12017-08-17T00:05:45 *** miknotauro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22017-08-17T00:08:44 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
32017-08-17T00:13:03 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
42017-08-17T00:13:33 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52017-08-17T00:20:53 *** ekerstein has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62017-08-17T00:25:35 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
72017-08-17T00:27:35 *** shesek has quit IRC
82017-08-17T00:27:36 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92017-08-17T00:27:49 *** Austindoggie_ has quit IRC
102017-08-17T00:27:58 *** jimpo has quit IRC
112017-08-17T00:32:17 *** miknotauro has quit IRC
122017-08-17T00:39:01 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
132017-08-17T00:42:41 *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
142017-08-17T00:50:52 *** Austindoggie_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152017-08-17T00:52:14 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162017-08-17T00:56:09 *** ekerstein has quit IRC
172017-08-17T01:03:20 <gmaxwell> Wow, this is super dishonest https://segwit2x.github.io/segwit2x-announce.html ... "Bitcoin Upgrade" is untrue... it claims Bitcoin "Classic" and unlimited are compatible "Compatible Fully-Validating Node Software" but they don't implement the S2X rules and don't even implement segwit!
182017-08-17T01:06:02 *** jimpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192017-08-17T01:07:10 *** dabura667_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202017-08-17T01:17:52 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: Classic and BU merged 2X code
212017-08-17T01:18:59 <luke-jr> funny how they didn't include XT, Knots, btcsuite, et al on their lists
222017-08-17T01:19:01 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: they merged segwit?!
232017-08-17T01:19:06 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: no, just 2X
242017-08-17T01:19:28 <luke-jr> it's still super dishonest, just not *totally* bogus
252017-08-17T01:19:33 <gmaxwell> then they're not compatible fully validating s2x nodes.
262017-08-17T01:19:43 <luke-jr> remember that crowd thinks SPV is fine
272017-08-17T01:19:45 <gmaxwell> they don't list bitcoinj
282017-08-17T01:20:01 <gmaxwell> or any other SPV client.
292017-08-17T01:20:32 <luke-jr> â[01:19:28] â<âluke-jrâ>â it's still super dishonest, just not *totally* bogus
302017-08-17T01:21:00 <gmaxwell> if they said "[compatible fully validating nodes] btc1 \n [compatible wallet software] bitcoin classic\n" it would n... oh okay, well I suppose because it's not a lie in every possible sense it's okay. :P
312017-08-17T01:21:57 <luke-jr> in other news, Texas Bitcoin conference is promoting 2X as if it's Bitcoin, so I think that makes the decision to go simple (ie, not to)
322017-08-17T01:24:32 *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332017-08-17T01:25:34 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
342017-08-17T01:38:18 *** cheese_ has quit IRC
352017-08-17T01:47:13 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
362017-08-17T01:53:36 <morcos> BlueMatt: is there an ascii middle finger? 3- or something?
372017-08-17T02:06:50 *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382017-08-17T02:14:13 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
392017-08-17T02:14:48 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
402017-08-17T02:15:14 <jimpo> This grant doesn't appear to be checked in ThreadOpenConnections. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/net.cpp#L1712. Only the one in ProcessOneShot is. Why is that?
412017-08-17T02:17:03 <jimpo> Ah, got it. It's the fTry constructor param.
422017-08-17T02:19:01 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
432017-08-17T02:20:03 *** dermoth has quit IRC
442017-08-17T02:20:29 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452017-08-17T02:52:43 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462017-08-17T02:54:15 *** ekerstein has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472017-08-17T02:54:56 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
482017-08-17T02:55:29 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492017-08-17T02:56:10 *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
502017-08-17T02:59:25 *** miknotauro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512017-08-17T03:04:34 *** jtimon has quit IRC
522017-08-17T03:49:38 *** Austindoggie_ has quit IRC
532017-08-17T04:05:29 <shesek> gmaxwell, luke-jr: I mentioned that to them: https://github.com/segwit2x/segwit2x.github.io/pull/6#discussion_r132615997 https://github.com/segwit2x/segwit2x.github.io/pull/6#discussion_r132616222
542017-08-17T04:05:32 <shesek> they ignored me.
552017-08-17T04:07:28 <chainhead> I also mentioned it, multiple times and they deny that it is even possibly misleading
562017-08-17T04:11:54 *** Austindoggie_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572017-08-17T04:13:55 *** treebeardd has quit IRC
582017-08-17T04:17:41 *** treebeardd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
592017-08-17T04:26:32 *** ekerstein has quit IRC
602017-08-17T04:31:26 *** treebeardd has quit IRC
612017-08-17T04:35:19 *** NLNico has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622017-08-17T04:42:05 *** dermoth has quit IRC
632017-08-17T04:42:05 *** arubi has quit IRC
642017-08-17T04:42:05 *** afk11 has quit IRC
652017-08-17T04:42:05 *** intcat has quit IRC
662017-08-17T04:42:05 *** sam_c has quit IRC
672017-08-17T04:42:06 *** petertodd has quit IRC
682017-08-17T04:42:06 *** Lauda has quit IRC
692017-08-17T04:42:06 *** instagibbs has quit IRC
702017-08-17T04:42:06 *** achow101 has quit IRC
712017-08-17T04:42:06 *** PatBoy has quit IRC
722017-08-17T04:42:06 *** kayamm has quit IRC
732017-08-17T04:42:06 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
742017-08-17T04:42:07 *** venzen has quit IRC
752017-08-17T04:42:07 *** murr4y has quit IRC
762017-08-17T04:42:07 *** gijensen has quit IRC
772017-08-17T04:42:07 *** lifeofguenter has quit IRC
782017-08-17T04:42:07 *** shesek has quit IRC
792017-08-17T04:42:07 *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
802017-08-17T04:42:08 *** owowo has quit IRC
812017-08-17T04:42:08 *** chjj has quit IRC
822017-08-17T04:42:09 *** BashCo has quit IRC
832017-08-17T04:42:09 *** cryptapus has quit IRC
842017-08-17T04:42:09 *** frogstar has quit IRC
852017-08-17T04:42:09 *** rockhouse has quit IRC
862017-08-17T04:42:09 *** gaf_ has quit IRC
872017-08-17T04:42:09 *** da2ce7_ has quit IRC
882017-08-17T04:42:09 *** kallewoof has quit IRC
892017-08-17T04:42:09 *** jeremyru1in has quit IRC
902017-08-17T04:42:09 *** stick` has quit IRC
912017-08-17T04:42:09 *** rabidus has quit IRC
922017-08-17T04:42:09 *** ccook has quit IRC
932017-08-17T04:42:09 *** BCBot has quit IRC
942017-08-17T04:42:09 *** jeremias has quit IRC
952017-08-17T04:42:09 *** GAit has quit IRC
962017-08-17T04:42:09 *** grubles has quit IRC
972017-08-17T04:42:09 *** Eliel has quit IRC
982017-08-17T04:42:09 *** Madars has quit IRC
992017-08-17T04:42:09 *** pigeons has quit IRC
1002017-08-17T04:42:09 *** elkalamar has quit IRC
1012017-08-17T04:42:09 *** trippysalmon has quit IRC
1022017-08-17T04:42:09 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
1032017-08-17T04:42:10 *** Cory has quit IRC
1042017-08-17T04:42:10 *** gwillen has quit IRC
1052017-08-17T04:42:10 *** annanay25 has quit IRC
1062017-08-17T04:42:10 *** baldur has quit IRC
1072017-08-17T04:42:10 *** earlz has quit IRC
1082017-08-17T04:42:10 *** vicenteH has quit IRC
1092017-08-17T04:42:10 *** eck has quit IRC
1102017-08-17T04:42:10 *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
1112017-08-17T04:42:10 *** d_t has quit IRC
1122017-08-17T04:42:10 *** niska has quit IRC
1132017-08-17T04:42:10 *** jannes has quit IRC
1142017-08-17T04:42:10 *** waveprop has quit IRC
1152017-08-17T04:42:10 *** davec has quit IRC
1162017-08-17T04:42:10 *** sdaftuar has quit IRC
1172017-08-17T04:42:10 *** spinza has quit IRC
1182017-08-17T04:42:10 *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
1192017-08-17T04:42:10 *** amosbird has quit IRC
1202017-08-17T04:42:12 *** [b__b] has quit IRC
1212017-08-17T04:42:12 *** nickler has quit IRC
1222017-08-17T04:42:12 *** adam3us has quit IRC
1232017-08-17T04:42:12 *** dcousens has quit IRC
1242017-08-17T04:42:12 *** dabura667_ has quit IRC
1252017-08-17T04:42:12 *** jimpo has quit IRC
1262017-08-17T04:42:12 *** Deacyde has quit IRC
1272017-08-17T04:42:12 *** Soligor has quit IRC
1282017-08-17T04:42:12 *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
1292017-08-17T04:42:12 *** neha has quit IRC
1302017-08-17T04:42:12 *** sanada has quit IRC
1312017-08-17T04:42:13 *** wvr has quit IRC
1322017-08-17T04:42:13 *** comboy has quit IRC
1332017-08-17T04:42:13 *** murchandamus has quit IRC
1342017-08-17T04:42:13 *** ybit has quit IRC
1352017-08-17T04:42:13 *** bordeaux_facile has quit IRC
1362017-08-17T04:42:13 *** kanzure has quit IRC
1372017-08-17T04:42:14 *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
1382017-08-17T04:42:14 *** cysm has quit IRC
1392017-08-17T04:42:14 *** Guest32972 has quit IRC
1402017-08-17T04:42:14 *** adiabat has quit IRC
1412017-08-17T04:42:14 *** ryan-c has quit IRC
1422017-08-17T04:42:14 *** gribble has quit IRC
1432017-08-17T04:42:14 *** johnpark_pj has quit IRC
1442017-08-17T04:42:14 *** Bootvis_ has quit IRC
1452017-08-17T04:42:14 *** sturles has quit IRC
1462017-08-17T04:42:14 *** paracyst has quit IRC
1472017-08-17T04:42:14 *** warren has quit IRC
1482017-08-17T04:42:14 *** gmaxwell has quit IRC
1492017-08-17T04:42:15 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
1502017-08-17T04:42:15 *** ill has quit IRC
1512017-08-17T04:42:15 *** newbie-- has quit IRC
1522017-08-17T04:42:15 *** Guest66563 has quit IRC
1532017-08-17T04:42:15 *** so has quit IRC
1542017-08-17T04:42:15 *** jrayhawk has quit IRC
1552017-08-17T04:42:15 *** windsok has quit IRC
1562017-08-17T04:42:15 *** Mattie161 has quit IRC
1572017-08-17T04:42:15 *** cluelessperson has quit IRC
1582017-08-17T04:42:15 *** thrasher` has quit IRC
1592017-08-17T04:42:15 *** waxwing has quit IRC
1602017-08-17T04:42:16 *** phantomcircuit has quit IRC
1612017-08-17T04:42:16 *** kakobrekla has quit IRC
1622017-08-17T04:42:16 *** Apocalyptic has quit IRC
1632017-08-17T04:42:16 *** floog has quit IRC
1642017-08-17T04:42:16 *** aj has quit IRC
1652017-08-17T04:42:16 *** Guest71980 has quit IRC
1662017-08-17T04:42:16 *** molz has quit IRC
1672017-08-17T04:42:16 *** BlueMatt has quit IRC
1682017-08-17T04:42:16 *** lesderid has quit IRC
1692017-08-17T04:42:16 *** Aleph0 has quit IRC
1702017-08-17T04:42:16 *** wolfspraul has quit IRC
1712017-08-17T04:42:16 *** Anduck has quit IRC
1722017-08-17T04:42:16 *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
1732017-08-17T04:42:16 *** berndj has quit IRC
1742017-08-17T04:42:16 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
1752017-08-17T04:42:16 *** morcos has quit IRC
1762017-08-17T04:42:16 *** NLNico has quit IRC
1772017-08-17T04:42:16 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1782017-08-17T04:42:17 *** harrymm1 has quit IRC
1792017-08-17T04:42:17 *** LeMiner has quit IRC
1802017-08-17T04:42:17 *** rjak has quit IRC
1812017-08-17T04:42:17 *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
1822017-08-17T04:42:17 *** eenoch has quit IRC
1832017-08-17T04:42:17 *** arowser has quit IRC
1842017-08-17T04:42:17 *** Magma has quit IRC
1852017-08-17T04:42:17 *** cdecker has quit IRC
1862017-08-17T04:42:17 *** fydel has quit IRC
1872017-08-17T04:42:17 *** zxzzt has quit IRC
1882017-08-17T04:42:17 *** jnewbery has quit IRC
1892017-08-17T04:42:17 *** omgpanda has quit IRC
1902017-08-17T04:42:17 *** bitbee has quit IRC
1912017-08-17T04:42:17 *** wumpus has quit IRC
1922017-08-17T04:42:17 *** roasbeef has quit IRC
1932017-08-17T04:42:17 *** jcorgan has quit IRC
1942017-08-17T04:42:17 *** asoltys has quit IRC
1952017-08-17T04:42:19 *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
1962017-08-17T04:42:19 *** fizzwont has quit IRC
1972017-08-17T04:42:21 *** Char0n has quit IRC
1982017-08-17T04:42:27 *** ryanofsky has quit IRC
1992017-08-17T04:42:27 *** mryandao has quit IRC
2002017-08-17T04:42:27 *** Chicago has quit IRC
2012017-08-17T04:42:40 *** lifeofguenter has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2022017-08-17T04:42:41 *** Deacyde has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2032017-08-17T04:42:50 *** ryanofsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042017-08-17T04:43:22 *** waveprop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052017-08-17T04:43:24 *** so has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062017-08-17T04:43:25 *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072017-08-17T04:43:27 *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2082017-08-17T04:43:29 *** rjak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092017-08-17T04:43:29 *** windsok has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102017-08-17T04:43:29 *** grubles has quit IRC
2112017-08-17T04:43:29 *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122017-08-17T04:43:30 *** miknotauro has quit IRC
2132017-08-17T04:43:30 *** Guest18809 has quit IRC
2142017-08-17T04:43:30 *** echonaut has quit IRC
2152017-08-17T04:43:31 *** karl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162017-08-17T04:43:32 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172017-08-17T04:43:33 *** adiabat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182017-08-17T04:43:36 *** BCBot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192017-08-17T04:43:39 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202017-08-17T04:43:47 *** gaf_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212017-08-17T04:43:50 *** bordeaux_facile has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2222017-08-17T04:44:01 *** cdecker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232017-08-17T04:44:02 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242017-08-17T04:44:06 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252017-08-17T04:44:16 *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2262017-08-17T04:44:17 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
2272017-08-17T04:44:17 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282017-08-17T04:44:17 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2292017-08-17T04:44:17 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302017-08-17T04:44:27 *** sanada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312017-08-17T04:44:34 *** lesderid has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322017-08-17T04:44:48 *** eck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332017-08-17T04:44:53 *** gijensen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342017-08-17T04:44:56 *** BCBot has quit IRC
