1 2017-04-06T00:00:08  *** abpa has quit IRC
  2 2017-04-06T00:27:08  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  3 2017-04-06T00:28:51  <achow101> are the codesigned binary sigs up yet?
  4 2017-04-06T00:40:05  *** TrazzleDazzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2017-04-06T00:40:19  *** bincap has quit IRC
  6 2017-04-06T00:40:34  *** chjj has quit IRC
  7 2017-04-06T00:40:46  *** bincap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2017-04-06T00:52:26  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2017-04-06T01:06:15  *** Samdney has quit IRC
 10 2017-04-06T01:08:34  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2017-04-06T01:33:27  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 12 2017-04-06T01:34:09  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 13 2017-04-06T01:37:29  *** user__ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2017-04-06T01:37:43  *** alpalp has quit IRC
 15 2017-04-06T01:39:14  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 16 2017-04-06T01:39:14  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2017-04-06T01:43:21  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 18 2017-04-06T02:00:10  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 19 2017-04-06T02:00:47  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2017-04-06T02:12:11  *** kyletorpey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2017-04-06T02:16:48  *** chjj has quit IRC
 22 2017-04-06T02:17:23  *** TrazzleDazzle has quit IRC
 23 2017-04-06T02:24:23  *** kyletorpey has quit IRC
 24 2017-04-06T02:26:52  *** wasi has quit IRC
 25 2017-04-06T02:27:54  <Taek> I do not know that a proposal which invalidates hardware optimazation has much chance at success
 26 2017-04-06T02:29:15  <Taek> Though there are clear reasons for wanting such optimizations disabled, Bitcoin resists contentious changes, and I think the miners would be able to put up enough of a fight to prevent the change
 27 2017-04-06T02:30:24  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2017-04-06T02:30:47  <warren> I wouldn't make any assumptions of what is possible.  We are yet to see the extent of outrage from the non-boosted miners and user majority and what could happen.
 29 2017-04-06T02:31:32  *** talmai has quit IRC
 30 2017-04-06T02:34:15  *** rgrant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2017-04-06T02:42:26  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 32 2017-04-06T02:46:49  *** makriath has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2017-04-06T02:51:54  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 34 2017-04-06T02:53:48  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 35 2017-04-06T02:58:48  *** makriath has quit IRC
 36 2017-04-06T03:04:52  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 37 2017-04-06T03:19:01  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 38 2017-04-06T03:19:54  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 39 2017-04-06T03:20:58  *** alpalp has quit IRC
 40 2017-04-06T03:33:50  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2017-04-06T03:54:27  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 42 2017-04-06T04:01:41  *** rgrant_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2017-04-06T04:02:19  *** talmai has quit IRC
 44 2017-04-06T04:08:47  *** rgrant_ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2017-04-06T04:10:45  *** rgrant has quit IRC
 46 2017-04-06T04:10:46  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 47 2017-04-06T04:10:46  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
 48 2017-04-06T04:10:46  *** Creeper has quit IRC
 49 2017-04-06T04:10:46  *** ChillazZ has quit IRC
 50 2017-04-06T04:14:07  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2017-04-06T04:14:47  *** thann has quit IRC
 52 2017-04-06T04:15:54  <gmaxwell> Taek: keep in mind that I have not proposed invalidating an 'optimization'-- it still works, just not in a covert manner.
 53 2017-04-06T04:16:15  <gmaxwell> Taek: also; a strong optimization like this if it cannot be copied will _guarentee_ a mining monopoly eventually.
 54 2017-04-06T04:16:28  <Taek> acknowledged
 55 2017-04-06T04:16:31  <gmaxwell> because at equlibrium only the optimized miner will be turning a profit.
 56 2017-04-06T04:16:40  *** rgrant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 57 2017-04-06T04:17:58  <Taek> err, maybe I am confused. Does your proposal not reduce the effective hashrate of the hardware you found?
 58 2017-04-06T04:18:33  <Taek> And, fully on board that there needs to be a level playing field.
 59 2017-04-06T04:18:42  <sipa> Taek: not if they switch to nversion grinding
 60 2017-04-06T04:21:04  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2017-04-06T04:25:32  <gmaxwell> Taek: no because the use of it is optional and just impacts the power consumption. (but I suppose it would likely change the hashrate of a _facility_)
 62 2017-04-06T04:25:46  <gmaxwell> but the optimization could be still used via nversion grinding.
 63 2017-04-06T04:25:49  <gmaxwell> as sipa says.
 64 2017-04-06T04:25:59  <gmaxwell> which is better in every respect except it isn't secret.
 65 2017-04-06T04:26:08  <Taek> and the hardware that exists today is capable of doing the nversion grinding?
 66 2017-04-06T04:26:11  <gmaxwell> it's more power efficient, it doesn't screw up further enhancements.
 67 2017-04-06T04:26:45  <gmaxwell> Yes. (also nversion grinding is basically a subset of root grinding, and the obvious constructions of hardware that can root grind can nversion grind)
 68 2017-04-06T04:27:01  <gmaxwell> obviously someone might do something I didn't anticipate, ... they're free to comment on the proposal.
 69 2017-04-06T04:27:26  <Taek> okay. Thanks for clearing that up. I think that preserving the hardware advantage is going to be critical to getting the proposal accepted
 70 2017-04-06T04:28:04  <Taek> not just that, but segwit, etc.
 71 2017-04-06T04:29:20  <gmaxwell> I'm not confident in that.
 72 2017-04-06T04:29:51  <Taek> Not confident that preserving the hardware advantage would be greatly beneficial to moving forward segwit?
 73 2017-04-06T04:31:26  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 74 2017-04-06T04:32:19  <gmaxwell> I don't think it's relevant for that.
 75 2017-04-06T04:32:59  <Taek> My understanding right now is that this asic optimization gave very powerful ulterior motives for Bitmain to be politically blocking segwit
 76 2017-04-06T04:33:26  <Taek> and the rest of the dance has really just been about preserving their 30% advantage
 77 2017-04-06T04:33:34  <gmaxwell> Yes. Perhaps I misunderstood you...
