12017-06-28T00:00:03  <sipa> sdaftuar: is there a good reason to support that?
  22017-06-28T00:00:22  <BlueMatt> i dont think its "permitted"
  32017-06-28T00:00:35  <BlueMatt> there should be no way to call it except permiscuousmempoolflags
  42017-06-28T00:00:39  <sipa> i mean: we should have an assert for it
  52017-06-28T00:00:39  <BlueMatt> which is a testing-only thing
  62017-06-28T00:01:08  <sipa> just as there is an asserts that prevents CLEANSTACK without P2SH/WITNESS
  72017-06-28T00:01:40  <BlueMatt> meh? I mean its testing-only, if it doesnt crash why bother making it?
  82017-06-28T00:01:43  <BlueMatt> just complicates testing of it
  92017-06-28T00:01:51  <BlueMatt> it being script generally
 102017-06-28T00:02:30  <sipa> i like that every script execution flag is a softfork wrt any other combinations of script execution flags
 112017-06-28T00:02:38  <sipa> i think upgradable nops is the only exception
 122017-06-28T00:03:08  <PRab> nm, I got it. I had to add --upgrade to the end of the existing gbuild command.
 132017-06-28T00:06:48  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142017-06-28T00:10:13  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10686: Avoid usage of uninitialized values in function call arguments (master...uninitialized-arguments) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10686
 152017-06-28T00:12:26  *** PRab has quit IRC
 162017-06-28T00:29:05  *** Gabon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 172017-06-28T00:36:23  *** Gabon has quit IRC
 182017-06-28T00:40:21  *** Murch has quit IRC
 192017-06-28T00:52:49  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202017-06-28T00:59:28  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 212017-06-28T01:01:01  *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 222017-06-28T01:03:35  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 232017-06-28T01:17:27  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 242017-06-28T01:19:57  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 252017-06-28T01:23:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 262017-06-28T01:38:46  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272017-06-28T02:03:42  *** Char0n has quit IRC
 282017-06-28T02:03:52  *** Char0n has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 292017-06-28T02:05:08  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 302017-06-28T02:15:32  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 312017-06-28T02:26:01  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 322017-06-28T02:27:07  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 332017-06-28T02:29:53  *** To7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 342017-06-28T02:34:57  *** roasbeef has quit IRC
 352017-06-28T02:35:49  *** helo has quit IRC
 362017-06-28T02:39:24  *** dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 372017-06-28T02:43:12  *** roasbeef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 382017-06-28T02:48:24  *** helo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 392017-06-28T02:59:53  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 402017-06-28T03:08:45  *** handlex has quit IRC
 412017-06-28T03:19:56  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 422017-06-28T03:37:06  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432017-06-28T03:43:49  *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 442017-06-28T03:51:29  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 452017-06-28T03:53:23  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 462017-06-28T04:00:31  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
 472017-06-28T04:00:59  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
 482017-06-28T04:01:32  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 492017-06-28T04:02:10  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502017-06-28T04:07:18  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 512017-06-28T04:22:05  *** talmai has quit IRC
 522017-06-28T04:24:53  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
 532017-06-28T04:37:28  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 542017-06-28T05:21:56  *** rockhouse has quit IRC
 552017-06-28T06:11:11  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 562017-06-28T06:25:51  *** unholymachine has quit IRC
 572017-06-28T06:26:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 582017-06-28T06:26:15  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10649: Make sure we only mine via the first wallet (master...2017/06/wallet_generate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10649
 592017-06-28T06:27:03  *** unholymachine has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 602017-06-28T06:27:08  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612017-06-28T07:00:04  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 622017-06-28T07:00:38  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 632017-06-28T07:06:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #10688: contrib: Update laanwj key (master...2017_06_laanwj_key) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10688
 642017-06-28T07:15:16  <wumpus> PRab: yes, upgrades are not persistent, it happens every gbuild on the copied image
 652017-06-28T07:15:47  <wumpus> there's no documented way to upgrade the base image - I tried it last time but ended up with 3 versions of gcc installed and a wrong gitian output :)
 662017-06-28T07:22:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/acb11535cb84...a381f6a5bdc2
 672017-06-28T07:22:05  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 22378ad Alex Morcos: Remove no longer used mempool.exists(outpoint)
 682017-06-28T07:22:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a381f6a Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10684: Remove no longer used mempool.exists(outpoint)...