2352017-08-17T04:44:57 *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362017-08-17T04:45:01 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372017-08-17T04:45:03 *** PatBoy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382017-08-17T04:45:15 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392017-08-17T04:45:16 *** sam_c has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2402017-08-17T04:45:17 *** murchandamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412017-08-17T04:45:17 *** BCBot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2422017-08-17T04:45:20 *** adam3us has quit IRC
2432017-08-17T04:45:20 *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2442017-08-17T04:45:21 *** mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2452017-08-17T04:45:22 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462017-08-17T04:45:26 *** ccook has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472017-08-17T04:45:28 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2482017-08-17T04:45:29 *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2492017-08-17T04:45:30 *** johnpark_pj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502017-08-17T04:45:41 *** kewde[m] has quit IRC
2512017-08-17T04:45:46 *** mr_burdell has quit IRC
2522017-08-17T04:45:46 *** mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2532017-08-17T04:46:06 *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542017-08-17T04:46:15 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2552017-08-17T04:46:17 *** comboy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2562017-08-17T04:46:22 *** annanay25 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572017-08-17T04:46:25 *** LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582017-08-17T04:46:28 *** Madars has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2592017-08-17T04:46:31 *** herzmeister[m] has quit IRC
2602017-08-17T04:46:37 *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612017-08-17T04:46:39 *** phantomcircuit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622017-08-17T04:46:42 *** LeMiner has quit IRC
2632017-08-17T04:46:43 *** LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642017-08-17T04:46:43 *** warren has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652017-08-17T04:46:44 *** Chicago has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662017-08-17T04:46:45 *** Guest60903 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672017-08-17T04:46:47 *** kayamm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682017-08-17T04:46:52 *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692017-08-17T04:46:57 *** warren has quit IRC
2702017-08-17T04:46:58 *** warren has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712017-08-17T04:47:03 *** echonaut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722017-08-17T04:47:04 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732017-08-17T04:47:06 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742017-08-17T04:47:11 *** Madars is now known as Guest60956
2752017-08-17T04:47:14 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762017-08-17T04:47:14 *** amosbird has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772017-08-17T04:47:18 *** Chicago is now known as Guest98541
2782017-08-17T04:47:21 *** GAit is now known as Guest31843
2792017-08-17T04:47:23 *** kayamm has quit IRC
2802017-08-17T04:47:23 *** kayamm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2812017-08-17T04:47:24 *** Magma has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2822017-08-17T04:47:39 *** niska has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832017-08-17T04:47:46 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842017-08-17T04:47:54 *** BlueMatt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852017-08-17T04:48:04 *** cryptapus has quit IRC
2862017-08-17T04:48:04 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872017-08-17T04:48:04 *** gmaxwell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882017-08-17T04:48:07 *** Guest98541 has quit IRC
2892017-08-17T04:48:09 *** BCBot has quit IRC
2902017-08-17T04:48:25 *** venzen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2912017-08-17T04:48:27 *** BCBot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922017-08-17T04:48:27 *** paracyst has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932017-08-17T04:48:29 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2942017-08-17T04:48:35 *** Apocalyptic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2952017-08-17T04:48:45 *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2962017-08-17T04:48:52 *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2972017-08-17T04:48:54 *** wumpus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2982017-08-17T04:49:03 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992017-08-17T04:49:11 *** Char0n has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3002017-08-17T04:49:19 *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012017-08-17T04:49:34 *** newbie has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022017-08-17T04:49:34 *** Soligor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032017-08-17T04:49:45 *** cluelessperson is now known as Guest21130
3042017-08-17T04:49:54 *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3052017-08-17T04:49:55 *** herzmeister[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062017-08-17T04:50:07 *** bitbee has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3072017-08-17T04:50:08 *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3082017-08-17T04:50:15 *** mryandao has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3092017-08-17T04:50:17 *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3102017-08-17T04:50:18 *** NLNico has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3112017-08-17T04:50:23 *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3122017-08-17T04:50:27 *** berndj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3132017-08-17T04:50:54 *** ryan-c has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3142017-08-17T04:51:10 *** Lauda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3152017-08-17T04:51:15 *** da2ce7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3162017-08-17T04:51:36 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3172017-08-17T04:51:44 *** thrasher` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3182017-08-17T04:51:56 *** waveprop has quit IRC
3192017-08-17T04:51:56 *** waveprop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3202017-08-17T04:52:02 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3212017-08-17T04:52:12 *** [b__b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3222017-08-17T04:52:59 *** kakobrekla has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232017-08-17T04:53:03 *** murr5y has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3242017-08-17T04:53:05 *** Anduck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3252017-08-17T04:53:07 *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3262017-08-17T04:53:09 *** earlz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3272017-08-17T04:54:27 *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3282017-08-17T04:54:31 *** fydel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3292017-08-17T04:55:11 *** fydel has quit IRC
3302017-08-17T04:55:11 *** fydel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3312017-08-17T04:55:35 *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3322017-08-17T04:59:07 *** roasbeef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3332017-08-17T05:01:22 <gmaxwell> https://twitter.com/bcoreproject/status/897966294083018760 people faking our project on twitter and pretending that we're supporting s2x. :(
3342017-08-17T05:05:17 *** rabidus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3352017-08-17T05:05:19 *** cjc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3362017-08-17T05:07:31 *** cjc has quit IRC
3372017-08-17T05:16:03 *** cysm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3382017-08-17T05:17:00 *** kewde[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3392017-08-17T05:20:07 *** Guest21130 is now known as cluelessperson
3402017-08-17T05:20:17 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3412017-08-17T05:21:37 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
3422017-08-17T05:22:30 *** sturles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3432017-08-17T05:23:38 *** dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3442017-08-17T05:27:58 *** Deacydal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3452017-08-17T05:31:29 *** Deacyde has quit IRC
3462017-08-17T05:35:13 *** d_t has quit IRC
3472017-08-17T05:35:37 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3482017-08-17T05:37:22 *** cryptapus has quit IRC
3492017-08-17T05:39:34 *** eck has quit IRC
3502017-08-17T05:39:53 *** eck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3512017-08-17T05:44:39 *** baldur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522017-08-17T05:45:39 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3532017-08-17T05:45:52 *** baldur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3542017-08-17T05:46:42 <fanquake> sipa such biased technical opinions :p
3552017-08-17T05:47:12 <sipa> fanquake: i realized too late i should just have said "this belongs on the mailinglist"
3562017-08-17T05:47:56 *** petertodd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3572017-08-17T05:49:16 *** d_t has quit IRC
3582017-08-17T05:49:22 *** cluelessperson has quit IRC
3592017-08-17T05:52:41 *** treebeardd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3602017-08-17T05:52:52 *** shesek has quit IRC
3612017-08-17T05:52:52 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3622017-08-17T05:56:19 *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3632017-08-17T05:56:31 *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3642017-08-17T05:57:39 *** andytoshi has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3652017-08-17T06:06:42 *** treebeardd has quit IRC
3662017-08-17T06:07:44 *** Mattie161 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3672017-08-17T06:15:31 *** sanada has quit IRC
3682017-08-17T06:15:49 *** sanada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3692017-08-17T06:15:51 *** eck has quit IRC
3702017-08-17T06:16:49 *** eck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3712017-08-17T06:21:41 *** eck has quit IRC
3722017-08-17T06:21:55 *** NLNico has quit IRC
3732017-08-17T06:21:58 *** eck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3742017-08-17T06:26:30 *** karl is now known as kallewoof
3752017-08-17T06:28:18 *** Deacyded has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3762017-08-17T06:31:17 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3772017-08-17T06:31:41 *** Deacydal has quit IRC
3782017-08-17T06:33:26 *** eck has quit IRC
3792017-08-17T06:33:47 *** sanada has quit IRC
3802017-08-17T06:33:59 *** eck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3812017-08-17T06:39:30 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
3822017-08-17T06:39:30 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3832017-08-17T06:45:02 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3842017-08-17T06:45:02 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3852017-08-17T06:50:26 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3862017-08-17T06:57:35 *** BashCo has quit IRC
3872017-08-17T07:02:33 *** fanquake has quit IRC
3882017-08-17T07:03:06 *** cluelessperson has quit IRC
3892017-08-17T07:03:30 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3902017-08-17T07:04:10 *** elkalamar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3912017-08-17T07:10:20 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3922017-08-17T07:11:37 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11053: refactor: Make all #includes relative to project root (master...2017_08_includes_absolute) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11053
3932017-08-17T07:16:45 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3942017-08-17T07:16:52 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3952017-08-17T07:16:58 *** Austindoggie_ has quit IRC
3962017-08-17T07:17:21 *** Austindoggie has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3972017-08-17T07:21:13 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3982017-08-17T07:24:41 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3992017-08-17T07:24:41 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4002017-08-17T07:26:43 <wumpus> so if I compute correctly, going from base58 to base62 would make addresses 1.6% shorter, so for the usual bitcoin address length of 34 characters it would save half a character. Wow. Yes, definitely enough reason to break compatibility with all other wallets :)
4012017-08-17T07:28:58 <gmaxwell> hah where was that from
4022017-08-17T07:29:44 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11072 - ah base62x is apparently that person's own project
4032017-08-17T07:31:01 <gmaxwell> hehe Meets all these requirements, except it doesn't. :P
4042017-08-17T07:33:16 <gmaxwell> well, I suppose it does have advantages over base64... but man his c code is scary.
4052017-08-17T07:33:57 <wumpus> they provide code examples but not even really a description, there seems to be a link to a paper in chinese
4062017-08-17T07:34:46 <gmaxwell> it's an encoding with upper and lower alpha plus nums 2*26+10 which does have the advantage that a single line of it will click copy and paste.
4072017-08-17T07:35:17 <gmaxwell> Which was a consideration for us in bech32 (and made use leave out - as a seperator character)
4082017-08-17T07:41:23 <midnightmagic> Uh.
4092017-08-17T07:43:27 *** eck has quit IRC
4102017-08-17T07:43:56 *** eck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4112017-08-17T07:45:22 *** Austindoggie has quit IRC
4122017-08-17T07:47:00 <midnightmagic> wumpus: Now that segwit2x is essentially pretending to be core, perhaps finally there's enough damage accrued from jgarzik that removing him from the team page is a good idea. :-( Re: https://segwit2x.github.io/segwit2x-announce.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032360 :-(
4132017-08-17T07:48:03 <midnightmagic> In particular, the confusion that his presence on that list will likely be causing will be significant, and difficult to properly counter as long as he's still on there.
4142017-08-17T07:49:02 <wumpus> I agree...
4152017-08-17T07:51:10 <wumpus> though the bitcoin core organization pages are https://github.com/bitcoin-core and https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ and he's on neither of them
4162017-08-17T07:51:36 <midnightmagic> I was thinking of this one: https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people
4172017-08-17T07:52:02 <wumpus> yes...