 78 2017-04-06T04:34:05  <gmaxwell> I thought you were saying that it was important to block only the segwit incompatible form without blocking it completely. (which is what my proposal works to do because I think it's the right way to handle it)
 79 2017-04-06T04:34:26  <gmaxwell> I think that blocking the optimization completely would be just as good in terms of permitting the protocol upgrades.
 80 2017-04-06T04:34:52  <Taek> My worry is that blocking the optimization completely is going to be a long bloody uphill battle
 81 2017-04-06T04:35:04  <Taek> and, one that I think you could argue is worthwhile
 82 2017-04-06T04:35:22  <gmaxwell> Well I think that the technique will either be opened or eventually blocked.
 83 2017-04-06T04:35:44  <gmaxwell> The third option is that bitcoin will fail due to it, which I don't think we'll accept as a community.  But eventually could be a fair while.
 84 2017-04-06T04:36:17  <gmaxwell> I agree that it might take a while, which is part of why I think its best to seperate the concerns.
 85 2017-04-06T04:37:02  <gmaxwell> Also, the impact of my proposal is negligible if the optimization isn't really in use so there is really no grounds to say "sure, we put it in our hardware but arn't using it, we promise, no need for this BIP"...
 86 2017-04-06T04:38:57  <Taek> Miners not benefitting from this optimization certainly have strong motivations to activate the proposal
 87 2017-04-06T04:39:01  <Taek> that much is going for it
 88 2017-04-06T04:40:26  <gmaxwell> Yes, and I think users do too. And I think that would also apply to proposals to eliminate the optimization +/- people who are really confused about the economics of mining and don't realize an advantage like that sustained privately pretty much guarentees a mining monopoly.
 89 2017-04-06T04:42:27  <Taek> Another thought. The community now has an obvious boogeyman. If you wanted to push for something difficult that required consensus, this is probably the best time to do it, leveraging the boogeyman.
 90 2017-04-06T04:42:56  <Taek> At this point I am trying to figure out what all the options are.
 91 2017-04-06T04:47:20  <sipa> start over?
 92 2017-04-06T04:47:38  <Taek> bitcoin2?
 93 2017-04-06T04:54:00  <midnightmagic> starting over would devolve to design-by-committee
 94 2017-04-06T04:54:49  <sipa> i'm not being serious of course
 95 2017-04-06T04:55:28  <sipa> but damn, how i woshed sometimes i'd be working on a system without all this drama and monetary interests
 96 2017-04-06T04:57:08  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
 97 2017-04-06T04:58:25  <rabidus> :(
 98 2017-04-06T05:01:05  <midnightmagic> :)
 99 2017-04-06T05:14:38  <jeremyrubin> w.r.t. nversion grinding; practically speaking couldn't one just switch nonce and nversion and call it a day?
100 2017-04-06T05:15:51  <sipa> apart from being a hard fork, sure
101 2017-04-06T05:16:03  <jeremyrubin> Is it a hard fork though??
102 2017-04-06T05:16:15  <jeremyrubin> I think it's soft...
103 2017-04-06T05:16:38  <jeremyrubin> just don't use all the bits in nversion of course
104 2017-04-06T05:16:39  <sipa> well as long as you stick to the bip34 rules
105 2017-04-06T05:18:37  <jeremyrubin> how does it break bip34?
106 2017-04-06T05:18:47  <jeremyrubin> just limit your nonce > 2
107 2017-04-06T05:18:54  <jeremyrubin> still plenty of bits
108 2017-04-06T05:23:50  <gmaxwell> What do you mean by "switch nonce and nversion"  version griding asicboost requires that you have a couple different first compression runs and many different second compression runs, which are all mutually compatible.
109 2017-04-06T05:29:36  *** rgrant has left #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2017-04-06T05:57:31  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
111 2017-04-06T05:59:55  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112 2017-04-06T06:04:35  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2017-04-06T06:34:17  <cfields> an eternity later: gitian builders: v0.14.1rc1 detached sigs pushed
114 2017-04-06T06:40:28  *** shesek has quit IRC
115 2017-04-06T06:40:35  *** BashCo has quit IRC
116 2017-04-06T06:48:58  <gmaxwell> Better nate than lever.
117 2017-04-06T06:49:00  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
118 2017-04-06T06:49:22  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
119 2017-04-06T06:49:41  *** CubicEarthh has quit IRC
120 2017-04-06T06:50:44  <midnightmagic> oh, we're doing detached sigs for rc candidates now?
121 2017-04-06T06:50:53  <wumpus> cfields: thanks!
122 2017-04-06T06:50:57  <midnightmagic> okay I'll rebuild. thanks!
123 2017-04-06T06:51:07  <wumpus> midnightmagic: we've been doing so for a while
124 2017-04-06T06:51:14  <wumpus> to test that part of the process too
125 2017-04-06T06:51:30  <wumpus> the last step is very fast though
126 2017-04-06T06:51:52  <midnightmagic> I thought it was just on a "when cfields or whoever gets around to it, maybe, but for sure for actual releases" :-)
127 2017-04-06T06:52:03  <cfields> wumpus: sorry for delay. I'm out of town and had to use my laptop, which really really didn't want to cooperate
128 2017-04-06T06:53:41  <cfields> i think i've learned how to force a tag in the bitcoin repo, though. it seems to be a sure thing as soon as i leave for a few days :)
129 2017-04-06T06:53:55  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2017-04-06T07:02:41  <wumpus> cfields: it does seem to always happen in the most inconvenient times for you
131 2017-04-06T07:09:28  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2017-04-06T07:16:10  *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2017-04-06T07:33:00  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] mrwhythat opened pull request #10161: [WIP] Support for Tor's Single Onion Service (master...tor-single-onion-service) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10161
134 2017-04-06T07:35:42  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10158: Add some more release notes for 0.14.1. (0.14...relnote141) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10158
135 2017-04-06T07:36:08  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10157: [0.14] Fix the mempool_packages.py test (0.14...test-0.14.1rc1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10157
136 2017-04-06T07:36:21  <gmaxwell> Does someone want to write memory advice release notes?
137 2017-04-06T07:36:25  <gmaxwell> we should have those.
