakSAj: 0.14 has been a lot of fixes/refactoring/cleanups/optimizations/etc/etc...due to a focus on segwit some of these things got put off and/or big features werent something that was a major focus for lots of people
478 2016-11-03T20:14:43  <BlueMatt> oh, sipa said that
479 2016-11-03T20:15:01  <luke-jr> BakSAj: does that one on the right really exist? :O
480 2016-11-03T20:15:12  <sipa> luke-jr: no, it's a math joke
481 2016-11-03T20:16:11  <BakSAj> luke-jr: only after you forget your bear in the box for some time
482 2016-11-03T20:16:15  <luke-jr> someone made a fake bear for a math joke? XD
483 2016-11-03T20:16:44  <BlueMatt> BakSAj: bumpfee might make it in though, so that would be cool
484 2016-11-03T20:16:59  <jtimon> luke-jr: photoshop or something, yeah
485 2016-11-03T20:17:13  <luke-jr> o.o
486 2016-11-03T20:17:35  <jtimon> luke-jr: I'm actually surprised that you are surprised
487 2016-11-03T20:18:04  <luke-jr> jtimon: I would have tried to get bear skin and paste it on a set of boxes :p
488 2016-11-03T20:18:16  <luke-jr> didn't even occur to me to try to make such an image with a computer
489 2016-11-03T20:19:02  <jtimon> not an expert, but I would bet that one is actually not that hard
490 2016-11-03T20:19:29  <BakSAj> yeah like segwit :-)
491 2016-11-03T20:19:55  <BakSAj> btw i really wonder how ecosystem will change once sw activates and LN will come to existence
492 2016-11-03T20:21:55  <BakSAj> lol rereading the log: this is really a good one :-)) BlueMatt making 0.14 great again!
493 2016-11-03T20:22:03  <BakSAj> i vote it for comic relief
494 2016-11-03T20:26:29  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
495 2016-11-03T20:30:03  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
496 2016-11-03T20:34:52  *** dcousens has quit IRC
497 2016-11-03T20:43:35  <luke-jr> hum, after taking forever to start in valgrind, I got a segfault. fun
498 2016-11-03T20:44:22  *** BakSAj has quit IRC
499 2016-11-03T20:45:13  <luke-jr> not sure how to interpret the stack trace however
500 2016-11-03T20:45:31  <luke-jr> http://0bin.net/paste/-EkiuN3jdVtwRd0v#3NfjE9HJqmxNwuiil0FZXv+9QgmQr0Fv+VAp9Qzrd3H
501 2016-11-03T20:45:36  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3 | Encrypt wallet · Issue #3 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
502 2016-11-03T20:47:06  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
503 2016-11-03T20:47:15  *** roidster has quit IRC
504 2016-11-03T20:47:16  <sipa> nanotube: ^ gribble is a bit too trigger happy... maybe make the regexp only work when it's not surrounded by alphanumeric characters?
505 2016-11-03T20:48:04  <gmaxwell> I was suggesting before that it only do PR#[0-9]+
506 2016-11-03T20:48:19  <sipa> that sounds good as well
507 2016-11-03T20:48:41  <wumpus> though that wouldn't handle issues
508 2016-11-03T20:49:38  <gmaxwell> hm.  \w[PIG]#[0-9]+\w  ?
509 2016-11-03T20:50:19  <gmaxwell> (PR, Issue, 'github' for when you don't know/care)
510 2016-11-03T20:55:56  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
511 2016-11-03T20:56:28  <wumpus> PIG#1234 sgtm :p
512 2016-11-03T20:56:30  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1234 | During initial sync, chain download pauses if peer goes away · Issue #1234 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
513 2016-11-03T20:58:26  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: that won't work for PR# :P
514 2016-11-03T21:00:44  *** fengling has quit IRC
515 2016-11-03T21:03:59  <nanotube> heh well, so let's go over this... you want PR#\d+\W to go to github pr, I#\d+\W to go to github issues, and just #\d+\W to just assume issue?