4182017-08-17T07:52:27 <gmaxwell> perhaps that should just be made private, it's kinda lopsided if you don't know what it means.
4192017-08-17T07:52:37 * midnightmagic shrugs.
4202017-08-17T07:52:53 <gmaxwell> (I mean it's alphabetic or something, and lists people who don't have any special privledges except being taggable on issues)
4212017-08-17T07:54:16 *** ryanofsky has quit IRC
4222017-08-17T07:54:54 *** ryanofsky has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4232017-08-17T07:55:53 <midnightmagic> I'm pretty sure (but don't have concrete evidence) that he himself points people at that list as a proof-of-core team list, which would be if so kinda crappy. I mean after all *I* know who's doing what but I'm just some rando. Meh. Just a thought.
4242017-08-17T07:56:59 <wumpus> so, evryone in favor of removing him from that list?
4252017-08-17T07:57:22 *** rockhouse has quit IRC
4262017-08-17T07:57:23 *** mr_burdell has quit IRC
4272017-08-17T07:57:23 *** bordeaux_facile has quit IRC
4282017-08-17T07:57:55 <gmaxwell> I would be confused as to why he was there at all if I didn't know about how that particular list doesn't mean much of anything in particular.
4292017-08-17T07:58:20 <wumpus> well the idea is, indeed, to add frequent contributors so that they can be tagged
4302017-08-17T07:58:33 <wumpus> Mr. Garzik hasn't been a contributor of any frequency for a loong time
4312017-08-17T07:59:18 *** bordeaux_facile has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4322017-08-17T07:59:18 *** mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4332017-08-17T07:59:58 <wumpus> also he spreads damaging lies in name of the project
4342017-08-17T08:00:02 <wumpus> so I think it's clear
4352017-08-17T08:00:57 <gmaxwell> Last commit was almost two years ago. In the total year of 2015 he made 4.
4362017-08-17T08:01:20 <gmaxwell> And he says a lot of things that are over the top untrue, I've complained privately to him about his conduct dozens of times.
4372017-08-17T08:01:59 <gmaxwell> His responses are unprofesional (though, to be fair, after the Nth time of finding them falling on deaf ears my complaints have been none too kind.)
4382017-08-17T08:02:48 <gmaxwell> In any case I hope you'd remove me if I'd been inactive much less creating problems.
4392017-08-17T08:03:07 <midnightmagic> you troublemaker you ;-)
4402017-08-17T08:03:27 * midnightmagic serves coffee
4412017-08-17T08:05:05 *** BashCo has quit IRC
4422017-08-17T08:06:17 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4432017-08-17T08:07:31 *** promag has quit IRC
4442017-08-17T08:09:04 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4452017-08-17T08:09:26 <achow101> I'm in favor of removing him
4462017-08-17T08:09:29 *** cluelessperson has quit IRC
4472017-08-17T08:09:55 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4482017-08-17T08:09:55 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4492017-08-17T08:26:16 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4502017-08-17T08:28:55 <wumpus> I'd like to add a few people too, just sent achow101 an invite, any other suggestions for active contributors that should be on the list?
4512017-08-17T08:29:17 <fanquake> kallewoof ?
4522017-08-17T08:29:35 <wumpus> I was thinking of them too
4532017-08-17T08:30:00 <fanquake> maybe ryanofsky
4542017-08-17T08:30:14 <fanquake> Do they both work for chaincode ?
4552017-08-17T08:30:23 <wumpus> invited kallewoof
4562017-08-17T08:30:24 <wumpus> ryanofsky is already in the list
4572017-08-17T08:34:03 * kallewoof works for Digital Garage
4582017-08-17T08:35:06 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4592017-08-17T08:36:01 *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
4602017-08-17T08:37:07 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4612017-08-17T08:38:38 *** Chicago has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4622017-08-17T08:38:38 *** Chicago has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4632017-08-17T08:41:57 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4642017-08-17T08:44:01 *** cluelessperson has quit IRC
4652017-08-17T08:44:27 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
4662017-08-17T08:45:14 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4672017-08-17T08:45:15 *** cluelessperson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4682017-08-17T09:02:35 *** wolfspraul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4692017-08-17T09:03:47 <gmaxwell> is anyone collecting feerate | rough arrival time | n blocks to confirm data for all transactions for the last couple months so I could try some feerate estimation ideas
4702017-08-17T09:04:52 *** promag has quit IRC
4712017-08-17T09:04:57 *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4722017-08-17T09:05:36 *** owowo has quit IRC
4732017-08-17T09:06:59 *** fanquake has quit IRC
4742017-08-17T09:10:32 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4752017-08-17T09:12:34 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4762017-08-17T09:16:22 *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4772017-08-17T09:19:09 *** vicenteH has quit IRC
4782017-08-17T09:19:21 *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4792017-08-17T09:33:59 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4802017-08-17T09:35:41 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
4812017-08-17T09:55:44 *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4822017-08-17T09:59:51 *** dabura667 has quit IRC
4832017-08-17T10:09:59 *** schnerchi has quit IRC
4842017-08-17T10:11:20 *** Lightsword has quit IRC
4852017-08-17T10:11:47 *** Lauda_ has quit IRC
4862017-08-17T10:12:14 *** kinlo has quit IRC
4872017-08-17T10:13:31 *** Lauda_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4882017-08-17T10:16:56 *** schnerchi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4892017-08-17T10:16:58 *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4902017-08-17T10:23:33 *** kinlo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4912017-08-17T10:24:32 *** Deacydal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4922017-08-17T10:27:50 *** Deacyded has quit IRC
4932017-08-17T10:32:35 *** riemann has quit IRC
4942017-08-17T10:35:29 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4952017-08-17T10:36:35 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
4962017-08-17T10:42:31 *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
4972017-08-17T10:43:39 *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4982017-08-17T10:45:16 *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4992017-08-17T10:51:19 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5002017-08-17T11:11:15 *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5012017-08-17T11:29:53 *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5022017-08-17T11:32:32 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5032017-08-17T12:11:05 *** jtimon has quit IRC
5042017-08-17T12:11:15 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5052017-08-17T12:24:52 *** jtimon has quit IRC
5062017-08-17T12:25:02 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5072017-08-17T12:29:45 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] BitonicEelis opened pull request #11073: Remove dead store in ecdsa_signature_parse_der_lax. (master...deadstore) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11073
5082017-08-17T12:39:27 *** Deacyded has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5092017-08-17T12:42:43 *** Deacydal has quit IRC
5102017-08-17T12:43:01 *** Deacydal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5112017-08-17T12:45:45 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5122017-08-17T12:46:34 *** Deacyded has quit IRC
5132017-08-17T13:00:55 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
5142017-08-17T13:01:21 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5152017-08-17T13:01:32 *** promag has quit IRC
5162017-08-17T13:04:25 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5172017-08-17T13:06:31 *** Deacydal has quit IRC
5182017-08-17T13:11:20 *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5192017-08-17T13:11:54 *** rockhouse has quit IRC
5202017-08-17T13:11:54 *** rockhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5212017-08-17T13:15:31 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
5222017-08-17T13:18:35 *** jtimon has quit IRC
5232017-08-17T13:19:03 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5242017-08-17T13:21:07 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5252017-08-17T13:33:39 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5262017-08-17T13:35:20 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] BitonicEelis opened pull request #11074: Assert that CWallet::SyncMetaData finds oldest transaction. (master...syncassert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11074
5272017-08-17T13:37:36 *** jtimon has quit IRC
5282017-08-17T13:43:20 *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5292017-08-17T13:44:54 *** webuser232 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5302017-08-17T13:45:16 <webuser232> gmaxwell, what do you think about this? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11064
5312017-08-17T14:08:13 *** waxwing has quit IRC
5322017-08-17T14:08:14 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5332017-08-17T14:19:53 *** eenoch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5342017-08-17T14:31:16 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #11076: 0.15 release-note nits: fix redundancy, remove accidental parenthesis & fix range style (0.15...0.15-release-notes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11076
5352017-08-17T14:42:57 *** pigeons has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5362017-08-17T14:48:46 <BlueMatt> morcos: I appreciate that you ask me, but I'm certainly not hip with the ascii art
5372017-08-17T14:53:57 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5382017-08-17T14:55:42 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #11077: [tests] fix timeout issues from TestNode (master...test_node_fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11077
5392017-08-17T15:01:27 <morcos> BlueMatt: well it was most relevant what you would interpret that way... :)
5402017-08-17T15:01:56 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5412017-08-17T15:05:35 *** cheese_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5422017-08-17T15:06:44 <webuser232> wumpus, re your reply over https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11064 , posting an idea publicly like that usually saves you all the work you listed in case you missed something obvious to begin with
5432017-08-17T15:07:52 <wumpus> I don't think you missed anything obvious, it should absolutely be possible to use "AI" for fee estimation, if you include all possible things that are counted under the buzzword "AI" nowadays
5442017-08-17T15:08:05 *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
5452017-08-17T15:08:17 *** zxzzt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5462017-08-17T15:08:56 <wumpus> without going into detail about what exactly you want to do, there's no useful responses to give
5472017-08-17T15:09:07 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5482017-08-17T15:09:35 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
5492017-08-17T15:09:39 *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
5502017-08-17T15:09:43 *** riemann has quit IRC
5512017-08-17T15:09:53 *** sdaftuar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5522017-08-17T15:10:35 *** cheese_ has quit IRC
5532017-08-17T15:11:27 *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5542017-08-17T15:11:45 <webuser232> wumpus, I agree with you mostly. I just wanted to see peoples first/gut/intuitive reaction to the idea proposed, that's all.
5552017-08-17T15:12:34 *** Lightsword has quit IRC
5562017-08-17T15:12:56 <webuser232> jnewbery, thanks for you input!
5572017-08-17T15:13:03 *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5582017-08-17T15:17:13 <sipa> "use AI to solve it!" is not very different from saying "use software to solve it!"
5592017-08-17T15:17:30 <wumpus> why not use physics to solve it!
5602017-08-17T15:18:35 *** karelb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5612017-08-17T15:19:36 <webuser232> sipa, wumpus, very rich. I get it first time. No need to mock.
5622017-08-17T15:19:54 <wumpus> but yeah, I'm sure the current fee estimation can be classified as AI of some kind already, despite not yet having gained consciousness
5632017-08-17T15:19:58 <karelb> Hello, nobody replied at #bitcoin, I hope I am not interrupting a meeting again, I will ask here
5642017-08-17T15:20:05 <karelb> question about bitcoin 0.15.0 ... does estimatesmartfee return the same fees as estimatefee?
5652017-08-17T15:20:22 <karelb> ignoring the errors and the conservative mode
5662017-08-17T15:20:24 <promag> morcos: is it relevant to call UpdateMovingAverages while syncing?
5672017-08-17T15:20:28 <jnewbery> karelb no, it's a new implementation
5682017-08-17T15:20:31 <karelb> ok
5692017-08-17T15:20:45 <promag> morcos: there is some performance improvement if not
5702017-08-17T15:21:38 <karelb> so esttimatefee returns the same fees, estimatesmartfee returns a better estimate
5712017-08-17T15:21:40 <karelb> great
5722017-08-17T15:21:41 <morcos> promag: that issue has already been raised.. i think cfields has a proposed fix he is going to PR.. but yeah we should optimize it
5732017-08-17T15:22:17 <morcos> karelb: estimatefee is deprecated for 0.15. it returns something slightly different than 0.14's estimatefee and likely slightly worse
5742017-08-17T15:22:37 <morcos> but as close as it could be wihtout a lot of work given the new internals
5752017-08-17T15:22:55 <morcos> got to run
5762017-08-17T15:23:13 <jnewbery> webuser232 I happen to think fee estimation might be a good candidate for reinforcement learning, but I'm no expert in AI. Run a bitcoind node for some time to get a good history of transactions/blocks and estimaterawfee should give you good data
5772017-08-17T15:26:10 <karelb> hm, that is a bit confusing. We are using the old API in our fee estimates, I hoped we could just upgrade the node without new logic for the new call. OK
5782017-08-17T15:26:44 <webuser232> jnewbery, I think it's a good candidate too. I'll investigate further. I've got to run for now. Thanks!
5792017-08-17T15:26:54 *** webuser232 has quit IRC
5802017-08-17T15:42:32 *** BashCo has quit IRC
5812017-08-17T15:44:37 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #11078: [tests] Make p2p-leaktests.py more robust (master...p2p_leaktests_robust) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11078
5822017-08-17T15:48:49 *** JackH has quit IRC
5832017-08-17T15:50:42 *** praxeology has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5842017-08-17T15:51:38 *** rosenfs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5852017-08-17T15:54:27 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
5862017-08-17T15:54:41 *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
5872017-08-17T15:57:40 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5882017-08-17T16:06:26 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5892017-08-17T16:08:11 *** promag has quit IRC
5902017-08-17T16:11:34 <BlueMatt> grr, does someone have a fucking openbsd box to test build on?