138 2017-04-06T07:37:57  <sipa> i'll try
139 2017-04-06T07:44:00  *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2017-04-06T07:48:47  <warren> gitian is taking forever, will proably have sigs in the morning.
141 2017-04-06T07:52:00  *** Elenora has quit IRC
142 2017-04-06T08:09:09  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
143 2017-04-06T08:10:47  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2017-04-06T08:34:26  *** bincap has quit IRC
145 2017-04-06T08:37:08  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2017-04-06T08:40:11  *** bincap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2017-04-06T08:43:20  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
148 2017-04-06T08:46:06  *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2017-04-06T08:47:27  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
150 2017-04-06T08:47:45  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
151 2017-04-06T08:49:59  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152 2017-04-06T08:53:56  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
153 2017-04-06T09:03:40  *** bincap has quit IRC
154 2017-04-06T09:47:10  *** belcher_ has quit IRC
155 2017-04-06T09:48:58  *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2017-04-06T09:55:14  *** belcher_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
157 2017-04-06T09:55:37  *** belcher_ is now known as Guest38904
158 2017-04-06T09:58:00  *** chjj has quit IRC
159 2017-04-06T10:03:24  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
160 2017-04-06T10:11:04  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2017-04-06T10:20:25  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162 2017-04-06T10:31:08  *** CubicEarthh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2017-04-06T10:41:09  *** CubicEarthh has quit IRC
164 2017-04-06T10:48:07  *** ryankung has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2017-04-06T11:07:42  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2017-04-06T11:11:10  *** BashCo has quit IRC
167 2017-04-06T11:12:18  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2017-04-06T11:37:27  *** davec has quit IRC
169 2017-04-06T11:49:51  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2017-04-06T11:54:03  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
171 2017-04-06T11:56:44  *** NielsvG has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2017-04-06T12:07:02  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
173 2017-04-06T12:07:58  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
174 2017-04-06T12:14:34  *** talmai has quit IRC
175 2017-04-06T12:38:48  *** condomitti has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2017-04-06T12:42:48  *** ryankung has quit IRC
177 2017-04-06T12:49:55  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
178 2017-04-06T12:52:00  *** bincap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
179 2017-04-06T13:09:17  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
180 2017-04-06T13:17:04  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
181 2017-04-06T13:22:07  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
182 2017-04-06T13:25:05  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
183 2017-04-06T13:38:06  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
184 2017-04-06T14:11:38  *** CodeShark has quit IRC
185 2017-04-06T14:11:38  *** mariorz has quit IRC
186 2017-04-06T14:12:08  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
187 2017-04-06T14:12:40  *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
188 2017-04-06T14:13:26  *** sugarpuff has quit IRC
189 2017-04-06T14:14:50  *** sugarpuff has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
190 2017-04-06T14:14:52  *** lejitz has quit IRC
191 2017-04-06T14:15:49  *** mariorz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192 2017-04-06T14:17:02  *** cfields has quit IRC
193 2017-04-06T14:17:08  *** cfields has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
194 2017-04-06T14:21:11  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
195 2017-04-06T14:29:45  *** fremenWalking has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
196 2017-04-06T14:35:57  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
197 2017-04-06T14:41:08  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
198 2017-04-06T14:43:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10162: [trivial] Log calls to getblocktemplate (master...loggetblocktemplatecalls) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10162
199 2017-04-06T14:47:59  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
200 2017-04-06T14:48:56  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
201 2017-04-06T14:59:22  *** rgrant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202 2017-04-06T15:00:14  *** riemann has quit IRC
203 2017-04-06T15:06:30  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2017-04-06T15:22:41  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
205 2017-04-06T15:29:52  *** sturles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2017-04-06T15:49:34  *** n1ce has quit IRC
207 2017-04-06T15:49:41  *** fremenWalking has quit IRC
208 2017-04-06T15:50:29  *** fremenWalking has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
209 2017-04-06T16:13:26  *** lejitz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
210 2017-04-06T16:32:41  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
211 2017-04-06T16:36:33  *** fremenWalking has quit IRC
212 2017-04-06T16:57:00  *** fremenWalking has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
213 2017-04-06T17:10:57  *** harrymm has quit IRC
214 2017-04-06T17:19:31  *** bincap has quit IRC
215 2017-04-06T17:19:53  *** bincap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
216 2017-04-06T17:21:46  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2017-04-06T17:56:10  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
218 2017-04-06T17:58:06  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
219 2017-04-06T18:01:55  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
220 2017-04-06T18:07:31  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
221 2017-04-06T18:09:56  *** jtimon has quit IRC
222 2017-04-06T18:18:14  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2017-04-06T18:19:29  *** CubicEarthh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
224 2017-04-06T18:20:09  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
225 2017-04-06T18:27:05  *** face has quit IRC
226 2017-04-06T18:29:29  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
227 2017-04-06T18:36:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c7e73eafa139...8c28670e92b6
228 2017-04-06T18:36:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 19e36bb Wladimir J. van der Laan: Add fs.cpp/h
229 2017-04-06T18:36:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7d5172d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Replace includes of boost/filesystem.h with fs.h...
230 2017-04-06T18:36:07  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bac5c9c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Replace uses of boost::filesystem with fs...
231 2017-04-06T18:36:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9902: Lightweight abstraction of boost::filesystem (master...2017_03_fs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9902
232 2017-04-06T18:39:32  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2017-04-06T18:45:09  *** jpoo90 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2017-04-06T18:51:35  *** face has quit IRC
235 2017-04-06T18:52:15  *** jpoo90 has quit IRC
236 2017-04-06T18:52:22  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
237 2017-04-06T18:56:08  *** Eagle[TM] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2017-04-06T18:56:50  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2017-04-06T18:58:29  <jcorgan> dev meeting?
240 2017-04-06T18:58:35  <jonasschnelli> 2mins
241 2017-04-06T19:01:31  <jonasschnelli> Dong!
242 2017-04-06T19:01:46  <jtimon> proposed topics?
243 2017-04-06T19:02:48  <jcorgan> mumble mumble something about a white elephant in the room mumble mumble
244 2017-04-06T19:02:58  <wumpus> #startmeeting
245 2017-04-06T19:02:58  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Apr  6 19:02:58 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
246 2017-04-06T19:02:58  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
247 2017-04-06T19:03:08  <luke-jr> gribble: nicks
248 2017-04-06T19:03:26  <luke-jr> … or not :x
249 2017-04-06T19:03:29  <kanzure> hi.