 692017-06-28T07:22:35  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10684: Remove no longer used mempool.exists(outpoint) (master...lessHaveCoin) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10684
 702017-06-28T07:32:37  <luke-jr> (but that's what the apt cacher is for)
 712017-06-28T07:33:15  <wumpus> which caches the download, but not the install itself, which still takes some time
 722017-06-28T07:33:35  <wumpus> especially when a release gets older and more updates pile up
 732017-06-28T07:45:49  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 742017-06-28T07:49:04  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 752017-06-28T07:57:36  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
 762017-06-28T07:57:58  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772017-06-28T08:07:37  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 782017-06-28T08:11:00  *** Yogaqueef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 792017-06-28T08:23:49  *** spinza has quit IRC
 802017-06-28T08:24:43  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 812017-06-28T08:31:22  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 822017-06-28T09:07:27  *** aj has quit IRC
 832017-06-28T09:07:34  *** aj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 842017-06-28T09:16:18  *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 852017-06-28T09:18:38  *** Gabo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862017-06-28T09:21:18  *** Gabo has quit IRC
 872017-06-28T10:20:56  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 882017-06-28T10:22:23  *** marcoagner has quit IRC
 892017-06-28T10:33:55  *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 902017-06-28T10:43:34  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912017-06-28T10:49:14  *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 922017-06-28T10:51:09  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
 932017-06-28T11:08:24  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942017-06-28T11:23:27  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 952017-06-28T11:28:44  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] tiagmoraismorgado opened pull request #10689: fixing a couple of typos (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10689
 962017-06-28T11:29:50  <morcos> As an RPC argument, fundrawtransaction uses optIntoRbf, bumpfee uses replaceable, my recent PR used opt_in_rbf for sendtoaddress and sendmany.  Should I instead use replaceable?  (I felt that was maybe too general a word)  Or should I change the preexisting argument names?
 972017-06-28T11:54:10  <wumpus> morcos: from the developer notes, RPC interface guidelines: Argument naming: use snake case `fee_delta` (and not, e.g. camel case `feeDelta`)
 982017-06-28T11:54:32  <wumpus> so opt_in_rbf or replaceable are ok
 992017-06-28T11:56:03  <wumpus> it's unfortunate that there is such a zoo of different argument names for the same
1002017-06-28T11:59:07  <wumpus> for API changes introduced since 0.14 there's still the possibility of normalizing them
1012017-06-28T12:04:40  *** talmai has quit IRC
1022017-06-28T12:07:25  <morcos> wumpus: oh looks like optIntoRbf was just merged
1032017-06-28T12:07:39  <morcos> so what do you think, make them all replaceable?  and not worry that it sounds a bit too generic
1042017-06-28T12:07:53  <morcos> seems fine to me, the help can always clarify it means BIP-125 replaceable
1052017-06-28T12:07:58  <morcos> and we don't have any other notion for now
1062017-06-28T12:07:58  <wumpus> sounds good to me
1072017-06-28T12:08:03  <morcos> ok will do
1082017-06-28T12:08:14  *** dabura667 has quit IRC
1092017-06-28T12:08:56  <wumpus> general is good from an API viewpoint I guess - the user might not care how the replacement works, just that the transaction can be replaced
1102017-06-28T12:12:03  <wumpus> (on the other hand, if different kinds of replacement would be supported, they might want to choose a certain one based on their specific properties... but meh, could always add an additional field for replacement type)
1112017-06-28T12:19:34  <morcos> luke-jr: you ok with changing optIntoRbf and optintorbf that you added in #9672 to replaceable?  should i also change rbfoptin from bitcoin-tx (same PR) ?