5912017-08-17T16:12:16 *** jcorgan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5922017-08-17T16:14:19 <wumpus> yes
5932017-08-17T16:15:24 <wumpus> BlueMatt: I have an openbsd 6.1 box to test on - what do you need tested?
5942017-08-17T16:19:25 <BlueMatt> wumpus: just looks like there's been a few build errors on openbsd recently (I assume 15rc1 testing) eg #11057
5952017-08-17T16:20:11 <wumpus> ooh the gui on opennsd? I don't think anyone even tried that before, certainly not me
5962017-08-17T16:23:29 <wumpus> #11057 looks like a conflict between GL driver and libdrm version?
5972017-08-17T16:25:23 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5982017-08-17T16:25:24 <BlueMatt> possibly? I dunno
5992017-08-17T16:25:31 <wumpus> nothing we can help in any case
6002017-08-17T16:27:53 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6012017-08-17T16:28:16 *** treebeardd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6022017-08-17T16:29:43 <wumpus> building anything on openbsd is difficult, I can't imagine the nightmare of getting the opengl/X/qt stack to work on that
6032017-08-17T16:33:20 <BlueMatt> wumpus: have you managed to repro the crashes in bitcoind in #11063?
6042017-08-17T16:33:26 <BlueMatt> wasnt there a similar one in test_bitcoin, too?
6052017-08-17T16:34:01 <wumpus> haven't tried yet
6062017-08-17T16:34:29 <wumpus> last time I ran the tests on openbsd it was all ok, but it's been a few months ago
6072017-08-17T16:34:35 <BlueMatt> oh, no, it was in bench
6082017-08-17T16:34:42 <BlueMatt> yea, #10801
6092017-08-17T16:34:55 <BlueMatt> yea, sounds like openbsd got fucked again :(
6102017-08-17T16:35:09 <wumpus> (no, shorter ago, this was around the time the asm changes went in)
6112017-08-17T16:35:14 <BlueMatt> wonder where we can find an openbsd dev to contribute :p
6122017-08-17T16:36:03 <wumpus> it's funny how gdb is fucked on all BSD
6132017-08-17T16:36:24 <BlueMatt> yea :/
6142017-08-17T16:36:49 <wumpus> at least on freebsd it's easy (and encouraged) to install a newer one, but the default one is ancient, from 2004
6152017-08-17T16:37:33 <wumpus> this means it cannot understand the debug information (DWARF 3) generated by compilers of this decennium
6162017-08-17T16:37:36 <BlueMatt> so they're taking the debian approach of keeping people on ancient versions of things :(
6172017-08-17T16:37:47 <wumpus> it has some license-related reason
6182017-08-17T16:38:34 <wumpus> same reason why the default gcc on openbsd is a patched 4.2, that was the last one before going to GPL3 which is no longer acceptable
6192017-08-17T16:38:47 <BlueMatt> lol
6202017-08-17T16:38:52 <BlueMatt> man licensing sucks
6212017-08-17T16:39:10 <wumpus> would be wiser to go to llvm/clang as that does have a bsd compatible license, FreeBSD did that for many platforms already
6222017-08-17T16:39:15 <grubles> yeah i think obsd is completely ditching gcc for clang soon
6232017-08-17T16:39:21 <grubles> i think i read that the other day
6242017-08-17T16:39:27 <wumpus> finally!
6252017-08-17T16:39:55 <grubles> yeah https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OpenBSD-Default-Clang
6262017-08-17T16:40:48 <wumpus> (oh, FreeBSD already switched to clang a while ago, what they're doing now is switching the *linker* to clang's linker)
6272017-08-17T16:41:38 <wumpus> probably gdb to lldb
6282017-08-17T16:44:42 *** promag has quit IRC
6292017-08-17T16:46:05 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6302017-08-17T16:46:08 <wumpus> 'gmake check' passes on openbsd
6312017-08-17T16:47:23 <wumpus> bench also runs succesfully
6322017-08-17T16:47:38 <wumpus> (this is with master, not 0.15 branch, but they have hardly diverged)
6332017-08-17T16:49:05 *** nickler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6342017-08-17T16:49:35 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11057 | QT5 interface build failed · Issue #11057 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6352017-08-17T17:00:27 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
6362017-08-17T17:17:57 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11057 | QT5 interface build failed · Issue #11057 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6372017-08-17T17:18:52 <wumpus> gribble: why are you repeating that?
6382017-08-17T17:19:12 <sipa> 17:17:57 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11057 | QT5 interface build failed · Issue #11057 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6392017-08-17T17:19:13 *** jtimon has quit IRC
6402017-08-17T17:19:23 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6412017-08-17T17:22:28 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #11080: doc: Update build-openbsd for 6.1 (master...2017_08_openbsd_bump) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11080
6422017-08-17T17:28:51 <praxeology> where can I find a spec on how to craft bch transactions? gmaxwell, you said you had/were making a patch?
6432017-08-17T17:29:58 <praxeology> Is it just BIP143 + SIGHASH_FORKID = 0x40 ?
6442017-08-17T17:30:10 <arubi> and p2pkh\p2sh instead of p2wpkh\p2wpsh
6452017-08-17T17:30:59 <arubi> p2wsh*
6462017-08-17T17:32:47 <luke-jr> praxeology: it's just Segwit's signature format, with the extra bit set in the sighash flags
6472017-08-17T17:33:42 <wumpus> praxeology: this patch adds ALL|ABC support to signrawtransaction: https://github.com/laanwj/bitcoin/commit/22a4c47643203f86e03f4b001e776fcff1fe8d92
6482017-08-17T17:34:36 <wumpus> it's not mine, has been floating around for a while - and I guess it's strongly off topic here
6492017-08-17T17:35:38 <sipa> i think it's mine :)
6502017-08-17T17:36:10 <wumpus> sipa: I wasn't sure whether you wanted credit for it lol
6512017-08-17T17:36:47 <praxeology> wumpus: at least I'm not interrupting a meeting this time :p
6522017-08-17T17:37:12 <sipa> praxeology: off by 23 minutes
6532017-08-17T17:37:58 *** sanada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6542017-08-17T17:38:29 <praxeology> ... So if I run core w/ that patch... I can sign my bch over to shapeshift.io for example?
6552017-08-17T17:38:55 <wumpus> yes, that works. Do run it with -nolisten -noconnect to avoid bch transactions from getting into your mempool.
6562017-08-17T17:39:50 <praxeology> I'll be running it on an airgapped computer
6572017-08-17T17:39:52 <wumpus> you can use https://github.com/laanwj/bitcoin-submittx to submit the signed transaction to a list of BCH nodes
6582017-08-17T17:41:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11063 | bitcoind aborts · Issue #11063 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6592017-08-17T17:41:38 <wumpus> so to be clear that patch won't make it generate BCH transactios by default, you need to run signrawtransaction with 'ALL|ABC' as signature type
6602017-08-17T17:41:57 <wumpus> gribble: huh?
6612017-08-17T17:45:05 <praxeology> alrighty guys... thanks for the help, and the secret private messages so that only I can benefit :p. I think I have a solid plan now
6622017-08-17T17:56:41 *** jimmysong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6632017-08-17T17:57:00 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6642017-08-17T17:57:30 *** jimpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6652017-08-17T18:00:01 <sipa> *DING*
6662017-08-17T18:00:13 <BlueMatt> sipa: you're an hour early
6672017-08-17T18:00:17 <wumpus> huuh are you sure you're not an hour early?
6682017-08-17T18:00:17 <sipa> oops?
6692017-08-17T18:00:53 <sipa> yes, it was the "warning, meeting in one hour!" alarm </whateverhappenspretenditwasintentional>
6702017-08-17T18:01:23 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10801 | bench_bitcoin segfaults · Issue #10801 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
6712017-08-17T18:01:34 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o sipa
6722017-08-17T18:01:39 *** gribble was kicked by sipa (gribble)
6732017-08-17T18:01:39 *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6742017-08-17T18:01:44 *** sipa sets mode: -o sipa
6752017-08-17T18:01:53 <sipa> maybe that'll teach gribble
6762017-08-17T18:03:29 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11057 | Connection timed out.
6772017-08-17T18:15:36 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o wumpus
6782017-08-17T18:15:46 *** gribble was kicked by wumpus (you're drunk bot, go home!)
6792017-08-17T18:15:47 *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6802017-08-17T18:17:23 *** afk11 has quit IRC
6812017-08-17T18:22:25 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6822017-08-17T18:36:56 *** jtimon has quit IRC
6832017-08-17T18:37:05 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6842017-08-17T18:46:05 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
6852017-08-17T18:46:41 *** jtimon has quit IRC
6862017-08-17T18:46:53 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6872017-08-17T18:50:12 *** ekerstein has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6882017-08-17T18:51:35 *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6892017-08-17T18:56:06 *** jimmysong has quit IRC
6902017-08-17T18:56:07 *** clarkmoody has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6912017-08-17T18:56:09 <achow101> wut
6922017-08-17T18:57:02 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6932017-08-17T19:00:03 <BlueMatt> sipa: try again now?
6942017-08-17T19:00:14 <wumpus> #startmeeting
6952017-08-17T19:00:14 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Aug 17 19:00:14 2017 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
6962017-08-17T19:00:14 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
6972017-08-17T19:00:20 <sipa> DUNG
6982017-08-17T19:00:31 <achow101> hi
6992017-08-17T19:00:41 <Chris_Stewart_5> present
7002017-08-17T19:00:43 <jtimon> dong
7012017-08-17T19:00:49 <jonasschnelli> hi
7022017-08-17T19:00:55 <instagibbs> prezent
7032017-08-17T19:00:57 <wumpus> topics?
7042017-08-17T19:01:01 <cfields> hi
7052017-08-17T19:01:14 <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 achow101
7062017-08-17T19:01:39 <BlueMatt> blockers for review
7072017-08-17T19:01:40 <wumpus> let's start with 0.15.0rc1 - have any serious issues been reported?
7082017-08-17T19:01:44 <BlueMatt> and that
7092017-08-17T19:01:54 <wumpus> #topic 0.15.0
7102017-08-17T19:02:08 <BlueMatt> there's the openbsd stuff, but I'm not sure thats really 0.15 per se, more than just openbsd brokenness
7112017-08-17T19:02:15 <BlueMatt> there's also the version-reporting thing gmaxwell mentioned
7122017-08-17T19:02:17 <cfields> only thing i'm aware of is the version number issue, but that's nothing
7132017-08-17T19:02:28 <wumpus> that's just openbsd brittleness, I'm looking at it
7142017-08-17T19:02:32 <achow101> there's the duplicate hex in getrawtransaction
7152017-08-17T19:02:36 <BlueMatt> plus the new compiler warnings
7162017-08-17T19:02:36 <wumpus> cfields: do we have a patch for that?
7172017-08-17T19:02:50 <sipa> and the other things marked for 0.15... #11044 #11027
7182017-08-17T19:03:09 <cfields> wumpus: i haven't decided on where to fix it yet. Either way I'll PR something today/tomorrow
7192017-08-17T19:03:38 <wumpus> cfields: I guess in a hurry we could just revert luke-jr's patch that introduces the problem, for 0.15
7202017-08-17T19:04:17 <cfields> wumpus: yes, that was my initial suggestion, but luke-jr isn't a fan
7212017-08-17T19:04:28 <jonasschnelli> Can you elaborate on the version number issue (via luke-jr's PR)?
7222017-08-17T19:04:37 <wumpus> yes I saw the new compiler warnings, something about signed to unsigned comparison in the wallet version logic
7232017-08-17T19:04:41 <wumpus> is that something serious?
7242017-08-17T19:05:10 <cfields> jonasschnelli: the version string doesn't show v0.15.0 as it should, but a git commit instead
7252017-08-17T19:05:12 <wumpus> src/wallet/wallet.cpp:3668:38: warning: comparison of integers of different signs: 'std::set<long, std::less<long>, std::allocator<long> >::size_type' (aka 'unsigned long') and 'int' [-Wsign-compare]
7262017-08-17T19:05:16 <cfields> sec for offending PR
7272017-08-17T19:05:30 <sipa> suggestion: have travis (which has a deterministic compiler version) in one of the tests run with -Werror... but not for default builds
7282017-08-17T19:05:37 <wumpus> and another one on the same line
7292017-08-17T19:05:55 <BlueMatt> sipa: #10923
7302017-08-17T19:06:02 <kanzure> hi.
7312017-08-17T19:06:09 <wumpus> sipa: yeah, no that we no longer have any annoying warnings such as Wshadow we could do that
7322017-08-17T19:06:15 <cfields> jonasschnelli: #7522
7332017-08-17T19:06:26 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: isn't that (-WSign-compare) fixed with #11044?