250 2017-04-06T19:03:41  <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 instagibbs
251 2017-04-06T19:03:45  <sipa> hi, half present
252 2017-04-06T19:03:59  <sdaftuar> hi
253 2017-04-06T19:04:22  <btcdrak> still breathing
254 2017-04-06T19:04:24  <wumpus> topics?
255 2017-04-06T19:04:55  *** fremenWalking has quit IRC
256 2017-04-06T19:05:10  <CodeShark> about 69% present but due to incompatibilities with litecoin that might decrease
257 2017-04-06T19:05:29  <luke-jr> absent other suggestions: UASF and/or PoW change? maybe too premature to discuss in dev tho
258 2017-04-06T19:05:42  <sipa> offtopic for here, i think
259 2017-04-06T19:05:56  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Let's not go down this road.
260 2017-04-06T19:05:59  <wumpus> yes I don't think they're good fits for this meeting
261 2017-04-06T19:06:03  <CodeShark> thanks for staying above that crap, sipa :)
262 2017-04-06T19:06:30  <warren> 0.14.1 status?
263 2017-04-06T19:06:42  <btcdrak> Maybe someone can dish out review homework?
264 2017-04-06T19:06:44  <wumpus> 0.14.1 status: rc1 was tagged, gitian builds in progress
265 2017-04-06T19:06:53  <cfields> hi, here, but also not very present.
266 2017-04-06T19:07:13  *** annanay25 has quit IRC
267 2017-04-06T19:07:18  <kanzure> if none of us are actually here, what are we doing?
268 2017-04-06T19:07:23  *** annanay25 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
269 2017-04-06T19:07:24  <jeremyrubin> here
270 2017-04-06T19:07:33  <morcos> here
271 2017-04-06T19:07:39  <wumpus> I'll upload binaries tomorrow morning (NL time)
272 2017-04-06T19:08:17  <luke-jr> maybe if FC is distracting too many devs, and we have a shortage of topics, meeting should be postponed?
273 2017-04-06T19:08:23  <btcdrak> maybe we should just order some pizzas and beers.
274 2017-04-06T19:08:27  <CodeShark> right
275 2017-04-06T19:08:33  <kanzure> is financial crypto over yet?
276 2017-04-06T19:08:44  <wumpus> yes, might be better to skip this meeting then, doesn't seem people have much to discuss or are not present or half present
277 2017-04-06T19:08:51  <jonasschnelli> ack
278 2017-04-06T19:08:55  <sipa> btcdrak: <BlueMatt> same PRs for review this week
279 2017-04-06T19:08:56  <btcdrak> shortest meeting eva
280 2017-04-06T19:08:57  <sdaftuar> anyone want to give updates on what they're working on?
281 2017-04-06T19:09:01  <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
282 2017-04-06T19:09:06  <jonasschnelli> ^ PRs to review
283 2017-04-06T19:09:16  <warren> For those who can't directly obtain the osx gitian build req, should we recommend that they do not participate in that part of the gitian process?
284 2017-04-06T19:09:20  <jonasschnelli> sdaftuar: good idea. You start?
285 2017-04-06T19:09:28  <luke-jr> I'm looking at adding a UTXO index by scriptPubKey for sweeping purposes
286 2017-04-06T19:09:28  <sipa> kanzure: dinner after FC17 currently ongoing; BlueMatt, roasbeef, ... are here
287 2017-04-06T19:09:39  <jonasschnelli> warren: It's just an SDK tar.gz?!
288 2017-04-06T19:09:47  <sdaftuar> jonasschnelli: sure
289 2017-04-06T19:09:48  <wumpus> luke-jr: there's a pull for that right?
290 2017-04-06T19:09:56  <luke-jr> warren: I don't see why it should be hard nowadays.. but yes, if you don't want to, feel free to skip
291 2017-04-06T19:10:19  <luke-jr> wumpus: the current PR iterates over the entire UTXO set
292 2017-04-06T19:10:21  <wumpus> luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9806
293 2017-04-06T19:10:49  <luke-jr> what I'm working on uses a RIPEMD160 to index scripts -> txid
294 2017-04-06T19:10:58  <warren> jonasschnelli: I think a lot of non-Mac users have been sharing that with others instead of going through steps of getting it themselves, which defeats the security goal, so it's misleading if multiple people go through the gitian process unless they obtain it themselves.
295 2017-04-06T19:11:27  <jonasschnelli> warren: that's true
296 2017-04-06T19:11:32  <wumpus> luke-jr: not sure how that one is diffrent, but I don't think we need multiple utxo indexes
297 2017-04-06T19:11:43  <luke-jr> anyone who didn't make it themselves should delete and make it (or not do osx builds) IMO
298 2017-04-06T19:11:43  <jonasschnelli> I'm working on BFD. roasbeef did inform me in Berlin about the progress they have made for the LND. I'd like to have BFD for the hybrid full block SPV mode.
299 2017-04-06T19:11:50  <jeremyrubin> I'd like to discuss net_processing refactors. It seems like there is some plan for where that is going, but it's not been made available to me.
300 2017-04-06T19:11:56  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2017-04-06T19:11:59  <luke-jr> wumpus: the only UTXO index right now is by txid
302 2017-04-06T19:12:15  <wumpus> luke-jr: yes, but the pull I referenced adds an index by scriptPubKey
303 2017-04-06T19:12:19  <sipa> luke-jr: #9806
304 2017-04-06T19:12:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9806 | txoutsbyaddress index (take 3) by droark · Pull Request #9806 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
305 2017-04-06T19:13:32  <jtimon> althought it isn't mine, I think https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7729 should be added to the list of things to review: that blocks the removal of accounts system
306 2017-04-06T19:13:38  <wumpus> warren: yes, the only reason I had to copy it (from a person I trust very much) is because it makes it possible for me to actually upload the executables. I don't think it's generally useful to build using someone else's macosx sdk file
307 2017-04-06T19:14:30  *** annanay25 has quit IRC
308 2017-04-06T19:14:38  *** annanay25 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
309 2017-04-06T19:14:42  <wumpus> but with luke-jr's instructions to extract it on linux there's not really an excuse anymore
310 2017-04-06T19:15:07  <sipa> i've been working on database/cache/flush/memory usage things
311 2017-04-06T19:15:18  <wumpus> jtimon: I tend to agree. though please review the *API*, not the code, the code is extremely outdated on that now
312 2017-04-06T19:15:47  <jtimon> wumpus: thank you, that helps
313 2017-04-06T19:15:50  <wumpus> jtimon: however I still stand behind the label API as I wrote it down back then, and that's the important part
314 2017-04-06T19:16:07  <morcos> i've been coding and recoding fee estimates for months now.. they'll maybe be a tiny smidge better but infinitely more complicated and will annoy the crap out of everyone to review.  have a nice day.