1122017-06-28T12:19:36  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9672 | Opt-into-RBF for RPC & bitcoin-tx by luke-jr · Pull Request #9672 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1132017-06-28T12:32:43  *** PRab has quit IRC
1142017-06-28T12:57:20  *** belcher_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152017-06-28T13:02:07  *** drizztbsd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162017-06-28T13:03:16  *** timothy has quit IRC
1172017-06-28T13:06:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a381f6a5bdc2...9a941a10101d
1182017-06-28T13:06:31  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master aa95947 practicalswift: Use the override specifier (C++11) where we expect to be overriding the virtual function of a base class
1192017-06-28T13:06:32  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9a941a1 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10631: Use the override specifier (C++11) where we expect to be overriding the virtual function of a base class...
1202017-06-28T13:06:59  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10631: Use the override specifier (C++11) where we expect to be overriding the virtual function of a base class (master...overrides-ii) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10631
1212017-06-28T13:25:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9527: Enable RBF transactions in wallet by default (master...pr/walletrbf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9527
1222017-06-28T13:27:53  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232017-06-28T13:29:51  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242017-06-28T13:55:59  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252017-06-28T13:57:03  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1262017-06-28T13:57:12  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
1272017-06-28T14:00:28  *** drizztbsd has quit IRC
1282017-06-28T14:01:12  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #10689: fixing a couple of typos (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10689
1292017-06-28T14:01:30  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
1302017-06-28T14:03:17  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #10690: [qa] Bugfix: allow overriding extra_args in ComparisonTestFramework (master...2017-06-comp-framework-extraargs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10690
1312017-06-28T14:03:54  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322017-06-28T14:17:42  *** drizztbsd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332017-06-28T14:18:40  *** drizztbsd is now known as timothy
1342017-06-28T14:24:23  <Chris_Stewart_5> There isn't any consensus rule that says coinbase transaction's can't spend outputs is there?
1352017-06-28T14:30:25  <wumpus> coinbase tranactions's input is ignored
1362017-06-28T14:30:53  <instagibbs> Chris_Stewart_5, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/08a7316c144f9f2516db8fa62400893f4358c5ae/src/primitives/transaction.h#L336
1372017-06-28T14:35:09  *** Greybits is now known as _Sam--
1382017-06-28T14:38:48  <sdaftuar> sipa: i think i agree with you that it'd be nice to assert if DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_NOPS is given, but CLTV/CSV are not
1392017-06-28T14:39:41  <sdaftuar> also i assume (someday) DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_WITNESS_PROGRAM could have the same issue
1402017-06-28T14:40:33  <sdaftuar> BlueMatt: i think testing is more complicated, not less, by allowing that combination of script flags
1412017-06-28T14:58:58  *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422017-06-28T15:14:57  *** JackH has quit IRC
1432017-06-28T15:15:48  <BlueMatt> sdaftuar: fair
1442017-06-28T15:30:25  <sipa> sdaftuar: so, say we adopt a new OP_NOP4 at some point, and a softfork is proposed to deal with it
1452017-06-28T15:31:32  <sipa> we'd make it subject to DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_NOPS only when the new flag is not set
1462017-06-28T15:32:47  <sipa> with an assert that requires upgradable_nops to also have the new SF active, it means you can't enforce a policy of rejecting such transactions in the mempool before the SF happens
1472017-06-28T15:33:01  <sipa> i wonder if that's how we've always done softforks
1482017-06-28T15:33:10  <sdaftuar> i don't think i follow --
1492017-06-28T15:33:27  <sdaftuar> presumably the software that introduces the new OP_NOP4 thing will immediately enforce it in the mempool?
1502017-06-28T15:34:04  <sipa> sure
1512017-06-28T15:34:12  <sdaftuar> upgradable_nops doesn't require the new SF is active, it just requires that your new policy is active
1522017-06-28T15:34:18  <sdaftuar> since upgradable_nops is only ever policy
1532017-06-28T15:34:18  <sipa> sure
1542017-06-28T15:34:36  <sdaftuar> oh!
1552017-06-28T15:34:38  <sdaftuar> now i understand
1562017-06-28T15:34:52  <sipa> but i mean: it seems strange to allow (valid) OP_NOP4 transactions in the mempool before the SF activates
1572017-06-28T15:35:02  <sipa> they'd be mined too
1582017-06-28T15:35:10  <sdaftuar> right, we had this issue with CSV i think
1592017-06-28T15:35:27  <sdaftuar> where we added a special rule on version 2 transactions being rejected pre-activation
1602017-06-28T15:36:09  <sdaftuar> for CLTV, i think we just allowed valid CLTV transactions in the mempool pre-activation
1612017-06-28T15:36:58  <sdaftuar> well, i think what we did for CSV was the right thing.