7342017-08-17T19:06:38 <sipa> BlueMatt: oops, never read the second part of the title
7352017-08-17T19:06:44 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: could be!
7362017-08-17T19:06:49 <jonasschnelli> It is. Just checked
7372017-08-17T19:06:57 <BlueMatt> sipa: we already have --enable-werror which is an even more limited set of -W's that we error on, but we never enable it on anything
7382017-08-17T19:07:10 <BlueMatt> sipa: that pr enables it for thread-safety-analysis and then turns it on on travis-osx
7392017-08-17T19:07:14 <cfields> sipa: +1. I think 10923 is a great idea
7402017-08-17T19:07:31 <BlueMatt> 10923 is blocked on switching mutexes and sync.h to std, but I think we can just do that (tm)
7412017-08-17T19:07:50 <cfields> BlueMatt: not yet :(
7422017-08-17T19:08:02 <wumpus> we can just take the travis-werror part
7432017-08-17T19:08:17 <wumpus> I don't see how that is strongly related to the thread analysis
7442017-08-17T19:08:22 <BlueMatt> true
7452017-08-17T19:08:43 <wumpus> switching over mutexes and sync definitely sounds like a post-0.15 thing
7462017-08-17T19:08:46 <cfields> yea, we should just go ahead with that and add the thread checking when it's ready
7472017-08-17T19:08:47 <BlueMatt> cfields: oh? none of that stuff is used directly in the remaining threadGroup threads
7482017-08-17T19:09:06 <BlueMatt> oh, y'all want to turn on -Werror on travis for 15? yea, ok, not that then
7492017-08-17T19:09:34 <BlueMatt> anyway, looks like #11044 fixes the warnings, and its already tagged 0.15.0
7502017-08-17T19:09:47 <cfields> oh, i thought we were talking about it for master
7512017-08-17T19:10:03 <wumpus> the topic is 0.15 so I was assuming we were talking about 0.15
7522017-08-17T19:10:11 <jonasschnelli> cfields: I have a correct version string in 0.15.0rc1 (Qt, debug log). What do I miss?
7532017-08-17T19:10:14 <wumpus> anyhow, I don't mind, let's enable it for some branch...
7542017-08-17T19:10:32 <cfields> BlueMatt: i'll double-check. But I thought we had some outstanding condvars that we couldn't switch yet. Will look after meeting.
7552017-08-17T19:10:32 <wumpus> master is what the PRs will be tested against so that makes most sense I suppose
7562017-08-17T19:10:58 <BlueMatt> cfields: we do, but they're directly calling boost::condition_variable, not CConditionVariable, I believe
7572017-08-17T19:11:00 <gmaxwell> We can turn of travis Werroring if it turns out to be a pain (or even when not if...) but gain advantages from it until then.
7582017-08-17T19:11:07 <wumpus> ok: does anything need tagging for 0.15.0?
7592017-08-17T19:11:23 <cfields> jonasschnelli: the splash screen, at least, shows the git revision
7602017-08-17T19:11:43 <BlueMatt> as for 0.15, I think its jsut the 3 tags + whatever for the version string issue
7612017-08-17T19:11:48 <BlueMatt> or, nothing else was brought up
7622017-08-17T19:11:54 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11044 | [wallet] Keypool topup cleanups by jnewbery · Pull Request #11044 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
7632017-08-17T19:11:55 <jonasschnelli> cfields: Ah. I see now.. releases don't have the commit&dirty.. nm
7642017-08-17T19:12:20 <wumpus> okay
7652017-08-17T19:12:30 <wumpus> #topic high-priority for review
7662017-08-17T19:12:52 * BlueMatt puts #10286 on the list
7672017-08-17T19:13:14 <wumpus> now that 0.15 is branched, we can start doing this again
7682017-08-17T19:13:35 <wumpus> added
7692017-08-17T19:13:42 <wumpus> it's lonely https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
7702017-08-17T19:13:48 * jonasschnelli puts Implement BIP159 / #10387 on the list
7712017-08-17T19:14:03 <sipa> i'd like to draw some attention to #10785 (serialization improvements)
7722017-08-17T19:14:07 <BlueMatt> thats ok, 10286 needs to simmer on master for a month or three, so it is actually a should-go-soon, thing
7732017-08-17T19:14:13 <BlueMatt> :p
7742017-08-17T19:14:18 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11027 | [RPC] Only return hex field once in getrawtransaction by achow101 · Pull Request #11027 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
7752017-08-17T19:14:28 <jonasschnelli> sipa: It's on my list.. reviewed most of it and running on my node
7762017-08-17T19:14:43 <gmaxwell> lol poor gribble.
7772017-08-17T19:14:51 <gmaxwell> (he's way behind)
7782017-08-17T19:15:05 *** jimmysong has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7792017-08-17T19:15:13 <cfields> I'd like to add #10756 please, as lots of things for 0.16 will build on top of that
7802017-08-17T19:15:20 <jonasschnelli> (gribble probably needs to process all the spam first)
7812017-08-17T19:15:59 <wumpus> gribble damnit you made me add 11027, which makes no sense as it's already tagged 0.15
7822017-08-17T19:16:05 <jonasschnelli> cfields. done
7832017-08-17T19:16:09 <cfields> (that's the signals -> interface class switch for message processing)
7842017-08-17T19:16:14 <sipa> cfields: ack
7852017-08-17T19:16:20 <BlueMatt> yes! 10756!
7862017-08-17T19:16:21 <cfields> jonasschnelli: thanks
7872017-08-17T19:16:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10923 | Use -Wthread-safety-analysis if available (+ -Werror=[â¦] if --enable-werror) by practicalswift · Pull Request #10923 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
7882017-08-17T19:16:51 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o sipa
7892017-08-17T19:16:55 * gmaxwell can't breathe
7902017-08-17T19:16:57 *** sipa sets mode: +b *!*gribble@unaffiliated/nanotube/bot/gribble
7912017-08-17T19:16:57 *** gribble was kicked by sipa (you're useless)
7922017-08-17T19:17:00 *** sipa sets mode: -o sipa
7932017-08-17T19:17:05 <jtimon> I would suggest #8498 but not sure if it can be high priority
7942017-08-17T19:17:08 <BlueMatt> poor gribble
7952017-08-17T19:17:15 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7962017-08-17T19:17:18 <wumpus> aww :)
7972017-08-17T19:17:20 <jonasschnelli> :)
7982017-08-17T19:17:31 <cfields> haha
7992017-08-17T19:17:32 *** andytoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8002017-08-17T19:18:33 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7522 | Bugfix: Only use git for build info if the repository is actually the right one by luke-jr · Pull Request #7522 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
8012017-08-17T19:18:45 <wumpus> jtimon: added
8022017-08-17T19:18:50 <jtimon> cool
8032017-08-17T19:18:51 <wumpus> ok, any other topics?
8042017-08-17T19:19:42 <jonasschnelli> short topic: adding bench to gitian build package?
8052017-08-17T19:19:58 <jonasschnelli> I can PR
8062017-08-17T19:19:59 <cfields> wasn't it just explicitly removed? :)
8072017-08-17T19:20:06 <jonasschnelli> Yes. At least on Win
8082017-08-17T19:20:18 * jonasschnelli searching PR
8092017-08-17T19:20:25 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11044 | [wallet] Keypool topup cleanups by jnewbery · Pull Request #11044 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
8102017-08-17T19:20:32 *** andytoshi has left #bitcoin-core-dev
8112017-08-17T19:20:59 <achow101> +
8122017-08-17T19:21:05 <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7776
8132017-08-17T19:21:09 <wumpus> #topic adding bench to gitian build package
8142017-08-17T19:21:24 <jonasschnelli> I stumbled over it when wanted to bench sse4
8152017-08-17T19:21:26 <wumpus> I removed it because it was useless at the time, bench had only the examle benchmark
8162017-08-17T19:21:33 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o sipa
8172017-08-17T19:21:36 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11044 | [wallet] Keypool topup cleanups by jnewbery · Pull Request #11044 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
8182017-08-17T19:21:38 *** sipa sets mode: -o sipa
8192017-08-17T19:21:39 <wumpus> but now that bench is actually useful I agree with enabling it for the distributions, for all platforms
8202017-08-17T19:21:49 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o sipa
8212017-08-17T19:22:23 *** sipa sets mode: -o sipa
8222017-08-17T19:22:35 <jonasschnelli> I think its useful now.
8232017-08-17T19:22:39 <jonasschnelli> I'll PR that then
8242017-08-17T19:22:40 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10286 | Call wallet notify callbacks in scheduler thread (without cs_main) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10286 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
8252017-08-17T19:22:51 <jtimon> suggested topic, what do we want to do about configs for different chains? related to issue #9374 and prs #10267 #8994
8262017-08-17T19:23:26 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10387 | Implement BIP159, define and signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED (pruned peers) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10387 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
8272017-08-17T19:23:40 *** jtimon has quit IRC
8282017-08-17T19:23:48 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: thanks
8292017-08-17T19:23:50 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8302017-08-17T19:23:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10785 | Connection reset by peer.
8312017-08-17T19:24:01 <sipa> do we want to discuss bip159 more?
8322017-08-17T19:24:02 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: no rush, we don't really need it in 0.15 yet
8332017-08-17T19:24:21 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10756 | Connection reset by peer.
8342017-08-17T19:24:24 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Certenly not for 0.15
8352017-08-17T19:24:47 <luke-jr> sorry, here
8362017-08-17T19:24:55 <wumpus> #topic bip159: (NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED service bits)
8372017-08-17T19:24:57 <jonasschnelli> last updates on BIP159: threat bits independently, fingerprinting protection
8382017-08-17T19:25:06 <luke-jr> â[19:03:38] â<âwumpusâ>â cfields: I guess in a hurry we could just revert luke-jr's patch that introduces the problem, for 0.15 <-- it fixes other (more real) problems
8392017-08-17T19:25:20 <jonasschnelli> The address relay and whole peering maybe needs discussion
8402017-08-17T19:25:21 <jonasschnelli> cfields mentioned once some potential issues
8412017-08-17T19:25:36 <sipa> so, i'd like to suggest that bip159 only defines 1 bit, corresponding to 144/288 blocks
8422017-08-17T19:25:37 <wumpus> luke-jr: ok, well, can you help cfields fixing the problem then?
8432017-08-17T19:25:48 <luke-jr> wumpus: yes, already suggested a few ideas
8442017-08-17T19:26:09 <sipa> that gets 90% of the benefit I believe (nodes who are already caught up, and want to stay caught up)
8452017-08-17T19:26:21 <sipa> without needing to know what other ranges are important
8462017-08-17T19:26:24 <cfields> jonasschnelli: yea, i'll jot down my concerns.
8472017-08-17T19:26:48 <jonasschnelli> sipa: we could start with that. What's you concerns about definig two bots?
8482017-08-17T19:26:50 <jonasschnelli> bits?
8492017-08-17T19:27:07 <sipa> jonasschnelli: i'm beginning to think a second bit is just unnecessary for now
8502017-08-17T19:27:18 <sipa> and we may be able to make a more informed choice later
8512017-08-17T19:27:25 <instagibbs> sipa, prefer the week or day?
8522017-08-17T19:27:28 <sipa> day
8532017-08-17T19:27:35 <gmaxwell> It's also the case that the second bit doesn't really jive with UTXO sync, so it may just end up totally surpflous within a couple months.
8542017-08-17T19:27:46 <jonasschnelli> I think the week usecase can be interesting with SPV (client side)
8552017-08-17T19:27:50 <gmaxwell> the 288 matches the current minimum.
8562017-08-17T19:28:19 <jonasschnelli> You could run a pruned peer while syncing your phone
8572017-08-17T19:28:31 <jonasschnelli> (in an ideal BIP150 world)
8582017-08-17T19:28:35 <jonasschnelli> (or via tor)
8592017-08-17T19:28:40 <gmaxwell> sure, so long as you don't ever forget to run your wallet once a week. :)
8602017-08-17T19:28:40 *** jtimon has quit IRC
8612017-08-17T19:28:50 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8622017-08-17T19:28:57 <gmaxwell> you can still do that without the flag however.
8632017-08-17T19:29:04 <sipa> the most important benefit is that pruned nodes can and should help with partition resistence of the network, but they currently don't
8642017-08-17T19:29:27 <gmaxwell> as any whitepeer would still be able to request anythign we have. (in your BIP150 world that phone would be authenticated, presumably)
8652017-08-17T19:29:34 <jonasschnelli> I agree. I think defining only the 288 depth bit is okay. We can define another later.
8662017-08-17T19:29:40 <gmaxwell> sipa: well they do a littl.