315 2017-04-06T19:16:25  <sdaftuar> i've been working on CreateNewBlock, so that we have a way to skip recently added transactions if the block income from doing so is below some threshold (to model higher orphan risk)
316 2017-04-06T19:16:32  <warren> wumpus: I'd like for us to be able to hash verify some part of the SDK and add that somewhere in the gitian process, I'm pretty sure this is possible
317 2017-04-06T19:16:53  <wumpus> warren: if you'd tar it in a deterministic way (like we do in gitian build process itself) that'd be easily possible
318 2017-04-06T19:16:57  <jcorgan> please correct me if i'm wrong, but #9806 uses hash of the full script as a key, not extracting the embedded push(es) for and addrindex type key, or am i confused
319 2017-04-06T19:16:58  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9806 | txoutsbyaddress index (take 3) by droark · Pull Request #9806 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
320 2017-04-06T19:17:03  <wumpus> warren: we'd just need a a script for that
321 2017-04-06T19:17:08  <wumpus> warren: "normalize mac sdk"
322 2017-04-06T19:17:26  <luke-jr> jcorgan: problem?
323 2017-04-06T19:17:30  <warren> wumpus: agreed
324 2017-04-06T19:17:51  <jcorgan> not a problem, just making sure i have the correct understanding
325 2017-04-06T19:18:18  <wumpus> the files and file names should definitely be the same for everyone, the differences will be in the metadata such as date/time/user and possibly file order
326 2017-04-06T19:19:14  <jtimon> I put some more ideas on #7829, not sure what to do about it, a couple of people participated at first, but perhaps the proposed task is too boring, even for newbies, at least I found some functions to make static
327 2017-04-06T19:19:16  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7829 | Globals: TODO: Experiment: Kill "Params()" by jtimon · Pull Request #7829 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
328 2017-04-06T19:20:15  <luke-jr> jcorgan: not sure, but I didn't see a need for it myself
329 2017-04-06T19:20:18  <jcorgan> luke-jr: wondering if the name 'txoutsbyaddressindex' is misleading
330 2017-04-06T19:20:43  <luke-jr> jcorgan: definitely, since it has nothing to do with addresses, but I already complained about that in a past PR it appears XD
331 2017-04-06T19:20:44  <jcorgan> anyway, not sure what the current topic is, i'll take this to the PR comments
332 2017-04-06T19:20:45  <jtimon> also worked on #9494 #10119 #10118 and more things to potentially do afterwards
333 2017-04-06T19:20:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9494 | Introduce an ArgsManager class encapsulating cs_args, mapArgs and mapMultiArgs by jtimon · Pull Request #9494 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
334 2017-04-06T19:20:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10119 | Util: Remove ArgsManager wrappers: by jtimon · Pull Request #10119 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
335 2017-04-06T19:20:48  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10118 | Util: Remove redundant calls to argsGlobal.IsArgSet() by jtimon · Pull Request #10118 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
336 2017-04-06T19:23:11  <sipa> any other topics or updates?
337 2017-04-06T19:23:34  <sdaftuar> quiet times!
338 2017-04-06T19:23:47  <jcorgan> maybe here it is quiet :)
339 2017-04-06T19:24:21  <warren> wumpus mentioned luke's script, for the record it is located here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/README_osx.md
340 2017-04-06T19:24:23  <wumpus> let's close the meeting early then
341 2017-04-06T19:24:29  <jonasschnelli> Yes. /end
342 2017-04-06T19:24:36  <wumpus> warren: yup
343 2017-04-06T19:24:42  <warren> well, instructions at least
344 2017-04-06T19:24:47  <wumpus> #link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/README_osx.md
345 2017-04-06T19:24:50  <wumpus> #endmeeting
346 2017-04-06T19:24:50  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Apr  6 19:24:50 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
347 2017-04-06T19:24:50  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-06-19.02.html
348 2017-04-06T19:24:50  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-06-19.02.txt
349 2017-04-06T19:24:50  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-06-19.02.log.html
350 2017-04-06T19:24:52  <sipa> it seems we boosted the speed of the meeting significantly
351 2017-04-06T19:25:03  <warren> overt boost even
352 2017-04-06T19:25:10  <jonasschnelli> boost(ed),.. I can't read that word anymore
353 2017-04-06T19:25:25  <gmaxwell> oops
354 2017-04-06T19:25:32  <jeremyrubin> A [sic] efficiency gain
355 2017-04-06T19:25:50  <jcorgan> ima go patent it
356 2017-04-06T19:25:51  <wumpus> isn't meeting speed boost patented?
357 2017-04-06T19:26:04  <jonasschnelli> Heh,... I'm sure there is one somewhere
358 2017-04-06T19:26:06  <gmaxwell> Sorry, been caught up in responding to dramaz and missed the meeting entirely! :(
359 2017-04-06T19:26:15  <jonasschnelli> Well... it was short
360 2017-04-06T19:26:18  <warren> wumpus: yes, one of the claims is to remove chairs from the room
361 2017-04-06T19:26:33  <jtimon> gmaxwell: I guess you can bring any topic if you want, we just finished
362 2017-04-06T19:26:48  <jtimon> most people are probably still around
363 2017-04-06T19:26:49  <wumpus> warren: hah indeed, to not let people get too comfortable
364 2017-04-06T19:27:35  <gmaxwell> I didn't want anything.
365 2017-04-06T19:28:03  <gmaxwell> I'm kind of overwhelmed by this bitmain response. It says a lot of agressive and untrue things, about the BIP proposal, about me personally, about our project.
366 2017-04-06T19:28:28  <luke-jr> seemed clearly nonsense enough I wouldn't worry over it IMO
367 2017-04-06T19:28:30  <jcorgan> no good deed goes unpunished
368 2017-04-06T19:28:32  <gmaxwell> It does a weird mix of confirming and denying.
369 2017-04-06T19:28:45  <wumpus> they're overwhelmed, and incapable of responding coherently
370 2017-04-06T19:28:54  <CodeShark> gmaxwell: they will never back down at this point
371 2017-04-06T19:28:57  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if Bitmain was innocent, they'd be all supportive of your proposal to stop competition from abusing it
372 2017-04-06T19:29:06  <achow101> what was Bitmain's response?
373 2017-04-06T19:29:32  <wumpus> yes, any miners that are not (planning to) use the trick would be supportive, after all no one wants to be secretly screwed out of their reward
374 2017-04-06T19:29:40  <gmaxwell> E.g. they helpfully confim their hardware implements asicboost, they loudly say they have the right to use it.  They claim that they haven't used it on mainnet 'for the good of bitcoin' (how that jives with their claims that they'll make all the empty blocks they want because the protocol allows it, I dunno)
375 2017-04-06T19:29:51  <CodeShark> if you're expecting a mea culpa you will end up gravely disappointed
376 2017-04-06T19:30:22  <jcorgan> ^
377 2017-04-06T19:30:46  <gmaxwell> Yes, the proposal is specifically designed to have minimal impact and only interfear with covert asicboost and only to the extent that it gums up protocol extensions (like segwit, utxo commitments, bloom filter commitments, etc.)  But in their response they claim that I am trying to harm bitcoin by blocking a valuable optimization. :-/
378 2017-04-06T19:30:56  <gmaxwell> CodeShark: oh no, I expected them to just deny having used it flat out.
379 2017-04-06T19:30:57  <wumpus> well denying that their hardware implements it would be pointless, so they fall back to denying they use it
380 2017-04-06T19:31:07  <gmaxwell> I didn't expect the rant full of trivially falsifyable claims.
381 2017-04-06T19:31:28  <wumpus> saying they don't use it 'for the sake of bitcoin' can't be jived with saying it's a valuable optimization though
382 2017-04-06T19:31:38  <jcorgan> very few people to whom that rant was addressed will care to try to falsify them
383 2017-04-06T19:31:49  <CodeShark> truth isn't the point
384 2017-04-06T19:31:49  <wumpus> if it shouldn't be used for the good of bitcoin, your BIP is exactly what they should adopt too
385 2017-04-06T19:31:55  <wumpus> truth is the point, for us
386 2017-04-06T19:32:00  <gmaxwell> There is so much just simply untrue in it that I don't know where to respond.  Baiscally I was prepared for a "We don't use it!" to which my response would be "Great, then you'll support activating this fix so no one else does and gains an advantage on you, right?"
387 2017-04-06T19:32:05  <CodeShark> yeah, but not for the intended audience
388 2017-04-06T19:32:09  <wumpus> we're trying to do development here, not politics
389 2017-04-06T19:32:13  <CodeShark> lol
390 2017-04-06T19:32:16  <wumpus> the intended audience of this channel is core devs
391 2017-04-06T19:32:20  <sipa> wumpus: +1
392 2017-04-06T19:32:27  <CodeShark> yes, so this is not the best place for this discussion
393 2017-04-06T19:32:33  <jcorgan> yeah, sorry
394 2017-04-06T19:32:46  <wumpus> well it's fine to mention it. I'm sure we want the BIP implemented in bitcoin core?
395 2017-04-06T19:33:11  <morcos> wumpus: i'd say we want if if we think there is community support
396 2017-04-06T19:33:23  <morcos> that should be our stance on all consensus changes
397 2017-04-06T19:33:39  <sipa> agree
398 2017-04-06T19:33:41  <jonasschnelli> morcos: how do you measure "community support"?
399 2017-04-06T19:33:49  <jonasschnelli> reddit?
400 2017-04-06T19:33:53  <sipa> jonasschnelli: it's complicated
401 2017-04-06T19:33:56  <morcos> its hard to measure obviously... but letting the dust settle a bit is a starting point
402 2017-04-06T19:34:13  <jtimon> let's move the discussion to #bitcoin ?
403 2017-04-06T19:34:18  <wumpus> ok, if we're not sure whether we want it, this is not the place to discuss it
404 2017-04-06T19:34:35  <jtimon> I mean, I think as a technical proposal it belongs in here
405 2017-04-06T19:34:38  <wumpus> otherwise the next question would have been how, and who is going to write the code
406 2017-04-06T19:34:40  <jonasschnelli> And I guess there is great uncertainty in the community.
407 2017-04-06T19:35:19  <wumpus> well there is quite certainly that the sneaky form of asicboost should be banished
408 2017-04-06T19:35:39  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Indeed.
409 2017-04-06T19:36:03  <jonasschnelli> Will it be a miner activated soft fork? :-)
410 2017-04-06T19:36:10  <wumpus> whether that BIP is the best solution to that is indeed open, indeed makes sense for the dust to settle on that, though it may still make sense to have actual code
411 2017-04-06T19:36:31  <morcos> i think in a clean room protocol design then, yes it shoudl be banished...  it people were using it, and keeping it quiet for competitive advantage, that seems a quasi-reasonable action to me.
412 2017-04-06T19:37:20  <morcos> so if we want to ban the merkle-root form b/c it isn't good for the protocol (which i agree with), it's fair to give some time to not immediately obsolete hardware made with fair intention (hypothetically speaking)
413 2017-04-06T19:37:24  <wumpus> if people were using it, it should be banished, if people were not using it, it should also be banished to prevent it from being used. No miner would rationally want another miner to get a sneaky advantage on them.
414 2017-04-06T19:37:37  <morcos> yes, if no one is using it.. then we don't need to have delay
415 2017-04-06T19:37:39  <jonasschnelli> It's a sneaky form of optimisation that leads to more centralisation of mining, .. and therefor does not follow the idea of Satoshi IMO.
416 2017-04-06T19:37:49  <morcos> but in all cases, it seems to me its somethign the community should decide not core
417 2017-04-06T19:38:01  <wumpus> the BIP doesn't break normal mining hardware does it?
418 2017-04-06T19:38:02  <morcos> it can be our recommendation that it should be banished at some point, for sure
419 2017-04-06T19:38:05  <wumpus> unlike a PoW change
420 2017-04-06T19:38:27  <jonasschnelli> I guess the community will decide if they run Core or no.
421 2017-04-06T19:38:28  <morcos> but there seems to be no reason to continue to use it (covertly) now that it has been made public
422 2017-04-06T19:38:41  <morcos> so one question is how compatible existing hardware is with switching to overt
423 2017-04-06T19:38:52  <jcorgan> hopefully nobody made covert-only hardware
424 2017-04-06T19:38:53  <morcos> if compatible.. then again , no reason to delay
425 2017-04-06T19:39:01  <morcos> jcorgan: ha, good poitn i suppose!
426 2017-04-06T19:39:12  <wumpus> if they did they just screwed themselves
427 2017-04-06T19:39:22  <jtimon> wumpus: personally I am sure that we want it, because logic tells me that only people that plan to use it would oppose it, but if all miners use it nobody gains anything
428 2017-04-06T19:39:24  <wumpus> though I'm sure all hardware supports mining without tricks
429 2017-04-06T19:39:53  *** IRC-Source_22424 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
430 2017-04-06T19:40:06  <jeremyrubin> I think we need to be very careful with how we brand any changes happening. The reason we would like to ban it is *NOT* because it is covert. It is because it is incomaptible with Bitcoin's incentive systems (e.g., transaction selection to maximiuze fees) and it interferes with protocol development.
431 2017-04-06T19:40:06  <wumpus> it needs special support to be able to receive multiple roots, and if it can accept multiple roots it can also accept one
432 2017-04-06T19:40:06  <gmaxwell> you can construct hardware that can ONLY use asicbost (or lose 3/4 of its hashpower) but it would be really stupid to do that, and I have seen no evidence that anyone does.
433 2017-04-06T19:41:02  <jeremyrubin> In the future, you don't want some regulator charging in requesting feature changes to disable a "covert" bitcoin feature
434 2017-04-06T19:41:02  <gmaxwell> wumpus: yes, though if you unroll the logic and route it, the getting only one would lose 3/4 of the hashpower. But that is not how Bitmain's is implemented...
435 2017-04-06T19:41:10  <wumpus> jeremyrubin: again, this is not about branding, this channel is about development
436 2017-04-06T19:41:11  <gmaxwell> (at least not in the chips they sell to the public)
437 2017-04-06T19:41:51  <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes I don't think that's anything realistic
438 2017-04-06T19:41:52  <jeremyrubin> I'm just saying the name "Covert" is misleading and does not lead to good technical undertsanding
439 2017-04-06T19:42:09  <wumpus> it's pointless to start discussing language here
440 2017-04-06T19:43:28  <rgrant> morcos: core must protect the protocol.  if this subverts it, by creating meaning in bits that should have no meaning, then core should take a stand on that.
441 2017-04-06T19:47:23  <rgrant> one principled way to proceed would be to say that optimizations that harm intended extensibility will not be respected.
442 2017-04-06T19:47:48  <jcorgan> i like the restraint in the original proposal, to make the protocol enhancing blockage stuff not do that, and decouple that from the optimization vs. attack discussion
443 2017-04-06T19:48:09  <rgrant> jcorgan: sme
444 2017-04-06T19:48:12  <rgrant> same
445 2017-04-06T19:49:25  <jtimon> so on the developer side, I think we can introduce a per-deployment optional field that makes a given deployment activate instead of expire according to bip9, I guess that deserves it's own bip even if it's a simple extension of bip9, but the code is also easy to add and not very disruptive, and it seems something reasonable to have
446 2017-04-06T19:49:37  <gmaxwell> jcorgan: Thank you, that is very much intended. And so its frustrating to see bitmain misrepresent it so completely.
447 2017-04-06T19:52:09  *** jnewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
448 2017-04-06T19:53:02  *** jnewshoes has quit IRC
449 2017-04-06T19:53:12  <jcorgan> so i'd recommend that if something is done short term, it be entirely focused on that, with pushback by the team on any enthusiam to address the "overt" asicboost activity
450 2017-04-06T19:53:43  <btcdrak> morcos: covert boost is switchable so it can, and should be disabled post haste (community willing ofc).
451 2017-04-06T19:54:09  *** jnewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452 2017-04-06T19:55:25  <morcos> yes, well apparently no one is using either version... so thats probably the biggest argument that no delay is needed
453 2017-04-06T19:56:48  <gmaxwell> Yes, if the argument is that no one is using it yet, great!
454 2017-04-06T20:28:26  *** alpalp has quit IRC
455 2017-04-06T20:57:33  <Chris_Stewart_5> jcorgan: I agree whole heartedly with *only* focusing on the covert (protocol blocking stuff) right now. Table the other discussion like you said
456 2017-04-06T20:58:07  <Chris_Stewart_5> Thats going to be a much more interesting debate and I'm not sure where I fall on that one
457 2017-04-06T20:59:52  <wumpus> that's also the only thing that gmaxwell's BIP covers
458 2017-04-06T20:59:54  <jcorgan> me neither
459 2017-04-06T21:00:32  <Chris_Stewart_5> Just to be clear, gmaxwell's BIP can be withdrawn if segwit is activated right?
460 2017-04-06T21:00:59  <Chris_Stewart_5> if we are focusing on covert usage
461 2017-04-06T21:01:09  <BlueMatt> Chris_Stewart_5: kinda, segwit is very deliberately designed to allow miners to not mine segwit txn, but the problem is likely self-correcting then - you're losing out on fees for asicboost
462 2017-04-06T21:01:29  <BlueMatt> (ie you can skip the witness commitment, but only if you dont mine segwit txn)
463 2017-04-06T21:03:48  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
464 2017-04-06T21:08:46  <gmaxwell> Chris_Stewart_5: segwit also satisifies my BIP.  The bip lets you either include the segwit commitment OR another segwit incompatible commitment.
465 2017-04-06T21:09:13  <gmaxwell> I structured it this way so parties that already had segwit would need zero additional work, and parties that didn't want segwit could support this bip without supporting segwit in any way.
466 2017-04-06T21:10:01  <gmaxwell> personally I do not believe these parties exist, but we shouldn't create a vulnerablity in the proposal where people could dishonestly argue against segwit to stop the proposal (which is the problem I think we've been having)
467 2017-04-06T21:16:13  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
468 2017-04-06T21:21:51  *** veleiro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
469 2017-04-06T21:23:16  <jcorgan> perhaps it would be better to move away from overt/covert terminology and use something like 'forward compatible/incompatible'
470 2017-04-06T21:24:06  <jcorgan> that focuses on the technical side without motivationally tinged wording
471 2017-04-06T21:26:23  <rgrant> jcorgan:  "FairHeader" has gained a following already in #bitcoin.  "forward compatible" might stir up big blockers.
472 2017-04-06T21:26:43  <jcorgan> ugh
473 2017-04-06T21:27:06  <jcorgan> "fair" is a completely subjective and political term
474 2017-04-06T21:27:45  <rgrant> so is "forward".  got anything more descriptive?
475 2017-04-06T21:27:47  <jcorgan> but perhaps this particular thing should stay in #bitcoin, sorry guys
476 2017-04-06T21:29:06  <Eagle[TM]> whether to make it a UASF (not specifically endorsed by core) or to include it in core code is something to consider
477 2017-04-06T21:35:38  *** bitcoinreminder_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
478 2017-04-06T21:36:25  <bitcoinreminder_> could you release a binary for this covert asic boost bug?
479 2017-04-06T21:36:39  <bitcoinreminder_> i think a lot of people are already waiting for it :D
480 2017-04-06T21:37:56  <Eagle[TM]> i don't think it's even clear yet whether it's done as an UASF or a MASF
481 2017-04-06T21:39:48  <bitcoinreminder_> hm ok.. :/
482 2017-04-06T21:42:34  <abpa> UASF can be done by Core, just not without community support
483 2017-04-06T21:43:01  <abpa> MASF for fixing AntBleed can't work
484 2017-04-06T21:43:18  <abpa> Sorry I mean covert asicboost
485 2017-04-06T21:43:24  <bitcoinreminder_> I also think we should really try UASF this time.. I also think the support is overwhelming
486 2017-04-06T21:43:36  <abpa> It's really for #bitcoin discussion not #bitcoin-core-dev
487 2017-04-06T21:44:28  <BlueMatt> lol, lots of new people here tonight
488 2017-04-06T21:44:35  <sturles> An UASF would need support from a supermajority of exchanges and payment processors, and preferably as many merchants as possible dealing with bitcoin directly.
489 2017-04-06T21:44:50  <sturles> And I don't think that will be a problem.
490 2017-04-06T21:45:17  <sturles> Theese days you can buy beer with testnet coins, as long as you use LN..
491 2017-04-06T21:45:39  <BlueMatt> sturles: nonononono, that was a one-night thing...if it turns into a regular thing we have to reset testnet :(
492 2017-04-06T21:46:16  <BlueMatt> (and, before you ask, testnet doesnt get consensus-requirements...wumpus is the appointed holy leader and less-than-benevolent dictator for life of testnet :p)
493 2017-04-06T21:47:33  <Eagle[TM]> BlueMatt: it's just when things are getting really interesting, 2nd tier style reddit doesn't do it anymore. people crawling out of the woodwork
494 2017-04-06T21:47:36  <bitcoinreminder_> would someone be so nice to create an unofficial UASF implementation? you dont have to sign or compile it, just the code would be fine for me?
495 2017-04-06T21:47:51  <BlueMatt> less-than-benevolent because he gets to maximize for zero value....
496 2017-04-06T21:48:17  <BlueMatt> bitcoinreminder_: the proposal is far from done, needs constants, not now, no
497 2017-04-06T21:48:44  <bitcoinreminder_> damn :D
498 2017-04-06T21:49:04  <bitcoinreminder_> is there any suggestion already at least for a version string?
499 2017-04-06T21:50:04  <bitcoinreminder_> sorry for my impatience :D
500 2017-04-06T21:50:34  <jcorgan> patience is a virtue well-honed by participation in the bitcoin world :-)
501 2017-04-06T21:50:38  <Eagle[TM]> bitcoinreminder_: give it time. even core devs need sleep from time to time.
502 2017-04-06T21:51:21  <bitcoinreminder_> unfortunately :D No thanks guys, for your great work.. really :)
503 2017-04-06T22:04:05  <BlueMatt> yea, at least the folks at fc went to bed an hour ago, and I'm off now
504 2017-04-06T22:05:14  <bitcoinreminder_> good night you heros of the magic internet money :)
505 2017-04-06T22:15:22  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
506 2017-04-06T22:16:01  *** veleiro has quit IRC
507 2017-04-06T22:23:08  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
508 2017-04-06T22:34:45  *** Guest38904 is now known as belcher
509 2017-04-06T22:34:48  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
510 2017-04-06T22:40:12  *** NewLiberty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
511 2017-04-06T22:46:29  *** rgrant has left #bitcoin-core-dev
512 2017-04-06T22:56:30  *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
513 2017-04-06T22:59:08  *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
514 2017-04-06T23:07:29  *** NewLiberty_ is now known as NewLiberty
515 2017-04-06T23:11:51  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
516 2017-04-06T23:11:51  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
517 2017-04-06T23:15:22  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
518 2017-04-06T23:32:40  *** gotojyh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
519 2017-04-06T23:44:44  *** jnewshoes has quit IRC
520 2017-04-06T23:46:57  *** jnewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
521 2017-04-06T23:56:22  *** IRC-Source_22424 has quit IRC
522 2017-04-06T23:56:40  *** abpa has quit IRC
523 2017-04-06T23:58:22  *** gotojyh has quit IRC