1622017-06-28T15:37:23  <sipa> for CSV it worked by keeping v2 transactions nonstandard until needed, i think
1632017-06-28T15:37:30  <sdaftuar> yep
1642017-06-28T15:37:39  <sipa> that won't work for every SF
1652017-06-28T15:37:58  <sdaftuar> well the OP_NOP style of SF is probably not long for this world, no?
1662017-06-28T15:38:11  <sdaftuar> i think the question is how do we envision it working in segwit
1672017-06-28T15:38:44  <sipa> same applies to upgradable_witness_program
1682017-06-28T15:39:26  <sdaftuar> so upgradable_witness_program definitely shouldn't be in the mempool pre-activation, i think.
1692017-06-28T15:39:33  <sipa> right
1702017-06-28T15:39:53  <sipa> but i think that requires 3 script flags
1712017-06-28T15:40:34  <sipa> 1) discourage_upgradable_witness_program (which does not apply anymore to v1 witness programs)
1722017-06-28T15:40:49  <sipa> 2) discourage v1 witness programs
1732017-06-28T15:41:09  <sipa> 3) enforce v1 witness program rules
1742017-06-28T15:42:10  <sipa> chain uses none before activation, (3) after
1752017-06-28T15:42:31  <sipa> mempool uses (1)+(2) before activation, (2)+(3) after
1762017-06-28T15:44:08  <sipa> eh, (1)+(3) after
1772017-06-28T15:46:37  <sdaftuar> i think that makes sense, conceptually.  it would be nice if (2) didn't need to waste a script flag bit, though.
1782017-06-28T15:49:09  <sipa> (2) could be twmporary i guess
1792017-06-28T15:49:31  <sipa> as logic for the pre-activation mempool case isn't needed long term
1802017-06-28T15:49:38  <sdaftuar> agreed
1812017-06-28T15:49:40  <sipa> though it may be of longer term use in tests
1822017-06-28T16:01:43  *** riemann has quit IRC
1832017-06-28T16:12:54  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9a941a10101d...416af3edf5b5
1842017-06-28T16:12:54  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4ed3653 Suhas Daftuar: [qa] Bugfix: allow overriding extra_args in ComparisonTestFramework
1852017-06-28T16:12:55  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 416af3e MarcoFalke: Merge #10690: [qa] Bugfix: allow overriding extra_args in ComparisonTestFramework...
1862017-06-28T16:13:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #10690: [qa] Bugfix: allow overriding extra_args in ComparisonTestFramework (master...2017-06-comp-framework-extraargs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10690
1872017-06-28T16:27:28  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/416af3edf5b5...d4e551adfec2
1882017-06-28T16:27:29  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b3a279c Pieter Wuille: [MOVEONLY] Move LastCommonAncestor to chain
1892017-06-28T16:27:29  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 013a56a Pieter Wuille: Non-atomic flushing using the blockchain as replay journal
1902017-06-28T16:27:30  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0580ee0 Pieter Wuille: Adapt memory usage estimation for flushing
1912017-06-28T16:27:40  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10148: Use non-atomic flushing with block replay (master...non_atomic_flush) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10148
1922017-06-28T16:28:00  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] wraith7 opened pull request #10691: Trivial: Properly comment about shutdown process in init.cpp file. (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10691
1932017-06-28T16:33:24  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942017-06-28T16:35:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1952017-06-28T16:38:10  *** goatpig has quit IRC
1962017-06-28T16:45:46  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1972017-06-28T16:50:04  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #10692: Make mapBlockIndex and chainActive and all CBlockIndex*es const outside of validation/CChainState (master...2017-04-const-mapblockindex) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10692
1982017-06-28T16:51:25  *** chjj has quit IRC
1992017-06-28T17:04:13  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2002017-06-28T17:09:48  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012017-06-28T17:10:40  *** timothy has quit IRC
2022017-06-28T17:42:16  *** spinza has quit IRC
2032017-06-28T17:55:47  *** atroxes has quit IRC
2042017-06-28T17:55:57  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052017-06-28T17:57:15  *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062017-06-28T17:58:06  *** annanay25 has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2072017-06-28T17:58:24  *** annanay25 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2082017-06-28T18:02:57  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10694: Remove redundant code in MutateTxSign(CMutableTransaction&, const std::string&) (master...remove-redundant-code-in-MutateTxSign) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10694
2092017-06-28T18:11:12  <morcos> I'm trying to clean up some of the wallet fee logic around minimums and maximums and set fees vs estimates.
2102017-06-28T18:11:24  <morcos> When should we obey the global maxtxfee?
2112017-06-28T18:11:54  <morcos> Right now we do not obey that for fundrawtransaction, but the changes I was lookign at making would refactor so that fundrawtransaction does obey that
2122017-06-28T18:12:07  <BlueMatt> sounds good
2132017-06-28T18:12:10  <BlueMatt> consistency above all, imo
2142017-06-28T18:12:17  <BlueMatt> actual decision isnt critical, consistency is
2152017-06-28T18:12:31  <morcos> But I could see how fundrawtransction is a different beast that maybe you want to be able to ignore that setting for.
2162017-06-28T18:16:18  <morcos> similar question for obeying minimums
2172017-06-28T18:18:56  <instagibbs> Consistency is my expectation as a user of that api
2182017-06-28T18:20:49  <instagibbs> (controls to override are totally fine ofc)
2192017-06-28T18:22:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d4e551adfec2...30c21306c171
2202017-06-28T18:22:29  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 381b8fc Matt Corallo: Clarify CCoinsViewMemPool documentation....
2212017-06-28T18:22:30  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 30c2130 Pieter Wuille: Merge #10685: Clarify CCoinsViewMemPool documentation....
2222017-06-28T18:22:59  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #10685: Clarify CCoinsViewMemPool documentation. (master...2017-06-ccoinsviewmempool-doc-cleanup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10685
2232017-06-28T18:26:55  <instagibbs> my effective feerate did the split out of the max fee check, IIRC you didn't like it at the time
2242017-06-28T18:42:06  <luke-jr> morcos: not really. that would break compatibility, and gives a false impression that other transactions aren't replacable.
2252017-06-28T18:43:50  <luke-jr> but in terms of normalising to use underscores, IIRC we support multiple names now..
2262017-06-28T18:44:00  <luke-jr> so we could do opt_into_rbf|optintorbf?
2272017-06-28T18:44:10  <luke-jr> (and the same for older params)
2282017-06-28T18:44:58  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/30c21306c171...90a002ea647d
2292017-06-28T18:44:59  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3c8a9ae Alex Morcos: Add belt-and-suspenders in DisconnectBlock...
2302017-06-28T18:44:59  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 21d4afa Alex Morcos: Comment clarifications in coins.cpp
2312017-06-28T18:45:00  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 90a002e Pieter Wuille: Merge #10558: Address nits from per-utxo change...
2322017-06-28T18:45:17  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #10558: Address nits from per-utxo change (master...10195nits) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10558
2332017-06-28T18:46:44  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342017-06-28T19:01:21  *** Dizzle has quit IRC
2352017-06-28T19:09:55  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
2362017-06-28T19:17:05  *** _Sam-- has quit IRC
2372017-06-28T19:25:40  *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382017-06-28T19:47:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #10695: [qa] Rewrite BIP65 functional tests (master...2017-06-fix-bip65-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10695
2392017-06-28T19:50:10  *** nakaluna has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2402017-06-28T20:31:24  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412017-06-28T20:39:00  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2422017-06-28T20:39:55  <morcos> luke-jr: the main issue is the only argument name already in release is part of bumpfee and it's already called replaceable
2432017-06-28T20:40:08  <morcos> so while i agree that opt_in_rbf or similar would be even better
2442017-06-28T20:40:24  <morcos> i'm not sure its worth breaking existing API or having multiple names that mean the same thing
2452017-06-28T20:40:39  <morcos> and i think perhaps we should just go with replaceable for now?
2462017-06-28T20:40:48  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472017-06-28T20:40:50  *** Yogaqueef has quit IRC
2482017-06-28T20:40:54  <morcos> but i could be convinced otherwise
2492017-06-28T20:46:34  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2502017-06-28T20:47:12  *** nakaluna has quit IRC
2512017-06-28T20:53:57  *** Murch has quit IRC
2522017-06-28T20:55:34  *** mol has quit IRC
2532017-06-28T21:02:11  <luke-jr> morcos: they're all in release (Knots)
2542017-06-28T21:03:48  <luke-jr> but as long as the current name is retained as an alias, it doesn't really break the API
2552017-06-28T21:10:46  <BlueMatt> bitcoin core does not support Knots releases, so I dont think you can argue we're tied to Knots' API - Knots can apply patches if it likes
2562017-06-28T21:14:17  <luke-jr> Bitcoin Core doesn't NOT support Knots releases either. Knots APIs are not necessarily guaranteed, but we should try to maintain compatibility when reasonable.
2572017-06-28T21:16:29  <cfields> BlueMatt: I'm looking at #10652 now. Can you give a bit of context for "Turn mapBlocksInFlight into a multimap" ?
2582017-06-28T21:16:30  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10652 | Small step towards demangling cs_main from CNodeState by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10652 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2592017-06-28T21:17:27  <BlueMatt> cfields: sec, redoing pr
2602017-06-28T21:17:29  <BlueMatt> give me 30 seconds
2612017-06-28T21:17:34  <BlueMatt> i mean not really, just splitting
2622017-06-28T21:17:46  <cfields> ok. same one?
2632017-06-28T21:18:09  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10696: Remove redundant nullptr checks before deallocation (master...delete-nullptr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10696
2642017-06-28T21:18:09  <cfields> if so, please consider ^^ a request for a more thorough commit message :)
2652017-06-28T21:19:34  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #10697: Do not hold cs_vNodes when making ForEachNode Callbacks (master...2017-06-cnodestateaccessors-5) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10697
2662017-06-28T21:19:39  <BlueMatt> heh, naa, I was just splitting the pr
2672017-06-28T21:20:02  <BlueMatt> cfields: those commits are rebased from #9447
2682017-06-28T21:20:04  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9447 | Allow 2 simultaneous block downloads by morcos · Pull Request #9447 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2692017-06-28T21:21:10  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
2702017-06-28T21:21:43  <cfields> ah ok, thanks
2712017-06-28T21:22:07  <BlueMatt> cfields: lemme take a crack at a more expansive commit message since they now lack the context of actually adding simultaneous block downloads
2722017-06-28T21:22:42  <cfields> BlueMatt: thanks. the PR title answers my question, though. I just wasn't sure what exactly it was setting the stage for.
2732017-06-28T21:23:55  <BlueMatt> yea, its setting the stage for two things - parallel block downloads but also having per-CNodeState locks
2742017-06-28T21:24:16  <BlueMatt> the per-CNodeState locks need that change so that you dont hold two at the same time (which would be a lockorder violation)
2752017-06-28T21:24:46  <BlueMatt> so you need to MarkBlockAsReceived in the background (ie via CValidationInterface callbacks) and not access the mapBlocksInFlight entries of other peers when you go to download a block
2762017-06-28T21:27:09  *** ProfMac_ has quit IRC
2772017-06-28T21:28:20  <BlueMatt> cfields: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10652#issuecomment-311797355 sufficient?
2782017-06-28T21:28:55  <cfields> yes, thanks
2792017-06-28T21:56:38  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
2802017-06-28T22:00:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #10698: Be consistent in calling transactions "replaceable" for Opt-In RBF (master...2017-06-replaceable-rpc-args) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10698
2812017-06-28T22:00:50  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2822017-06-28T22:18:08  *** Deadhand has quit IRC
2832017-06-28T22:20:26  *** Dizzle has quit IRC
2842017-06-28T22:20:32  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852017-06-28T22:36:53  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2862017-06-28T22:41:26  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872017-06-28T22:41:34  *** Gabo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882017-06-28T22:44:42  <cfields> BlueMatt: you beat me to 10697 by a day. would it irritate you if i PR'd an alternative? switches to shared/weak ptrs and drops the manual refcounting.
2892017-06-28T22:46:06  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2902017-06-28T22:47:07  <BlueMatt> cfields: no, please do!
2912017-06-28T22:47:18  *** Gabo has quit IRC
2922017-06-28T22:47:25  <BlueMatt> cfields: my only deadline is...uhh...long after 0.15 :p
2932017-06-28T22:47:56  <cfields> BlueMatt: ok. I've been trying to work out how to do it safely (stupid threading), but I think I worked out something dead-simple
2942017-06-28T22:48:08  <BlueMatt> cool, sounds good
2952017-06-28T22:48:09  <cfields> BlueMatt: well, if I don't get it pushed today/tomorrow, I'll go ahead and ACK yours.
2962017-06-28T22:48:19  <BlueMatt> not sure what to do with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10697/commits/e4f477b6b02b4a6778ba516edfca5b508ef5a90b though
2972017-06-28T22:48:23  <BlueMatt> i guess i can pr it loose
2982017-06-28T22:49:14  <cfields> can you explain why it's needed?
2992017-06-28T22:49:26  <BlueMatt> heh, see code comment :p
3002017-06-28T22:49:46  <BlueMatt> our deadlock detection assumes it is the case, and will otherwise give useless results
3012017-06-28T22:50:25  <BlueMatt> because we appear to currently never violate that requirement, better to enforce now instead of risking it breaking in the future and ending up with no working deadlock detection (without running ThreadSanitizer
3022017-06-28T22:50:28  <BlueMatt> )
3032017-06-28T22:50:29  <cfields> oh, so atm if we have 2 locked, and we invert the unlocks, it just sees that they're both unlocked and doesn't complain?
3042017-06-28T22:51:13  <BlueMatt> if we lock A, then lock B, then unlock A, then re-lock A, that may create a deadlock, but will not be detected
3052017-06-28T22:51:27  <BlueMatt> cause when we unlocked A, DEBUG_LOCKORDER just assumed that we were unlocking B cause it was the most recent lock
3062017-06-28T22:52:17  <cfields> ah, ok
3072017-06-28T22:52:52  <BlueMatt> if we ever need it we can tweak DEBUG_LOCKORDER, but we dont now, so easier to just assert correctness in our debug tool and move on
3082017-06-28T22:53:32  <sipa> we can easily add a test to verify that an unlock is in fact the last-locked mutex
3092017-06-28T22:54:47  <BlueMatt> sipa: yup, thats what I did, just added an assert...its only in debug code anyway
3102017-06-28T23:04:57  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
3112017-06-28T23:05:04  *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3122017-06-28T23:07:52  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
3132017-06-28T23:11:12  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
3142017-06-28T23:15:24  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
3152017-06-28T23:15:49  *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3162017-06-28T23:16:16  <gmaxwell> ::sigh:: master isn't compiling for me.
3172017-06-28T23:16:17  <gmaxwell> qt/libbitcoinqt.a(qt_libbitcoinqt_a-paymentserver.o): In function `payments::Payment::set_merchant_data(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&)':
3182017-06-28T23:16:21  <gmaxwell> /home/gmaxwell/bq/src/qt/paymentrequest.pb.h:1600: undefined reference to `google::protobuf::internal::kEmptyString[abi:cxx11]'
3192017-06-28T23:18:44  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3202017-06-28T23:19:49  *** Deadhand has quit IRC
3212017-06-28T23:20:18  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3222017-06-28T23:24:24  *** talmai has quit IRC
3232017-06-28T23:26:09  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3242017-06-28T23:27:22  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3252017-06-28T23:37:02  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
3262017-06-28T23:37:36  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3272017-06-28T23:38:10  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #10699: Make all script validation flags backward compatible (master...20170628_softflags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10699
3282017-06-28T23:40:29  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292017-06-28T23:42:21  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
3302017-06-28T23:44:44  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3312017-06-28T23:45:03  *** Victor_sueca has quit IRC