8672017-08-17T19:29:56 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: yea, that was my thought. Now quick, slip it into 0.15rc2 _me ducks and runs_
8682017-08-17T19:29:59 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: good point about the whitepeer, right
8692017-08-17T19:30:21 <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: No 0.15. Sadly
8702017-08-17T19:30:47 <sipa> jonasschnelli: i believe gmaxwell may not have been very serious ;)
8712017-08-17T19:30:49 <gmaxwell> I'm kidding. :)
8722017-08-17T19:31:20 <jonasschnelli> No joking about releases. :)
8732017-08-17T19:31:34 <gmaxwell> If we cannot laugh all there is left to do is cry.
8742017-08-17T19:31:35 <gmaxwell> :)
8752017-08-17T19:32:02 <wumpus> exactly
8762017-08-17T19:32:10 * sipa mourns the untimely passing of rc1
8772017-08-17T19:32:11 <jonasschnelli> Indeed
8782017-08-17T19:32:36 <jonasschnelli> Any other thoughts on dropping the 1'152 dept NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH flag?
8792017-08-17T19:33:02 <gmaxwell> that gets rid of anything to be debated.
8802017-08-17T19:33:36 <jonasschnelli> A single flag was also my original idea.. but we had then discussions and the second one came up. So going back to a single bit is fine for me.
8812017-08-17T19:33:44 <wumpus> yes, let's drop it for now
8822017-08-17T19:34:08 <wumpus> it's better to continue with something; the bits debate goes on and on :)
8832017-08-17T19:34:18 <gmaxwell> smaller changes faster plz.
8842017-08-17T19:34:23 <cfields> 3 bits!
8852017-08-17T19:34:26 <jonasschnelli> Heh. Right... okay, will update the bip and the PR.
8862017-08-17T19:34:31 * jonasschnelli curses cfields
8872017-08-17T19:34:37 <cfields> :)
8882017-08-17T19:34:41 <wumpus> cfields: moar!
8892017-08-17T19:34:49 *** promag has quit IRC
8902017-08-17T19:34:54 <sipa> 3.14 bits!
8912017-08-17T19:35:00 <jonasschnelli> hehe
8922017-08-17T19:35:01 <gmaxwell> next subject?
8932017-08-17T19:35:03 <cfields> sipa: that's just irrational.
8942017-08-17T19:35:07 <jnewbery> sipa gmaxwell do you have data about what blocks are requested on the network? Have you shared it anywhere?
8952017-08-17T19:35:13 <gmaxwell> damn, I almost saved us from that pun.
8962017-08-17T19:35:29 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: we do, we have, I can dig it up again later today.
8972017-08-17T19:35:31 <jonasschnelli> jnewbery: sipa has that blocks-requested-chart
8982017-08-17T19:35:32 *** jtimon has quit IRC
8992017-08-17T19:35:36 <wumpus> #topic what do we want to do about configs for different chains (jtimon)
9002017-08-17T19:35:40 <jnewbery> thanks
9012017-08-17T19:35:42 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9022017-08-17T19:35:56 <gmaxwell> jtimon: 12:35:36 <@wumpus> #topic what do we want to do about configs for different chains (jtimon)
9032017-08-17T19:36:19 <achow101> pr/issue for reference?
9042017-08-17T19:36:29 <gmaxwell> there was an overlay config file PR I saw, I like that general idea.
9052017-08-17T19:36:34 <wumpus> related to issue #9374 and prs #10267 #8994
9062017-08-17T19:36:41 *** Chris_St1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9072017-08-17T19:36:58 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
9082017-08-17T19:37:04 <jtimon> sorry, I just fell
9092017-08-17T19:37:08 <jtimon> so jnewbery had some suggestions for #8994 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8994#issuecomment-321355349
9102017-08-17T19:37:10 <jtimon> #10267 is slightly related
9112017-08-17T19:37:38 <jtimon> and there's the issue #9374
9122017-08-17T19:38:21 <BlueMatt> <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10267 | INew -includeconf argument for including external configuration files by kallewoof · Pull Request #10267 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
9132017-08-17T19:39:37 <wumpus> not much to discuss from my side really, I think the idea of additional per-chain config files is good
9142017-08-17T19:39:42 <sipa> we know but one gribble, and his name is BlueMatt
9152017-08-17T19:39:42 <wumpus> need to review the PRs
9162017-08-17T19:40:02 <wumpus> also we really need test for initialization order / argument precedence stuff
9172017-08-17T19:40:09 *** chjj has quit IRC
9182017-08-17T19:40:11 <wumpus> as it becomes more complex with this
9192017-08-17T19:40:16 <gmaxwell> The Gribble is dead, long live the Gribble.
9202017-08-17T19:40:23 <jtimon> network.conf idea seems good to me, perhaps I could the something similar for /chain.conf, but not sure about jnewbery's suggestion because that would allow them to be used with the mainnet
9212017-08-17T19:41:02 <gmaxwell> okay, so comment on PRs?
9222017-08-17T19:41:12 <jtimon> well, I guess it can be discussed on the prs, yeah
9232017-08-17T19:41:43 <jtimon> just poiting out the 3 things seem related to me
9242017-08-17T19:41:53 <wumpus> yes
9252017-08-17T19:42:08 <luke-jr> wumpus: bitcoin_rw.conf solves per-chain at the same time, so IMO the approach to take there
9262017-08-17T19:42:18 <wumpus> luke-jr: that's a different issue
9272017-08-17T19:42:37 <wumpus> luke-jr: let's not blur everything together now jsut because jtimon started off with a whole list...
9282017-08-17T19:42:41 <wumpus> any other topics?
9292017-08-17T19:43:02 <gmaxwell> yea.. I want to talk about the impersonation issues and comms stuff for a moment.
9302017-08-17T19:43:03 <jnewbery> I don't think that #10996 (per network configuration) and #10267 (additional config file) should be held up on #8994 (custom chains)
9312017-08-17T19:43:20 <wumpus> jnewbery: no, I don't think so either
9322017-08-17T19:43:37 <wumpus> #topic impersonation issues and comms stuff
9332017-08-17T19:43:42 <gmaxwell> Kind of OT for the normal material here; but everyone should be aware that the developer of S2X is going around
9342017-08-17T19:43:45 <gmaxwell> spreading misinformation about S2X describing it as a harmless "upgrade" to bitcoin, misstating that things like
9352017-08-17T19:43:48 <gmaxwell> classic and BU are compatible (though they don't even implement segwit), and not making any mention of the serious
9362017-08-17T19:43:51 <gmaxwell> issues like its lack of replay protection, no HF bit, lack of a spec, this is especially bad because there have
9372017-08-17T19:43:54 <gmaxwell> been a bunch of efforts to impersonate our project supporting this stuff:
9382017-08-17T19:43:57 <gmaxwell> https://twitter.com/bcoreproject/status/897966294083018760 (click internal link for the S2X stuff)
9392017-08-17T19:44:00 <gmaxwell> I'm not sure of what to do but it appears to be a widescale effort to misinform people. :(
9402017-08-17T19:44:07 <gmaxwell> In the past twitter hasn't done much with people impersonating me, and this is happening on more than twitter.
9412017-08-17T19:44:23 <sipa> :(
9422017-08-17T19:44:27 *** ekerstein has quit IRC
9432017-08-17T19:44:28 <wumpus> yea :/
9442017-08-17T19:44:30 <BlueMatt> I'm not sure what can be done about it, sadly, either, aside from everyone spending some time vigorously condemning such blatant fraud and reaching out to corners of the community to point this out
9452017-08-17T19:44:47 <gmaxwell> E.g. seen it on reddit and hacker news; and our community links people to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support but then gets trolls responding that its "fake" and "censored by theymos"
9462017-08-17T19:44:58 <achow101> for twitter impersonation, you can report it to twitter and they might do something about it
9472017-08-17T19:45:07 <luke-jr> maybe a bitcoincore.org blog explicitly rejecting 2X and warning people of the misinformation campaigns?
9482017-08-17T19:45:15 <wumpus> right, I'm not sure what recourse there is, fake news everywhere on the internet
9492017-08-17T19:45:20 <gmaxwell> achow101: I've heard that several project contributors have; so sure; but I wouldn't expect much.
9502017-08-17T19:45:35 <praxeology> gmaxwell: I saw in #bitcoin someone was saying that bitpay was linking to use btc1 https://blog.bitpay.com/bitcore-segwit-activation/ with "bitcore"
9512017-08-17T19:45:37 <wumpus> yes certainly report to sites where the impersonation is hosted
9522017-08-17T19:45:42 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: if carefully worded, seems fine
9532017-08-17T19:45:45 <wumpus> github is quite active with that at least
9542017-08-17T19:45:59 <wumpus> twitter usually ignores report unless a lot of people report
9552017-08-17T19:46:11 <gmaxwell> Right we may need to each be more outspoken personally, and perhaps organize some project things too.
9562017-08-17T19:46:16 <achow101> I like luke-jr's idea. having something explicitly rejecting s2x would be good
9572017-08-17T19:46:25 <Murch> I had already reported that account last week, I suggest that others which use twitter do so as well.
9582017-08-17T19:46:43 <jtimon> jnewbery: agreed, nor the other way around imo
9592017-08-17T19:46:49 * luke-jr notes he personally calls it simply "2X" because he doesn't want to give the impression Segwit is connected to it.
9602017-08-17T19:47:42 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I've used S2X, but yea people are confused thinking 2X = 2MB not 4MB (8peak) and other crazy stuff.
9612017-08-17T19:47:57 <gmaxwell> or thinking that segwit activation means s2x activation.
9622017-08-17T19:48:29 <wumpus> luke-jr: yes, I think an explicit post rejecting s2x would be a good idea
9632017-08-17T19:48:33 <praxeology> didn't help that the slashdot article was wrong, portraying it bcash vs segwit2x
9642017-08-17T19:48:52 <gmaxwell> I looked a week or two ago and there were under two dozen btc1 nodes after excluding VPSes and only something like 60 including. Non-entity on the network.
9652017-08-17T19:49:17 <gmaxwell> ironically, BCash seems the more honest and responsible of the two.
9662017-08-17T19:49:18 <Murch> gmaxwell: And no development activity since "rc2"
9672017-08-17T19:49:24 <achow101> gmaxwell: unfortunately their doing basically a misinformation campaign to get more people to run btc1
9682017-08-17T19:49:35 <achow101> e.g. bitpay telling people to use btc1 for segwit
9692017-08-17T19:49:43 <BlueMatt> ok, so objections to luke-jr's proposal to put something on bitcoincore.org that simply points out that s2x is unrelated to segwit, and a fork of bitcoin, not a "harmless upgrade"?
9702017-08-17T19:49:45 <gmaxwell> In any case, we're not going to solve it here, but I think we each can make little pushes to better inform people.
9712017-08-17T19:49:56 <BlueMatt> simple faq/error correction, not political "fuck this thing"
9722017-08-17T19:50:16 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: would depend on the text! someone could propose some, maybe harding.
9732017-08-17T19:50:22 <luke-jr> I'll throw up a draft GDoc people can hack at after the meeting?
9742017-08-17T19:50:27 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yes, of course
9752017-08-17T19:50:33 <gmaxwell> We can also talk to the bitcoin.org folks in general.
9762017-08-17T19:51:01 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: It might be a streach for your approach to get something the rest of the contributors would find super agreeable.
9772017-08-17T19:51:19 <praxeology> How close is bitcoin.org w/ the core dev team? Who runs it?
9782017-08-17T19:51:24 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I think you do well staking out your own more extreme position and adding to the discussion that way, though-- so no offense intended.
9792017-08-17T19:51:45 <Chris_St1> maybe bitcoin.org people can throw up a warning about people promoting consensus imcompatible implementations
9802017-08-17T19:51:52 <gmaxwell> praxeology: it's run by the bitcoin.org people. They're generally reasonable folks.
9812017-08-17T19:51:55 <BlueMatt> praxeology: not at all, but we can at least contact them or open github issues since they do put the source on github
9822017-08-17T19:51:57 <cfields> i think it's important that we point out that this isn't some NIH issue or aversion to change, rather a reaction to a fork that has not only ignored what we've learned from the recent split, but even manages to regress from it
9832017-08-17T19:51:58 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: maybe someone else can write a draft then?
9842017-08-17T19:52:12 <luke-jr> what I wrote so far: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D5wYL8mYTfswE94lzIe1RwdDP_rETpgXSWdkMUcpt1A/edit?usp=sharing
9852017-08-17T19:52:15 <sipa> cfields: indeed
9862017-08-17T19:52:47 <Murch> BlueMatt: Factual statement that the two are unrelated and perhaps a mention of the lack in replay protection
9872017-08-17T19:53:04 <gmaxwell> cfields: yes, indeed, in the few places where he even responded to concerns it was to claim things were non-issues with bcash when they actually were, and when bcash's better decisions were highly protective.
9882017-08-17T19:53:30 <BlueMatt> yea, that seems reasonable, just "hey, this is unrelated to Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin, really, they are playing a very, very risky game and most folks dont condone this"
9892017-08-17T19:54:04 <gmaxwell> In any case, beyond some factual statement... part of the consequence of having the project itself speak less is that each of us in the community sometimes needs to speak more. Otherwise the vacuum is easily filled with fakes and lies.
9902017-08-17T19:54:20 <gmaxwell> I dunno if everyone has seen morcos' blog posts but they've been fantastic.
9912017-08-17T19:54:34 <wumpus> gmaxwell: can you link them please?
9922017-08-17T19:54:42 <wumpus> (for the sake of the meeting log)
9932017-08-17T19:54:48 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: even just many rather than most (while I don't doubt most is also true, a narrower thing can be said)
9942017-08-17T19:54:57 <BlueMatt> fair
9952017-08-17T19:55:27 <Murch> BlueMatt: Yeah, Replay Protection might be a bit over the head for the general audience. It should be mentioned though that it is unrelated to and _not supported by Bitcoin Core_.
9962017-08-17T19:55:33 <sipa> https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-governance-model-97b8e521e751 https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-centralized-services-539e3b1b56c9 https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-full-nodes-889c20100a8d
9972017-08-17T19:55:45 <BlueMatt> yea, ^ those are great!
9982017-08-17T19:56:10 <wumpus> #link https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-bad-governance-model-97b8e521e751
9992017-08-17T19:56:17 <wumpus> #link https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-centralized-services-539e3b1b56c9
10002017-08-17T19:56:18 <luke-jr> some open source projects just do blog aggregation
10012017-08-17T19:56:18 <wumpus> #link https://medium.com/@morcos/no2x-full-nodes-889c20100a8d
10022017-08-17T19:56:27 <gmaxwell> it's a fine line to walk, to express the gist without seeming like there isn't substance or alternatively dropping people into the weeds.
10032017-08-17T19:57:04 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'm generally glad that we don't, in that joe-blow who just doesn't get open projects and is looking for an authority won't understand that a blog aggregation isn't an official position.
10042017-08-17T19:57:08 <Murch> luke-jr: That's why I'm putting it so carefully: "not supported" is easily true. Stating that there is no Core contributors that do support it, is probably hard to check and easily false.
10052017-08-17T19:57:19 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #11081: Add length check for CExtKey deserialization (master...2017/08/fix_cextkey) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11081
10062017-08-17T19:57:25 <wumpus> luke-jr: yes, something like https://planet.freedesktop.org/ would be nice, though on the other hand for bitcoin that would result in endless political discussions about who to include and who not
10072017-08-17T19:57:38 <gmaxwell> In any case, even if you don't have the energy or skills to write your own statements, if you agree with stuff like morcos' you can still link to it and let others know you support it.
10082017-08-17T19:57:48 *** ekerstein has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10092017-08-17T19:57:52 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: aka bitcoin press center.
10102017-08-17T19:57:58 <BlueMatt> wumpus: I think we should include Mr Buckethead! I find his points on Brexit to be rather well-informed.
10112017-08-17T19:57:59 <luke-jr> :x
10122017-08-17T19:58:12 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: some people don't know to follow individual developers, though
10132017-08-17T19:58:21 <sipa> BlueMatt: *Lord* Buckethead please
10142017-08-17T19:58:30 <wumpus> lol BlueMatt
10152017-08-17T19:58:38 <BlueMatt> sipa: oops, sorry
10162017-08-17T19:59:02 <Murch> luke-jr: That's why a statement coming from Core would be useful. Especially since Core as an entity doesn't usually have a position.
10172017-08-17T19:59:18 <BlueMatt> if folks agree, @bitcoincoreorg could also r/t morcos' blog posts
10182017-08-17T19:59:32 <wumpus> @btcdrak
10192017-08-17T20:00:03 <wumpus> #endmeeting
10202017-08-17T20:00:03 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Aug 17 20:00:03 2017 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
10212017-08-17T20:00:03 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-08-17-19.00.html
10222017-08-17T20:00:03 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-08-17-19.00.txt
10232017-08-17T20:00:03 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-08-17-19.00.log.html
10242017-08-17T20:00:13 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I think it would be good, can be done in a way that it's clearly not project stuff.
10252017-08-17T20:00:30 <BlueMatt> yea, i mean just r/t would still show it as a tweet from morcos
10262017-08-17T20:00:55 <Murch> BlueMatt: Still would be considered an endorsement
10272017-08-17T20:01:04 <BlueMatt> Murch: yes, it would be
10282017-08-17T20:01:06 <BlueMatt> thats on purpose
10292017-08-17T20:01:12 <BlueMatt> hence my question :)
10302017-08-17T20:01:12 <instagibbs> Quote Tweet to make it more obvious :P
10312017-08-17T20:01:22 *** Char0n has quit IRC
10322017-08-17T20:01:33 *** Char0n has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10332017-08-17T20:01:34 <luke-jr> not everyone reads Twitter either
10342017-08-17T20:01:39 <Murch> I think that the position is pretty broadly held here, but if someone disagrees with it, I'm not sure they'd want to speak up.
10352017-08-17T20:01:47 <gmaxwell> Murch: somewhat, and a failure to counter is implicitly an endorcement of things like https://twitter.com/bcoreproject/status/897966294083018760
10362017-08-17T20:02:03 <luke-jr> the vaccine to misinformation is truth
10372017-08-17T20:02:12 <instagibbs> Merely informing users that it's "not just an upgrade" cannot be controversial to anyone on the project
10382017-08-17T20:02:19 <gmaxwell> Murch: well they should, cause otherwise no one is gonna know.
10392017-08-17T20:02:28 <Murch> gmaxwell: That needs a response from the actual Bitcoin Core twitter account to condemn it as false flag.
10402017-08-17T20:03:13 <jnewbery> Murch - I agree. Have misgivings about "Bitcoin Core" endorsing a personal opinion
10412017-08-17T20:03:13 <gmaxwell> yes, we can condemn the impersonation (that isn't the only one, also)
10422017-08-17T20:03:15 <Murch> luke-jr: It'll get linked on reddit in no time. And I'm sure that BCT also would get some discussion on something like that.
10432017-08-17T20:03:27 <luke-jr> "Of the 25 Bitcoin Core developers who have stated a position on 2X, all of them are opposed."
10442017-08-17T20:03:42 <luke-jr> Murch: bitcoincore.org is important IMO
10452017-08-17T20:03:46 <Murch> luke-jr: Yeah, that's better.
10462017-08-17T20:03:48 <instagibbs> the impersonation is break of ToS
10472017-08-17T20:04:07 <luke-jr> so should I junk https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D5wYL8mYTfswE94lzIe1RwdDP_rETpgXSWdkMUcpt1A/edit?usp=sharing ?
10482017-08-17T20:04:58 <instagibbs> hmm I need a "company email" to report theft of brand
10492017-08-17T20:05:18 <BlueMatt> instagibbs: I just made it up, they'll figure it out that its not a "company", its an organization
10502017-08-17T20:05:23 <achow101> instagibbs: it's only impersonation if they don't state that they are a parody account
10512017-08-17T20:05:31 <instagibbs> achow101, they do not, at least in profile
10522017-08-17T20:05:44 <achow101> so what usually happens is that they put "parody" in the profile somewhere, and no one actually notices that
10532017-08-17T20:05:51 <gmaxwell> to be clear, if the S2X posts were "This is a thing we're doing, it's controversial, but we think it's right. Here are the risks and protective steps" I'd disagree but have little to complain about. But the burying the risks, describing it as an upgrade, dovetails perfectly with the troll false flags to pretend that the authors of most of the software they're shipping supports it... it's fra
10542017-08-17T20:05:54 <instagibbs> that's fine, but they aren't hence ToS :)
10552017-08-17T20:05:57 <gmaxwell> ud.
10562017-08-17T20:06:08 <BlueMatt> jnewbery: I'm with gmaxwell, while its always bad to endorse a personal opinion, as far as I know every major and even the vast majority of minor contributors support that view, at which point if you want the org to not endorse it, you should speak up
10572017-08-17T20:07:14 <gmaxwell> I think we can make things clear that they're personal opinions. Yes, it's something thats fraught with problems. But other than the meta issues, is there anyone who actually disagrees with Morcos on the whole whos a regular contributor, much less disagrees with sharing it? I think the answer is no.
10582017-08-17T20:07:40 <luke-jr> I think we're fine endorsing a "personal opinion" in cases where as-far-as-we-know all developers are of the same opinion..
10592017-08-17T20:07:49 <gmaxwell> We do have to make a balance, and I think the sucess of the misinformation has been high enough to indicate that we're strking the balance a little too far to one sid.
10602017-08-17T20:07:55 <BlueMatt> can also just quote tweet and say like "Some thoughts on 2x, from a major contributor to Bitcoin Core"
10612017-08-17T20:08:09 <jnewbery> ok, I'll speak up. I think there's a difference between condemning impersonation and misinformation (which we should definitely do) and endorsing someone's opionion (which is a road I think we shouldn't go down)
10622017-08-17T20:08:20 <jnewbery> BlueMatt - I think that's better
10632017-08-17T20:08:37 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: well I'm sure we don't all agree with every last detail of morcos' post.. but broadly. certantly the wiki page and 1:1 discussions support that generally.
10642017-08-17T20:08:39 <jnewbery> slightly better
10652017-08-17T20:08:52 <gmaxwell> yea, I don't think we should endorse it, but increase visiblity of it.
10662017-08-17T20:09:03 <praxeology> Maybe there should be discussion or a link to discussion about core's opinion/roadmap on block size increases?
10672017-08-17T20:09:10 <gmaxwell> Because otherwise opponents will flood with disinfo, and pay to advertise it, and thats all people will see.
10682017-08-17T20:09:18 <BlueMatt> jnewbery: heh, that wasnt my point, I asked if people disagreed with the views stated, not disagreed with the concept of endorsing a personal opion....at some point if everyone agrees its no longer a "personal opinion"
10692017-08-17T20:09:26 <instagibbs> praxeology, already on mailing list, fwiw, search for Paul... Sz... whatever :)
10702017-08-17T20:10:20 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I think the objective should be to increase the quality of the public discussion. Getting more people morcos' links would objectively do that, even if there was some disagreement about them, it's even more obviously a win because there doesn't appear to be.
10712017-08-17T20:10:48 <BlueMatt> anyway, quoting it and pointing out that its a personal opinion is a lower bar, and ~as effective
10722017-08-17T20:10:50 <BlueMatt> so whatever
10732017-08-17T20:11:47 <gmaxwell> in any case, I've also heard from several community members that it would help them if we helped shut down some of this misinformation.
10742017-08-17T20:11:52 <cfields> jnewbery: agreed. you don't even have to take a position on the matter to call out shadyness. I like to think we'd equally call out a large campaign claiming something stupid like "0.15 solves the scaling issue, update immediately!"
10752017-08-17T20:12:13 <gmaxwell> cfields: indeed, and I've done that on prior releases (called out people who overstated their gains)
10762017-08-17T20:12:35 <jnewbery> to be clear, I'm not disputing the quality of morcos's posts, and I personally agree with them, but I find the idea of 'Bitcoin Core thinks <x>' objectionable
10772017-08-17T20:12:56 <jnewbery> cfields - yes. Absolutely no issue with calling out shadiness
10782017-08-17T20:12:57 *** Chris_St1 has quit IRC
10792017-08-17T20:12:58 <luke-jr> long term I think we should link blogs with only agreement from maybe 2 or 3 devs, but have a clear notice at the top saying "x, y, z agree; a, b, c don't agree; e, f, g think this is interesting, but don't necessarily agree or disagree" :P this would get info out there better, and make it more obvious that Core is just an open source project, not a formal top-down group
10802017-08-17T20:13:05 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: yes, I think we want to avoid that.
10812017-08-17T20:13:39 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: but we can pass on some links while saying that they're worth a read without stating it as a position.
10822017-08-17T20:14:48 <jnewbery> Perhaps. I'm not going to NACK, and I think I've made my point that we need to be careful with tone
10832017-08-17T20:14:56 <gmaxwell> All our efforts to do the right thing don't matter if we let less ethical people bury us. I don't think we should adopt those techniques, but we do need to act with the full range and power of what we can agree is acceptable.
10842017-08-17T20:15:12 <instagibbs> could we also try to get a blue checkmark for the twitter account?
10852017-08-17T20:15:32 <instagibbs> (heard it's a PITA)
10862017-08-17T20:15:33 <gmaxwell> jnewbery: btcdrak would probably write it, I'll suggest he also consult with you on the presentation. I think your point is perfectly reasonable.
10872017-08-17T20:15:34 *** protomar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10882017-08-17T20:17:35 <praxeology> I disagree with luke's suggested rename to "2X". Ideally we could get the whole bitcoin/altcoin community to change the name, but its too late now, should just stick w/ what everyone is familiar with
10892017-08-17T20:21:27 <wumpus> another openbsd issue I can't reproduce https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11063, seems to work fine here
10902017-08-17T20:21:55 <Murch> luke-jr: I've added a suggestion to the bottom of your gdoc.