516 2016-11-03T21:06:14  <luke-jr> (^|\s)(PR|I)#\d+\b I think
517 2016-11-03T21:06:28  <luke-jr> explicitly *not* #\d+
518 2016-11-03T21:06:33  <BlueMatt> lol
519 2016-11-03T21:11:22  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
520 2016-11-03T21:11:23  *** jannes has quit IRC
521 2016-11-03T21:18:03  <BlueMatt> jtimon: the main.cpp split is my net_processing_file branch, which includes #9026, #9075, #8930 in rebased form, 4 more commits to form a future pr, and then -2990 +3085 LOC in a single code-move commit
522 2016-11-03T21:18:05  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9026 | Fix handling of invalid compact blocks by sdaftuar · Pull Request #9026 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
523 2016-11-03T21:18:06  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9075 | Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connection-logic (#3) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9075 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
524 2016-11-03T21:18:07  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8930 | Move orphan processing to ActivateBestChain by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #8930 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
525 2016-11-03T21:20:48  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
526 2016-11-03T21:21:43  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
527 2016-11-03T21:21:45  <jtimon> BlueMatt: awesome thanks!
528 2016-11-03T21:22:45  *** cryptapus_afk is now known as cryptapus
529 2016-11-03T21:27:11  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
530 2016-11-03T21:39:54  <jouke> What does it mean when a wallet says: "Transaction commit failed" I blieve it's a .12 wallet
531 2016-11-03T21:45:39  <jouke> Hmm, corrupt /win 109
532 2016-11-03T21:45:41  <jouke> whoops
533 2016-11-03T21:47:11  <jouke> Hmm, but the specific transaction seems to be broadcasted though?
534 2016-11-03T21:49:38  <sipa> i believe it means it wasn't accepted by your own mempool, but still broadcast
535 2016-11-03T21:49:44  <sipa> that shouldn't happen
536 2016-11-03T21:50:03  <sipa> if it confirms, it will show up in the wallet fine, though
537 2016-11-03T21:50:34  <jouke> Hmm, rpc doesn't give a tx-id back, so I am not sure if it's absolutely the same
538 2016-11-03T21:50:54  <jouke> but the outputs match, so I guess so
539 2016-11-03T21:51:44  <jouke> Other transaction from the same wallet: "Error: The transaction was rejected! This might happen if some of the coins in your wallet were already spent, such as if you used a copy of wallet.dat and coins were spent in the copy but not marked as spent here."
540 2016-11-03T21:51:48  <jouke> also broadcasted
541 2016-11-03T21:51:53  <jouke> and confirmed
542 2016-11-03T21:54:22  <jouke> gettransaction shows the account
543 2016-11-03T21:56:58  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
544 2016-11-03T21:58:05  *** murr4y has quit IRC
545 2016-11-03T21:59:30  <jtimon> rebased https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8855
546 2016-11-03T22:01:47  *** fengling has quit IRC
547 2016-11-03T22:07:28  <jouke> sipa: that wallet node is connected to an other node on the same host via 127.0.0.1. Could that be a reason why it's broadcasted even though the wallet itself says it's not valid?
548 2016-11-03T22:08:17  <sipa> i don't think so
549 2016-11-03T22:15:46  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
550 2016-11-03T22:16:59  *** justanother|CHI is now known as justanother|DJT
551 2016-11-03T22:25:42  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552 2016-11-03T22:35:10  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
553 2016-11-03T22:41:08  <jtimon> rebased #8994 and jtimon/0.13-blocksign branch too for the curious (the latter still needs more work)
554 2016-11-03T22:41:10  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
555 2016-11-03T22:42:35  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
556 2016-11-03T22:57:48  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
557 2016-11-03T23:01:42  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
558 2016-11-03T23:02:50  *** fengling has quit IRC
559 2016-11-03T23:24:16  *** Anduck has quit IRC
560 2016-11-03T23:24:27  *** Anduck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
561 2016-11-03T23:24:28  *** Eliel has quit IRC
562 2016-11-03T23:25:19  *** Eliel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
563 2016-11-03T23:58:58  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev