1 2017-02-13T00:09:16  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #9749: If -spkreuse=0, ensure transactions in mempool always have unique scriptPubKeys (master...unique_spk_mempool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9749
  2 2017-02-13T00:09:44  *** jtimon has quit IRC
  3 2017-02-13T00:28:44  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2017-02-13T00:33:05  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
  5 2017-02-13T00:35:46  *** str4d has quit IRC
  6 2017-02-13T00:37:02  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2017-02-13T00:37:03  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2017-02-13T00:46:14  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it would be interesting if there were a 1 bit flag in scriptpubkeys that indicated if you wanted to allow reuse or not.
  9 2017-02-13T00:50:10  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 10 2017-02-13T00:50:26  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2017-02-13T01:29:18  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: enforcing it consistently would require an ever-growing set, so this is more useful to simply discourage it in general
 12 2017-02-13T01:29:48  <gmaxwell> it would just be "best effort"
 13 2017-02-13T01:30:12  <gmaxwell> e.g. I promise no two in the last N blocks, beyond that, "probablistic"
 14 2017-02-13T01:30:22  <luke-jr> I can't think of any reason to ever intentionally accomidate reuse.
 15 2017-02-13T01:30:39  <gmaxwell> widespread practice.
 16 2017-02-13T01:31:02  <gmaxwell> an improvement no one uses is not an improvement.
 17 2017-02-13T01:31:24  <luke-jr> widespread practice needs to change; people enabling this puts pressure on others to stop doing it
 18 2017-02-13T01:31:45  <luke-jr> especially people doing more transaction volume
 19 2017-02-13T01:31:52  <BlueMatt> how? only realistically if its off-by-default, which we cant do, or if miners use it, which they wont
 20 2017-02-13T01:32:07  <sdaftuar> i haven't read this patch carefully, but is there anything to prevent an attacker from interfering with relay by sending a low-fee, low-value transaction to an output that he sees, and relaying that ahead of the original tx?
 21 2017-02-13T01:32:12  <gmaxwell> and what if the net effect is just someone standarziding that wallets should notice their scriptpubkey with a dummy push also strapped to it?
 22 2017-02-13T01:32:23  <gmaxwell> oh slick point.
 23 2017-02-13T01:32:32  <luke-jr> sdaftuar: there isn't. perhaps it should use RBF semantics in that case
 24 2017-02-13T01:33:02  <sdaftuar> this seems like a solution looking for a problem imo
 25 2017-02-13T01:33:19  <gmaxwell> well there are problems it would help with.
 26 2017-02-13T01:34:10  <gmaxwell> for example,, if you take some old addresses and spend all the connected coins, people have frequently then sent near dust amounts to them, seemingly with the hope that you'll spend the dust in another transaction and link the outputs.
 27 2017-02-13T01:34:57  <morcos> luke-jr: also to clarify (sorry for not just reading the code), if there are already multiple outputs encumbered by the same scriptpubkey, does this patch prevent spending more than one of them at a time?
 28 2017-02-13T01:35:17  <gmaxwell> no, it's just a creation restriction AFAICT.
 29 2017-02-13T01:35:18  <luke-jr> morcos: it doesn't prevent that.
 30 2017-02-13T01:35:33  <luke-jr> it restricts spending as well, but allows multiple of them in the same tx
 31 2017-02-13T01:35:34  <morcos> ok, the exception in your PR text confused me..   that's good at least!
 32 2017-02-13T01:35:40  <luke-jr> brb
 33 2017-02-13T01:35:52  <morcos> wait... so it does prevent that unless you put them in the same TX????
 34 2017-02-13T01:37:08  <jcorgan> is there a particular reason bitcoin.conf only allows IP parameters by address and not hostname/dns name, other than "it hasn't been written yet"?
 35 2017-02-13T01:37:24  *** goksinen has quit IRC
 36 2017-02-13T01:37:48  <morcos> for the record, i agree with the basic gist of discouraging address reuse, but i think its crazy to make it an absolute.  i've reused (And continue to reuse) addresess many times... its a choice of convenience over.. eh.. maybe some loss of privacy
 37 2017-02-13T01:38:30  <morcos> for instance if your change output is readily discernible already..
 38 2017-02-13T01:38:33  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: probably more important is that more outputs shouldn't be made to an address once it's been spent from (and ideally wallets would spend from that address all at once)
 39 2017-02-13T01:40:20  <midnightmagic> morcos: Also, loss of privacy for other people who deal with you.
 40 2017-02-13T01:40:34  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 41 2017-02-13T01:40:54  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2017-02-13T01:43:59  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 43 2017-02-13T01:50:40  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 44 2017-02-13T02:05:34  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 45 2017-02-13T02:26:15  <luke-jr> morcos: it's not absolute; you can wait until the transaction is mined
 46 2017-02-13T02:27:30  <luke-jr> it occurs to me the current PR already breaks RBF, so I need to fix that :/
 47 2017-02-13T02:31:16  <luke-jr> I suppose it should just treat SPK overlaps as if they shared a conflicting input
 48 2017-02-13T02:31:44  <luke-jr> solve both issues at once
 49 2017-02-13T02:32:34  <morcos> i think it makes no sense at all to have an option that makes it difficult for people to spend previously created outputs
 50 2017-02-13T02:32:45  <morcos> i'd be opposed to that
 51 2017-02-13T02:33:16  <morcos> i mean i'm basically opposed to the option in general..  but if its just an option and it defaults off..  well you have to pick your battles
 52 2017-02-13T02:33:26  <morcos> but if it prevents spending existing outputs.. that seems crazy
 53 2017-02-13T02:33:53  <luke-jr> you can spend them in separate blocks or in the same tx
 54 2017-02-13T02:34:03  <luke-jr> there is no reason anyone should ever have multiple tx in the same block anyway
 55 2017-02-13T02:35:24  <sipa> right, but why would miners enable that setting?
 56 2017-02-13T02:35:36  <sipa> and if miners don't, why would anyone else?
 57 2017-02-13T02:36:02  <sipa> i like the reasons... but it's noneconomical
 58 2017-02-13T02:36:07  <luke-jr> because some miners actually care about Bitcoin
 59 2017-02-13T02:36:25  <morcos> honestly i think this is the kind of change that should go into something like Knots
 60 2017-02-13T02:38:17  <luke-jr> I don't like the direction Core is changing to where everything must be exclusively economic incentives. Bitcoin can't work with mere economic incentives as things are today. The way things are heading, Core is no longer a reference implementation, but a specific political agenda to the exclusion of others.
 61 2017-02-13T02:39:15  <sipa> luke-jr: the only criteria for non-miner mempools is the expectancy of what will confirm
 62 2017-02-13T02:39:39  <sipa> for miners, i would argue that any non-economical property is a push for a certain policy
 63 2017-02-13T02:39:50  <sipa> the economical one is that i expect everyone to take eventually
 64 2017-02-13T02:40:10  <luke-jr> sipa: I see it more of that non-miner mempools constrain miners, by creating slower propagation of blocks that don't match the wider network policies.
 65 2017-02-13T02:40:21  <luke-jr> sipa: economical is also a certain policy. options are options.
 66 2017-02-13T02:40:51  <sipa> luke-jr: divergence between non-miners and miners just encourages people to submit directly to miners, and miners to be reachable (and thus non-anonymous)
 67 2017-02-13T02:41:21  <sipa> i think that's a far worse outcome than just rational policies
 68 2017-02-13T02:41:26  <luke-jr> lack of divergence creates centralisation pressures forcing miners to all run the same policy dictated by developers
 69 2017-02-13T02:41:37  <morcos> i would argue that a minimum bar for an option is that at least the majority of Core developers think its a good idea OR a good fraction of the user community think its a good idea
 70 2017-02-13T02:41:42  <morcos> we can't support every fringe option
 71 2017-02-13T02:42:45  <sipa> luke-jr: my assumption is that if we'd introduce non-economical policies, and they're configurable they'd be turned off, and if they're not configurable someone will create a patch to change them
 72 2017-02-13T02:43:06  <sipa> by the vast majority of miners
 73 2017-02-13T02:43:39  <morcos> i also dislike the use of policy as something that tries to constrain users to use bitcoin in a certain way..  if its not necessary for DoS prevention or resource allocation, then good usage policies/options should be at the wallet level
 74 2017-02-13T02:44:08  <morcos> relay and mining should be essentially blind to any attribute of txs other than resource usage (which is unfortunately a multi-dimensional beast)
 75 2017-02-13T02:44:09  <luke-jr> I don't see many miners turning on acceptnonstdtxn. Or enabling full RBF (although some do exist). Miners do care to an extent, and that will hopefully improve as difficulty kills profits.
 76 2017-02-13T02:45:44  <luke-jr> morcos: that is not a sustainable view, at least as things are today. but more importantly, I concede your right to take that position, but you need to understand not everyone agrees with it.
 77 2017-02-13T02:46:13  <sipa> luke-jr: ok, i'll reformulate: my expectation is that over time we'll converge to more rational relay policies... not because developers force it, but because it's the most economical thing to do
 78 2017-02-13T02:46:37  <luke-jr> economical != rational
 79 2017-02-13T02:46:50  <sipa> short-term vs long-term?
 80 2017-02-13T02:46:59  <luke-jr> perhaps
 81 2017-02-13T02:47:08  <luke-jr> it's rational to filter SPK reuse in hopes of improving Bitcoin privacy, for example
 82 2017-02-13T02:47:52  <sipa> the only thing that actually improves privacy IMHO is consensus rules that incentivize it
 83 2017-02-13T02:48:16  <morcos> luke-jr: i'd be much more amenable to that argument if the Core wallet stopped SPK reuse..  having relay be difficult in the even of SPK reuse seems like it risks causing more harm than good
 84 2017-02-13T02:48:27  <luke-jr> neither developers nor miners control consensus rules. but miners do control policy.
 85 2017-02-13T02:49:01  <morcos> luke-jr: right!  that's why we need to work towards a bitcoin where there is no policy!!  all txs look the same
 86 2017-02-13T02:49:15  <luke-jr> no, policy is important.
 87 2017-02-13T02:49:16  <sipa> yes, let's switch to MimbleWimble. all txs look the same!
 88 2017-02-13T02:49:55  <sipa> luke-jr: in my ideal world, there can't be any policy beyond fees/size, because there is nothing else that distinguishes two transactions
 89 2017-02-13T02:50:15  <luke-jr> sipa: that's not everyone's ideal world.
 90 2017-02-13T02:50:29  <sipa> the fact that you can even say whether two outputs use the same address is a fungibility flaw on itself
 91 2017-02-13T02:50:45  <sipa> the fact that miners have censorship rights at all is a weakness
 92 2017-02-13T02:50:46  <luke-jr> I suppose
 93 2017-02-13T02:50:53  <luke-jr> no, miners are supposed to "censor" spam
 94 2017-02-13T02:50:56  <luke-jr> that's part of how the system works
 95 2017-02-13T02:51:20  <sipa> i agree with you, but only in its "development phase"... which may last a long time
 96 2017-02-13T02:51:34  <luke-jr> ?
 97 2017-02-13T02:51:36  *** ChatSharp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2017-02-13T02:51:39  <sipa> everyone should cooperate to make the system as usable as possible while it is not perfect
 99 2017-02-13T02:52:07  <luke-jr> morcos: btw, Core wallet never reuses SPKs
100 2017-02-13T02:52:17  <sipa> but eventually, it will need to work in a very-close-to-perfectly-rational environment
101 2017-02-13T02:52:36  <luke-jr> sipa: okay, I think I agree on that.
102 2017-02-13T02:52:40  <sipa> that doesn't mean that has to happen today
103 2017-02-13T02:53:56  <luke-jr> IMO Lightning will help take a big step toward that
104 2017-02-13T02:54:05  <sipa> maybe
105 2017-02-13T02:54:22  <luke-jr> well, in theory since legit txs will probably drop in blockchain data usage vs spam
106 2017-02-13T02:54:38  *** ChatSharp has left #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2017-02-13T02:54:49  <luke-jr> hopefully that will increase the feerate of legit use beyond the point where spam is more economic
108 2017-02-13T03:06:03  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2017-02-13T03:06:32  * luke-jr ponders if a town will ever be named std::<something> XD
110 2017-02-13T03:11:09  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
111 2017-02-13T03:46:48  *** wdfwefewvfgew has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112 2017-02-13T03:46:50  *** wdfwefewvfgew has left #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2017-02-13T04:07:34  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2017-02-13T04:12:34  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
115 2017-02-13T05:09:11  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
116 2017-02-13T05:13:40  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
117 2017-02-13T05:42:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] rohundhar opened pull request #9750: Bloomfilter: parameter variables made constant (master...bloomVar) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9750
118 2017-02-13T06:50:36  *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
119 2017-02-13T06:51:03  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2017-02-13T07:12:01  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
121 2017-02-13T07:29:19  *** harrymm has quit IRC
122 2017-02-13T07:37:09  *** udiWertheimer has quit IRC
123 2017-02-13T07:39:02  *** BashCo has quit IRC
124 2017-02-13T07:43:53  *** wasi has quit IRC
125 2017-02-13T07:44:32  *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2017-02-13T07:52:41  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
127 2017-02-13T07:55:36  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
128 2017-02-13T08:02:21  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
129 2017-02-13T08:06:57  *** harrymm has quit IRC
130 2017-02-13T08:06:57  *** udiWertheimer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2017-02-13T08:09:56  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2017-02-13T08:10:03  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2017-02-13T08:13:20  *** BashCo has quit IRC
134 2017-02-13T08:15:04  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2017-02-13T08:19:35  *** goksinen has quit IRC
136 2017-02-13T08:52:21  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2017-02-13T09:09:19  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
138 2017-02-13T09:14:01  *** goksinen has quit IRC
139 2017-02-13T09:20:24  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
140 2017-02-13T10:03:31  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2017-02-13T10:08:01  *** goksinen has quit IRC
142 2017-02-13T10:13:22  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2017-02-13T10:16:17  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
144 2017-02-13T10:30:10  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
145 2017-02-13T10:57:48  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2017-02-13T11:02:28  *** goksinen has quit IRC
147 2017-02-13T11:27:51  *** lclc has quit IRC
148 2017-02-13T12:10:28  *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2017-02-13T12:17:33  *** ChatSharp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2017-02-13T12:19:41  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
151 2017-02-13T12:20:09  *** Cory has quit IRC
152 2017-02-13T12:20:37  *** ChatSharp has left #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2017-02-13T12:22:00  *** Pasha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
154 2017-02-13T12:28:55  *** Pasha is now known as Cory
155 2017-02-13T12:51:06  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2017-02-13T12:57:05  *** udiWertheimer has quit IRC
157 2017-02-13T12:57:23  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2017-02-13T12:58:52  *** BashCo__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2017-02-13T13:00:09  *** udiWertheimer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
160 2017-02-13T13:01:17  *** BashCo has quit IRC
161 2017-02-13T13:02:05  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
162 2017-02-13T13:03:55  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] DATSEC opened pull request #9751: Mini fix (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9751
163 2017-02-13T13:12:42  <jonasschnelli> ^^ Hmm.. chaning changelogs seems wired
164 2017-02-13T13:20:44  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2017-02-13T13:22:09  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
166 2017-02-13T13:27:05  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2017-02-13T13:30:46  *** helo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2017-02-13T13:30:47  *** crescend1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
169 2017-02-13T13:30:51  *** Bootvis_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2017-02-13T13:31:01  *** thestrin1puller has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
171 2017-02-13T13:31:02  *** xiangfu_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2017-02-13T13:31:16  *** wolfspra1l has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
173 2017-02-13T13:31:18  *** roasbeef_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
174 2017-02-13T13:31:25  *** eenoch_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
175 2017-02-13T13:32:14  *** Bootvis has quit IRC
176 2017-02-13T13:32:14  *** roasbeef has quit IRC
177 2017-02-13T13:32:14  *** wolfspraul has quit IRC
178 2017-02-13T13:32:14  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
179 2017-02-13T13:32:18  *** jonasschnelli has quit IRC
180 2017-02-13T13:32:18  *** mol has quit IRC
181 2017-02-13T13:32:18  *** crescendo has quit IRC
182 2017-02-13T13:32:19  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
183 2017-02-13T13:32:19  *** eenoch has quit IRC
184 2017-02-13T13:32:19  *** helo has quit IRC
185 2017-02-13T13:32:34  *** jonasschnelli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2017-02-13T13:33:18  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
187 2017-02-13T13:34:39  *** jonasschnelli_ has quit IRC
188 2017-02-13T13:34:51  *** jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
189 2017-02-13T13:36:26  *** thestringpuller has quit IRC
190 2017-02-13T13:38:05  *** jonasschnelli has quit IRC
191 2017-02-13T13:38:34  *** jonasschnelli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192 2017-02-13T13:38:46  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2017-02-13T13:41:54  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
194 2017-02-13T13:43:42  *** goksinen has quit IRC
195 2017-02-13T13:55:02  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
196 2017-02-13T14:28:07  <jcorgan> is there a particular reason bitcoin.conf only allows IP parameters by address and not hostname/dns name, other than "it hasn't been written yet"?
197 2017-02-13T14:28:30  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
198 2017-02-13T14:28:30  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2017-02-13T14:29:07  <jonasschnelli> jcorgan: Yes. Probably. But I think we don't want addr-man to send around hostnames... in the config, yeah, fine.
200 2017-02-13T14:30:22  <jcorgan> right, i'm only think of the conf file or cmd line, like proxy=, etc.
201 2017-02-13T14:30:27  <jcorgan> *thinking
202 2017-02-13T14:33:24  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2017-02-13T14:39:41  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
204 2017-02-13T15:14:33  *** chjj has quit IRC
205 2017-02-13T15:19:14  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2017-02-13T15:23:49  *** goksinen has quit IRC
207 2017-02-13T15:25:54  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2017-02-13T15:41:51  *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
209 2017-02-13T15:59:30  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
210 2017-02-13T16:18:14  *** Greybits has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2017-02-13T16:45:46  <Greybits> Hi!  im not very smart and trying to learn more about segwit.  to me it looks like lightning network is just a "man in the middle" proxy that can block transactions if they want to.   why is lightning network good for crypto?  who is bitfury?  why do they have an office in washington dc?  what do they do in north carolina by the military base?
212 2017-02-13T16:46:16  *** lclc has quit IRC
213 2017-02-13T16:47:44  <Chris_Stewart_5> Is there a BIP that talks about block time stamp requirements?
214 2017-02-13T16:50:53  <Chris_Stewart_5> Looking at BIP113, it states we take the median time stamp for the last 11 blocks, but what stops the miner from egregiously lieing about that timestamp?
215 2017-02-13T16:50:55  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
216 2017-02-13T16:54:22  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2017-02-13T16:59:14  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2017-02-13T17:02:46  *** BashCo__ has quit IRC
219 2017-02-13T17:12:16  <BlueMatt> Chris_Stewart_5: there is a consensus rule that the MTP (median time past) of each block must progress
220 2017-02-13T17:12:32  <BlueMatt> ie you acan never have a block which is older than the median-of-last-11 as per its timestamp
221 2017-02-13T17:15:55  <Chris_Stewart_5> BlueMatt: Thanks
222 2017-02-13T17:31:22  *** Greybits has quit IRC
223 2017-02-13T17:35:27  *** udiWertheimer has quit IRC
224 2017-02-13T18:03:19  *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
225 2017-02-13T18:14:05  *** udiWertheimer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2017-02-13T18:22:56  *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
227 2017-02-13T18:31:44  *** goksinen has quit IRC
228 2017-02-13T18:41:12  *** lclc has quit IRC
229 2017-02-13T18:42:04  *** BashCo has quit IRC
230 2017-02-13T18:47:10  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2017-02-13T18:52:34  *** goksinen has quit IRC
232 2017-02-13T18:56:10  *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2017-02-13T19:04:35  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2017-02-13T19:12:55  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #9753: Add static_assert to prevent VARINT(<signed value>) (master...pr/varint-assert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9753
235 2017-02-13T19:14:40  *** droark has quit IRC
236 2017-02-13T19:15:34  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
237 2017-02-13T19:18:28  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2017-02-13T19:22:55  *** goksinen has quit IRC
239 2017-02-13T19:43:04  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
240 2017-02-13T19:43:15  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2017-02-13T19:48:51  *** thestrin1puller is now known as thestringpuller
242 2017-02-13T19:49:21  *** thestringpuller is now known as Guest52978
243 2017-02-13T19:50:40  *** Guest52978 is now known as thestringpuller
244 2017-02-13T19:51:04  *** thestringpuller has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
245 2017-02-13T19:57:09  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
246 2017-02-13T20:02:04  *** goksinen has quit IRC
247 2017-02-13T20:07:41  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
248 2017-02-13T20:07:53  *** gk-1wm-su has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
249 2017-02-13T20:10:10  *** gk-1wm-su has quit IRC
250 2017-02-13T20:34:26  *** whphhg has quit IRC
251 2017-02-13T21:06:39  *** goksinen has quit IRC
252 2017-02-13T21:09:16  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
253 2017-02-13T21:10:20  *** lclc has quit IRC
254 2017-02-13T21:16:14  *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
255 2017-02-13T21:51:13  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
256 2017-02-13T21:53:15  *** goksinen has quit IRC
257 2017-02-13T22:16:45  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
258 2017-02-13T22:19:43  *** norotartagen has quit IRC
259 2017-02-13T22:26:15  *** norotartagen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
260 2017-02-13T22:41:00  *** isle2983 has quit IRC
261 2017-02-13T22:42:06  *** isle2983 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262 2017-02-13T22:42:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] richardkiss opened pull request #9754: Change NULLFAIL => SIG_NULLFAIL. (master...feature/unify_sig_nullfail) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9754
263 2017-02-13T22:48:04  *** norotartagen has left #bitcoin-core-dev
264 2017-02-13T22:48:09  *** norotartagen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2017-02-13T22:51:50  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #9755: Bugfix: Qt/Options: Restore persistent "restart required" notice (master...bugfix_gui_opts_restartreq) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9755
266 2017-02-13T22:59:58  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #9756: Return error when importmulti called with invalid address. (master...pr/multiaddr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9756
267 2017-02-13T23:14:16  *** goatee has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
268 2017-02-13T23:38:10  *** `_^gk-1wm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
269 2017-02-13T23:40:12  *** `_^gk-1wm has quit IRC
270 2017-02-13T23:44:45  *** `_^gk-1wm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
271 2017-02-13T23:50:25  *** `_^gk-1wm has quit IRC