10912017-08-17T20:22:11 *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
10922017-08-17T20:22:54 <Murch> BlueMatt: What do you think? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D5wYL8mYTfswE94lzIe1RwdDP_rETpgXSWdkMUcpt1A/edit
10932017-08-17T20:23:44 <BlueMatt> lol, we said non-political statement...."altcoin"
10942017-08-17T20:24:34 <Murch> BlueMatt: I've added the sentences below the line
10952017-08-17T20:24:45 <BlueMatt> yea, ok, the version below the line is actually a decent start
10962017-08-17T20:26:43 <Murch> BlueMatt: Good changes if that is you. ;)
10972017-08-17T20:30:07 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10982017-08-17T20:30:25 <luke-jr> BlueMatt: "altcoin" is objective fact, not political..
10992017-08-17T20:30:59 <luke-jr> praxeology: everyone is familiar with "2X"
11002017-08-17T20:32:11 <Murch> luke-jr: "Altcoin" is also needlessly polarizing.
11012017-08-17T20:33:41 <luke-jr> Murch: I don't see how.
11022017-08-17T20:33:47 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: feel free to replace the original text with the stuff below the line
11032017-08-17T20:33:58 <luke-jr> Murch: it's a neutral term, I'm not sure how to make it any better
11042017-08-17T20:34:09 <BlueMatt> luke-jr: its politically polarizing, whether you intend it to be or not
11052017-08-17T20:35:33 <Murch> luke-jr: It's a technical term but often used to disparage other projects. It would just be an unnecessary affront to users that actually like some of those projects.
11062017-08-17T20:35:55 <BlueMatt> fork'd https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y6Hsqdg1xBrJY4dFeKP6y05XCceJoVMs0_M_VwKFReM
11072017-08-17T20:35:55 * luke-jr wonders how to decide when to accept suggested changes
11082017-08-17T20:39:10 <Murch> The google doc has hardforked :p
11092017-08-17T20:39:21 * Murch needs to get back to work
11102017-08-17T20:41:23 <jnewbery> I've added my suggested wording to the doc (under =====)
11112017-08-17T20:42:48 <luke-jr> jnewbery: it seems to fail to address the main misinformation (that they are misrepresenting an altcoin as an upgrade to Bitcoin)
11122017-08-17T20:43:04 <luke-jr> (or worse, does so by implying Bitcoin Core is Bitcoin!)
11132017-08-17T20:43:06 *** mxg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11142017-08-17T20:44:44 *** mxg has left #bitcoin-core-dev
11152017-08-17T20:50:05 <sturles> btc1 calls their node software Bitcoin Core as well.
11162017-08-17T20:50:53 <wumpus> great, as if we didn't have enough confusion
11172017-08-17T20:51:17 <Murch> as usual with forks, both edit chains live and thrive. ;)
11182017-08-17T20:51:27 <Murch> There is some replay attacks going on though ;)
11192017-08-17T20:51:38 <wumpus> we should have trademarked the name...
11202017-08-17T20:52:06 <Murch> ah, I thought you meant the two google docs
11212017-08-17T20:52:11 <luke-jr> wumpus: trademarks don't require registration
11222017-08-17T20:52:13 <luke-jr> at least in the US
11232017-08-17T20:52:16 <wumpus> impersonating software projects isn't cool
11242017-08-17T20:52:30 <luke-jr> (BTW, if anyone wants direct edit/approval access to the GDoc, PM me your GDocs email)
11252017-08-17T20:52:45 <wumpus> it's close to what many malware does
11262017-08-17T20:53:05 <luke-jr> wumpus: we could probably sue them and win if they're actually doing that, but who wants to deal with the lawyers? :p
11272017-08-17T20:53:15 <wumpus> luke-jr: good point...
11282017-08-17T20:54:12 *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11292017-08-17T21:00:01 *** protomar has quit IRC
11302017-08-17T21:06:51 *** pandabull has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11312017-08-17T21:08:47 *** cryptapus has quit IRC
11322017-08-17T21:11:32 *** Chris_St1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11332017-08-17T21:12:18 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11342017-08-17T21:17:53 *** Chris_St1 has quit IRC
11352017-08-17T21:32:41 *** Chris_St1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11362017-08-17T21:40:35 <jimpo> cfields: Is there a reason that the "send rejects" part of SendRejectsAndCheckBanned should be called at the end of ProcessMessages as introduced in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9720?
11372017-08-17T21:41:02 <jimpo> Said otherwise, is it safe to split into SendRejects and separately CheckIfBanned and only call CheckIfBanned there?
11382017-08-17T21:46:22 *** chjj has quit IRC
11392017-08-17T21:48:57 <BlueMatt> jimpo: the reason is to (try, there are no guarnatees) to get reject messages out to the peer that we're about to disconnect
11402017-08-17T21:49:02 <BlueMatt> eg an "I banned you because" message
11412017-08-17T21:50:25 <praxeology> Maybe... the people who would be duped into downloading/installing btc1... haven't even/don't/won't install Bitcoin Core in the first place. So that set of people is probably pretty small, like maybe 0 people?
11422017-08-17T21:53:50 <gmaxwell> praxeology: it would be true except they are advertising it as how to upgrade for segwit. Even though 90%+ of the network is already upgraded for segwit.
11432017-08-17T21:54:25 <morcos> karelb: re: estimate fee.. emphasis was on _slight_ differences.. I think you should upgrade to use estimatesmartfee, but if you do nothing, i don't think the world will end. you'll probably be ok
11442017-08-17T21:56:37 <karelb> thx. I am already looking forward to it
11452017-08-17T21:56:56 <cfields> jimpo: what he said.
11462017-08-17T21:57:08 <jimpo> thx
11472017-08-17T21:58:12 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11482017-08-17T21:58:31 <cfields> jimpo: iirc i explained in pretty good detail in the commit message/pr for that change. You might want to have a quick look if you haven't already
11492017-08-17T21:59:22 *** murr5y has quit IRC
11502017-08-17T21:59:50 *** murr4y has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11512017-08-17T22:06:21 *** str4d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11522017-08-17T22:06:41 <jimpo> Thanks, the commit messages are very helpful. I understand why the call was added at the end of ProcessMessages, but why is it called again in SendMessages?
11532017-08-17T22:09:30 <karelb> morcos: I asked P2SH.info guy if he wants to update this - https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/fee-estimation - to include the new estimatesmartfee
11542017-08-17T22:09:35 <karelb> I am interested in the graph
11552017-08-17T22:10:02 <karelb> on the bottom left you see the various estimators compared
11562017-08-17T22:10:28 *** chjj has quit IRC
11572017-08-17T22:12:54 <BlueMatt> jimpo: SendMessages is confusingly named, it really should be PeerProcessingTimerFunction
11582017-08-17T22:13:11 <BlueMatt> and, eg, block reject messages may be generated async
11592017-08-17T22:13:27 <BlueMatt> (and also dos points based on the same blocks)
11602017-08-17T22:14:27 <jimpo> OK, thx
11612017-08-17T22:15:20 <morcos> Just caught up on backlog, for the record, I was already asked about bitcoincoreorg retweeting or pointing to my medium posts and i was fairly strongly opposed
11622017-08-17T22:15:44 <BlueMatt> morcos: even in a "this is someone's view, but its informative" quote?
11632017-08-17T22:15:47 <morcos> I agree with jnewbery , I don't think we can all agree on what Core's opinions are, so we should steer very far away from core having opinions
11642017-08-17T22:15:57 <morcos> BlueMatt: yes, there is no reason that needs to come from core
11652017-08-17T22:16:13 <BlueMatt> morcos: see greg's comments - people are claiming to "be" bitcoin core saying otherwise
11662017-08-17T22:16:20 <morcos> you can retweet it (you probably did) and any one else can, but i think the official core communication should stay away from that
11672017-08-17T22:16:24 <BlueMatt> i did
11682017-08-17T22:17:05 <morcos> i haven't read the text yet about an announcement regarding 2x, but i think that makes a lot more sense to factually let people know what the Core project will be supporting in terms of rules
11692017-08-17T22:17:12 <instagibbs> i think there's the two issues: 1) claiming to be core 2) claiming to offer bitcoin upgrades
11702017-08-17T22:17:26 <morcos> But again we need to be quite careful with tone, to not judge what others are saying too much
11712017-08-17T22:17:46 <gmaxwell> then in our efforts to be so holy we'll suffer failures at the hands of people with no scruples, because when we don't speak they'll speak for us and use our names.
11722017-08-17T22:17:53 <morcos> instagibbs: re: upgrades, i think better than disputing their description is to just provide our own factual description
11732017-08-17T22:18:13 <morcos> people can individually condemn the "upgrade" nomenclature if they choose
11742017-08-17T22:18:30 <morcos> gmaxwell: i'd rather do that than stoop to their level
11752017-08-17T22:18:58 <morcos> certainly we can point out that people using similar names are not us and don't represent our views
11762017-08-17T22:19:11 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #11082: Add new bitcoin_rw.conf file that is used for settings modified by this software itself (master...rwconf) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11082
11772017-08-17T22:20:09 <instagibbs> +1
11782017-08-17T22:20:32 <gmaxwell> morcos: there aren't just those two choices though.
11792017-08-17T22:21:30 <gmaxwell> (also, "here is a really interesting view you should read and consider" is not morally equivilent to /pretending to be us/ or faking that s2x is just an uncontroversial and low risk bitcoin upgrade...)
11802017-08-17T22:22:04 <BlueMatt> ^ that
11812017-08-17T22:22:28 <BlueMatt> I mean can you seriously claim that almost the entirety of your rather short blog posts is disagreed with by almost any contributor to bitcoin core
11822017-08-17T22:23:31 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11832017-08-17T22:25:07 *** BashCo has quit IRC
11842017-08-17T22:25:36 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11852017-08-17T22:26:06 <gmaxwell> We shouldn't make the mistake of being naieve that thinking that being right is sufficent against opponents who will do whatever it takes. That doesn't mean that I think we need to stoop to their level in any way. I think you could potentially extend your argument about speaking for others against writing your post in the first place.
11862017-08-17T22:26:28 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] runn1ng closed pull request #10370: [pull request idea] addressindex, spentindex, timestampindex (Bitcore patches) (master...rebase_bitcoin_master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10370
11872017-08-17T22:26:35 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
11882017-08-17T22:26:39 <gmaxwell> Surely even if we do not tweet it, some people will see it and think it speaks for the project. Not many, nor would it be a reasonable conclusion to jump to.. but some will.
11892017-08-17T22:27:27 *** vicenteH has quit IRC
11902017-08-17T22:29:11 <BlueMatt> anyway, so thoughts on the current proposed doc? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y6Hsqdg1xBrJY4dFeKP6y05XCceJoVMs0_M_VwKFReM/edit
11912017-08-17T22:29:14 <BlueMatt> (and the pending edits to it)
11922017-08-17T22:35:29 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11932017-08-17T22:36:37 <morcos> I had one objection, i commented, but overall i think its quite good
11942017-08-17T22:37:10 <morcos> gmaxwell: yes its enough of a problem that people might mistake my posts as representing the project, thats why its important for the project to not tweet them
11952017-08-17T22:37:14 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11962017-08-17T22:37:40 <morcos> they don't, i'm glad a lot of you guys like them.. but it would also be fine if you disagreed.
11972017-08-17T22:38:24 <gmaxwell> in this climate I hope we'd also consider tweeting it if we didn't agree but thought it was a useful contribution to the discussion.
11982017-08-17T22:38:44 <gmaxwell> In any case, lets talk about what the people suggesting this hope to achieve.
11992017-08-17T22:39:23 <gmaxwell> I want people to not be getting only the distorted s2x version of the world shoved down their throats, and know that many people have a dissenting view.
12002017-08-17T22:40:44 <gmaxwell> And in particular, the people that the users of bitcoin are generally reseting a fair amount of trust to create and maintain the software the network is using, for the most part (or completely though we can't be sure) don't agree with the narative they're being sold.
12012017-08-17T22:43:50 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12022017-08-17T22:48:32 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12032017-08-17T22:49:23 <morcos> I'm going to be mostly afk for rest of today, but will check back in. I think we should let this proposed blog post sit for a while after we get the wording nailed down and just make sure contributors to the project are ok with it
12042017-08-17T22:52:58 *** Chris_St1 has quit IRC
12052017-08-17T23:03:58 *** chjj has quit IRC
12062017-08-17T23:06:16 *** Chris_St1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12072017-08-17T23:16:41 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12082017-08-17T23:20:48 <sipa> Receiving objects: 100% (98150/98150), 83.68 MiB | 3.68 MiB/s, done.
12092017-08-17T23:21:13 <sipa> i find it amazing that all of bitcoin core's history, is less than 100 MB
12102017-08-17T23:30:08 *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
12112017-08-17T23:59:02 *** MeshNet2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev