1 2018-07-30T00:04:44  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  2 2018-07-30T00:19:10  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  3 2018-07-30T00:27:40  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2018-07-30T00:31:00  *** davec has quit IRC
  5 2018-07-30T00:36:43  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
  6 2018-07-30T00:50:25  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2018-07-30T00:53:46  *** brighton36 has quit IRC
  8 2018-07-30T00:54:40  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2018-07-30T01:00:07  <fanquake> I've closed 0.16.2 and opened a new 0.16.x milestone for some new 0.16 backports.
 10 2018-07-30T01:00:50  <fanquake> Also locked the conversation on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d2186b3db61a9d4dc2d4a6211573790d9e34bf58#comments, as that's probably carried on long enough.
 11 2018-07-30T01:08:03  <gmaxwell> man, should have locked that right away.
 12 2018-07-30T01:09:02  <gmaxwell> Someday I will invent the devices that allows one to stab someone in the face over the internet, but today is not that day.
 13 2018-07-30T01:13:01  <sipa> killall -SIGECUTE
 14 2018-07-30T01:16:09  *** promag has quit IRC
 15 2018-07-30T01:18:57  *** Lauda has quit IRC
 16 2018-07-30T01:19:35  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 17 2018-07-30T01:24:44  *** murrayn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2018-07-30T01:24:52  *** Lauda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2018-07-30T01:36:21  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2018-07-30T01:40:57  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 21 2018-07-30T01:55:31  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2018-07-30T01:57:16  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2018-07-30T01:57:31  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
 24 2018-07-30T02:00:10  *** meshcollider_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 25 2018-07-30T02:01:58  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 26 2018-07-30T02:04:49  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 27 2018-07-30T02:18:10  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2018-07-30T02:22:54  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 29 2018-07-30T02:27:33  *** jhfrontz has quit IRC
 30 2018-07-30T02:39:04  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2018-07-30T02:43:49  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 32 2018-07-30T02:50:01  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2018-07-30T02:54:31  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
 34 2018-07-30T02:55:18  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
 35 2018-07-30T02:55:31  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2018-07-30T02:59:59  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 37 2018-07-30T03:03:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 38 2018-07-30T03:04:07  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2018-07-30T03:04:33  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 40 2018-07-30T03:05:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 41 2018-07-30T03:06:07  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2018-07-30T03:20:55  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2018-07-30T03:25:54  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 44 2018-07-30T03:41:46  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2018-07-30T03:46:19  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 46 2018-07-30T04:02:40  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 47 2018-07-30T04:07:29  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 48 2018-07-30T04:12:45  <kallewoof> luke-jr: Regarding comment on #13756 -- you say "This doesn't actually fully solve #10065, since transactions received with a dirty address are still shown in the GUI / RPC". Are you referring to the case where someone sends funds to destination X, and then later send funds again to destination X before I spend from X? Why is that a problem? X is not dirty unless I spend from it once, in which case the second send WILL be
 49 2018-07-30T04:12:45  <kallewoof>  marked dirty.
 50 2018-07-30T04:12:46  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10065 | Support not reusing addresses · Issue #10065 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 51 2018-07-30T04:12:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13756 | wallet: -avoidreuse feature for improved privacy by kallewoof · Pull Request #13756 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 52 2018-07-30T04:14:44  <kallewoof> Oh wait, you're talking specifically about the GUI/RPC. Yes, I guess this only applies to the coin select algo...
 53 2018-07-30T04:15:36  <sipa> kallewoof: i guess luke-jr wants it to not even treat a second receive at the same address as a valid incoming payment
 54 2018-07-30T04:15:38  <kallewoof> It feels to me like this needs to be split up into multiple PR's to be manageable in size. I wonder what the MVP is for an acceptable merge for people -- a lot of talk is focused on GUI stuff, which I felt would come later.
 55 2018-07-30T04:16:33  <kallewoof> sipa: Yeah. I mean, it won't be, if you use the built in send mechanism since both CLI and QT use the coin selection methods which will exclude these.
 56 2018-07-30T04:17:04  <sipa> kallewoof: i assume he means for listtransactions/getbalance/...
 57 2018-07-30T04:17:16  <kallewoof> Right.
 58 2018-07-30T04:17:22  <sipa> (i have very little opinion about the matter)
 59 2018-07-30T04:18:36  <kallewoof> Maybe I should just make multiple PR's that stack on top of each other. I do intend to address the RPC side of things at least, and perhaps take a stab at QT, but I tend to fail whenever I touch that code.
 60 2018-07-30T04:19:56  *** meshcollider_ has quit IRC
 61 2018-07-30T04:23:31  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 62 2018-07-30T04:28:29  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 63 2018-07-30T04:30:41  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2018-07-30T04:32:56  *** mdrollette has quit IRC
 65 2018-07-30T04:34:46  *** mdrollette has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2018-07-30T04:38:37  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 67 2018-07-30T04:43:10  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
 68 2018-07-30T04:44:24  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 69 2018-07-30T04:48:15  <luke-jr> kallewoof: yes, multiple steps seems like a good approach
 70 2018-07-30T04:49:00  *** ken2812221 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 71 2018-07-30T04:49:19  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 72 2018-07-30T04:55:01  <luke-jr> kallewoof: and "reused" *does* convey it's to be avoided, at least as an internal term (which IMO is all this should be)
 73 2018-07-30T04:56:10  <kallewoof> You mean we should use a different term for the actual user interface? Doesn't that make things unnecessarily confusing?
 74 2018-07-30T04:58:38  <luke-jr> kallewoof: the UI should just show reused transactions as eternally unconfirmed until spent ;)
 75 2018-07-30T04:58:53  <luke-jr> notated somewhere that they won't confirm normally
 76 2018-07-30T04:59:21  <luke-jr> (and perhaps coin selection should actively try to spend them..)
 77 2018-07-30T05:00:45  <kallewoof> Wait, coin selection should try to spend them? I thought the whole idea was that coin selection should never spend them.
 78 2018-07-30T05:01:13  <kallewoof> And eternally unconfirmed sounds like it will result in ∞ questions from people
 79 2018-07-30T05:05:22  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2018-07-30T05:10:19  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 81 2018-07-30T05:14:04  *** rodarmor_ is now known as rodarmor
 82 2018-07-30T05:18:25  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I think showing them as unconfirmed is going to far, especially instantly.
 83 2018-07-30T05:18:43  <gmaxwell> better to first show some warnings on them, this will cause people to complain and change behavior.
 84 2018-07-30T05:20:04  <gmaxwell> kallewoof: there are some cases where they would be okay to spend, e.g. if we can spend them by themselves with no other inputs (esp with no change).
 85 2018-07-30T05:20:34  <gmaxwell> This is with the idea that the main thing we're trying to do is prevent the snowball effect where most of your wallet is linked togeather.
 86 2018-07-30T05:25:09  <kallewoof> Yeah, I was thinking about that before. It seems like you care about privacy differently in different situations. E.g. donations to a charity from a dirty address sounds like a great idea.
 87 2018-07-30T05:26:15  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2018-07-30T05:26:48  <kallewoof> Generally, it feels like a 'categorization mechanism' (accounts done right) would be quite useful. Spend A coins together as appropriate. Mix A and B only if funds are lacking, and put resulting change in category B, not A. Etc etc.
 89 2018-07-30T05:30:52  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 90 2018-07-30T05:45:20  <luke-jr> kallewoof: if we never spend them, then they shouldn't be shown at all, or should be shown as conflicted or similar
 91 2018-07-30T05:45:40  <luke-jr> kallewoof: by spending them, we remove the security risk
 92 2018-07-30T05:46:36  <luke-jr> (which is much less than the privacy risk, so perhaps not the prevailing motivation on ideal behaviour here)
 93 2018-07-30T05:47:10  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2018-07-30T05:47:30  <kallewoof> I assume this is almost always slightly-above-dust amounts, so the most common scenario will be to simply not touch it, no?
 95 2018-07-30T05:48:02  <kallewoof> It feels odd to proactively try to spend it.
 96 2018-07-30T05:48:03  <luke-jr> dust spam could just be ignored; the cases I'm thinking of are when the sender sends twice
 97 2018-07-30T05:52:02  *** nodweber has quit IRC
 98 2018-07-30T05:54:53  <kallewoof> I'm sort of optimizing for the case where someone is actively trying to track you by purposefully spamming you with tiny outputs so they can see where your coins are going. That seems quite different from what you're talking about..
 99 2018-07-30T05:56:49  <kallewoof> And sounds like the proper reaction is different too. Should the case 'reused, tiny' be treated differently from the case 'reused, non-tiny'? How do you define 'non-tiny'? (Dust threshold * X I guess)..
100 2018-07-30T06:04:35  *** windsok has quit IRC
101 2018-07-30T06:08:02  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102 2018-07-30T06:12:45  *** nodweber has quit IRC
103 2018-07-30T06:28:59  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2018-07-30T06:33:34  *** nodweber has quit IRC
105 2018-07-30T06:43:41  *** atroxes has quit IRC
106 2018-07-30T06:49:09  <kallewoof> I am currently adding 'allow_dirty' bools to various methods. Maybe it would make more sense to have a three-option state instead (mixed, clean, dirty), where mixed=ignore dirty state, clean=only dirty=false, dirty=only dirty=true.
107 2018-07-30T06:49:53  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2018-07-30T06:50:37  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2018-07-30T06:52:03  *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2018-07-30T06:54:24  *** nodweber has quit IRC
111 2018-07-30T06:56:01  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
112 2018-07-30T06:57:07  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2018-07-30T06:59:09  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2018-07-30T06:59:52  *** no_input_found has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2018-07-30T07:10:51  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
116 2018-07-30T07:11:31  *** fanquake has quit IRC
117 2018-07-30T07:15:05  *** nodweber has quit IRC
118 2018-07-30T07:20:37  *** elkalamar has quit IRC
119 2018-07-30T07:21:14  *** elkalamar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2018-07-30T07:23:11  *** elkalamar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
121 2018-07-30T07:25:04  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
122 2018-07-30T07:28:57  *** bitbee has quit IRC
123 2018-07-30T07:29:51  *** bitbee has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
124 2018-07-30T07:30:59  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
125 2018-07-30T07:31:44  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2018-07-30T07:36:40  *** nodweber has quit IRC
127 2018-07-30T07:36:49  *** Sentineo has quit IRC
128 2018-07-30T07:37:09  *** Sentineo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
129 2018-07-30T07:40:11  *** Guest43893 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2018-07-30T07:40:47  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2018-07-30T07:41:21  *** elkalamar has quit IRC
132 2018-07-30T07:44:58  *** promag has quit IRC
133 2018-07-30T07:52:38  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2018-07-30T07:57:31  *** nodweber has quit IRC
135 2018-07-30T08:11:06  <Fuzzbawls> Question: (please ping me directly with answer) Given the recent acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, is a relocation of the bitcoin source code to an alternative platform (like GitLab) being considered at all? If so, has anyone been actively working towards porting the `.travis.yml` file over to an alternative CI provider? I've had mixed results with such a port; some features can be duplicated/represented, and some cannot (like the $TRAVIS_COMMIT
136 2018-07-30T08:11:06  <Fuzzbawls> _RANGE and the $TRAVIS_EVENT_TYPE environment variables, for example)
137 2018-07-30T08:11:36  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
138 2018-07-30T08:13:31  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
139 2018-07-30T08:16:37  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2018-07-30T08:17:57  *** nodweber has quit IRC
141 2018-07-30T08:23:53  *** Guest43893 has quit IRC
142 2018-07-30T08:32:15  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2018-07-30T08:34:42  *** p3tr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2018-07-30T08:34:56  <kallewoof> I have opened #13801 as an alternative, which replaces the dirty flag with a dest_filter=mixed/clean/dirty. More fine grained control, but slightly bigger diff. Will close one or the other based on feedback.
145 2018-07-30T08:34:58  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13801 | wallet: -avoidreuse with destination filters by kallewoof · Pull Request #13801 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
146 2018-07-30T08:37:22  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2018-07-30T08:57:57  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2018-07-30T09:32:08  *** face has quit IRC
149 2018-07-30T09:43:27  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2018-07-30T09:44:14  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
151 2018-07-30T09:49:40  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
152 2018-07-30T09:50:16  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2018-07-30T09:51:59  *** face has quit IRC
154 2018-07-30T10:04:51  *** setpill has quit IRC
155 2018-07-30T10:06:56  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2018-07-30T10:18:17  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
157 2018-07-30T10:19:05  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2018-07-30T10:35:18  *** setpill has quit IRC
159 2018-07-30T10:37:24  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
160 2018-07-30T10:48:56  *** zivl has quit IRC
161 2018-07-30T10:54:30  *** promag has quit IRC
162 2018-07-30T10:55:02  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
163 2018-07-30T10:59:32  *** promag has quit IRC
164 2018-07-30T11:01:11  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2018-07-30T11:03:57  *** Empact has quit IRC
166 2018-07-30T11:04:50  *** setpill has quit IRC
167 2018-07-30T11:05:11  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2018-07-30T11:06:44  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
169 2018-07-30T11:12:38  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2018-07-30T11:18:19  <wumpus> I really don't like all these PRs that just brush the code a bit
171 2018-07-30T11:19:27  <wumpus> all the diff noise makes it harder to keep track of what is changing, and if it's not a clear win in, say, avoiding a class of bugs, I don't think it's generally worth it
172 2018-07-30T11:19:45  <wumpus> it also creates endless motivations to create new PRs
173 2018-07-30T11:19:46  <wumpus> please stop it
174 2018-07-30T11:19:56  *** setpill has quit IRC
175 2018-07-30T11:21:37  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2018-07-30T11:30:47  *** zivl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
177 2018-07-30T11:41:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
178 2018-07-30T11:42:08  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
179 2018-07-30T11:44:37  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2018-07-30T11:49:02  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
181 2018-07-30T11:53:27  *** face has quit IRC
182 2018-07-30T11:56:11  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
183 2018-07-30T12:06:45  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
184 2018-07-30T12:07:10  <fanquake> wumpus I think I agree.
185 2018-07-30T12:07:51  <fanquake> There are quite a PRs with feedback/questions being left outstanding while new PRs are continually being opened (by the same author etc).
186 2018-07-30T12:08:20  <wumpus> fanquake: thanks; I mean it's obviously not black and white, some changes make more sense than others, but sometimes it looks like they're just being dished out for the sake of making changes
187 2018-07-30T12:10:03  <wumpus> say, #13770
188 2018-07-30T12:10:05  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13770 | Use explicit captures in lambda expressions by practicalswift · Pull Request #13770 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
189 2018-07-30T12:10:24  <wumpus> I mean I'm sure there's arguments for it, but shouldn't that first be discussed, then maybe added tothe code style for *new code*
190 2018-07-30T12:10:58  <wumpus> not just roll over the entire code, out of the blue, and change something that we weren't even aware about before
191 2018-07-30T12:11:29  <fanquake> Yea. This one was sort of similar #13795.
192 2018-07-30T12:11:30  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13795 | build: Add missing [[noreturn]] to handleRunawayException(...). Enable -Wsuggest-attribute=noreturn if available. by practicalswift · Pull Request #13795 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
193 2018-07-30T12:11:40  <wumpus> yes
194 2018-07-30T12:11:47  <fanquake> No feature/build flag I hadn't really seen before. One build failures, and it gets closed with no more discussion?
195 2018-07-30T12:11:52  <fanquake> *A feature..
196 2018-07-30T12:12:50  <fanquake> Surely at least some followup or an explanation of what didn't work would be handy, even just for a future PR which might try doing the same thing.
197 2018-07-30T12:17:26  <wumpus> the problem is that everyone is overworked, let's avoid creating unnecessary work out of the blue
198 2018-07-30T12:17:48  <wumpus> that's basically my entire criticism
199 2018-07-30T12:19:44  <fanquake> Yep, that's a fair call.
200 2018-07-30T12:20:03  <fanquake> It's kinda felt like the repo has been "slowing down", over the past month or two
201 2018-07-30T12:20:21  <fanquake> If not a longer period than that
202 2018-07-30T12:20:42  <wumpus> I'm not sure that is true
203 2018-07-30T12:24:46  <fanquake> Maybe it's just the fact that there is a lot of different work going on that makes it harder to gauge progress
204 2018-07-30T12:26:16  <wumpus> sorry: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13770#issuecomment-408845832
205 2018-07-30T12:28:38  <fanquake> The point of applying to new code is good. We've seen continual cases of follow up changes/fixing things up "just after" they were merged.
206 2018-07-30T12:29:41  <wumpus> right!
207 2018-07-30T12:39:12  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2018-07-30T12:43:47  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
209 2018-07-30T12:47:19  <kallewoof> I agree gaining consensus for code style update (via PR and (concept) ACK's w/ merge) should be required before making changes unless the change is an obvious improvement that everyone needs. However, I also believe that we should automate EVERYTHING that can be automated, even if it is only slightly beneficial.
210 2018-07-30T12:48:12  <kallewoof> Automating PR review seems like an obvious win.
211 2018-07-30T12:54:59  <wumpus> at least I'm not arguing against automated PR review
212 2018-07-30T12:55:50  <wumpus> I think checking for things that actually makes sense is good
213 2018-07-30T12:57:49  <luke-jr> kallewoof: PR review cannot be automated..
214 2018-07-30T12:58:15  <wumpus> but not adding vague concerns all the time that haven't actually resulted in bugs nor are likely to result in such, we're trying to build functional code here, the concern is not perfect style according to some person's preferences
215 2018-07-30T12:58:17  <fanquake> kallewoof I agree re automation. At least in the case of the Draht bot, as it has started improving/gotten a bit less noisy, I've begun to enjoy the merge conflict notifications, as well as nearly automated? gitian builds.
216 2018-07-30T12:59:09  <fanquake> However posting a comment to say that 15 PRs all conflict with each other is probably getting towards the less valuable end, heh.
217 2018-07-30T12:59:55  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2018-07-30T13:03:37  <wumpus> luke-jr: I think he means the linters, so the basic trivial stuff
219 2018-07-30T13:03:47  <wumpus> if only real code review could be automated!
220 2018-07-30T13:03:50  <kallewoof> wumpus: I admit I haven't seen the PR in detail, I was mostly talking about past experience :)
221 2018-07-30T13:04:44  <kallewoof> and yes, I am talking about the review that you can automate, not all review.
222 2018-07-30T13:05:25  <wumpus> kallewoof: I think MarcoFalke's approach is better than practicalswifts in this regard; DrahtBot has a PR that updates various known things before the 0.17 branch, practicalswift on the other hand creates PR after PR after PR changing things all over the code base
223 2018-07-30T13:06:09  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
224 2018-07-30T13:07:17  <wumpus> I think agreeing to make some such changes (certainly if they're alrady part of the coding guidelines) before a release is okay, at least it's a rare thing
225 2018-07-30T13:08:47  <fanquake> Something like #13802 might be just that sort of thing, but I've added there that it should really be added the the build system if possible. Otherwise could lead to endless followup.
226 2018-07-30T13:08:48  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13802 | Dont use zero as null pointer constant by practicalswift · Pull Request #13802 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
227 2018-07-30T13:09:06  <fanquake> i.e sweeping change just before a release
228 2018-07-30T13:09:14  <wumpus> my concern is with sweeping changes that come out of the blue
229 2018-07-30T13:09:44  <wumpus> suddenly there's this completely new thing you should care about and we should update the entire cod efor!
230 2018-07-30T13:10:26  <wumpus> please, let's work on issues that affect users
231 2018-07-30T13:13:53  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232 2018-07-30T13:19:36  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2018-07-30T13:27:49  <kallewoof> Ideally, if a PR will plug a potential issue later down the road, it should be encouraged, but it can be hard to judge. I think a way to solve this is to put the weight on the PR creator -- find compelling and easy to follow reasons for why the PR is necessary, or we all agree to concept NACK saying we don't see the reason. Maybe even add that to the contributor guidelines.
234 2018-07-30T13:28:34  <wumpus> yes, if there is a good rationale, we have a way to introduce that (through the coding guidelines), I agree
235 2018-07-30T13:29:31  <wumpus> that's exactly what I said in my post, too
236 2018-07-30T13:29:39  <kallewoof> *nod*
237 2018-07-30T13:33:33  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2018-07-30T13:33:38  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2018-07-30T13:37:45  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
240 2018-07-30T13:39:33  *** satwo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2018-07-30T13:40:28  *** fanquake has quit IRC
242 2018-07-30T13:56:18  *** grubles has quit IRC
243 2018-07-30T13:58:31  <kallewoof> wumpus: Does #13803 convey the right message?
244 2018-07-30T13:58:33  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13803 | doc: add note to developer docs about warranted PRs by kallewoof · Pull Request #13803 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
245 2018-07-30T14:02:11  <wumpus> kallewoof: I think so! wouldn't a better place be CONTRIBUTING.md though?
246 2018-07-30T14:03:26  <kallewoof> I was unsure about that. I have no strong feelings about it, personally, so can move it.
247 2018-07-30T14:04:56  <kallewoof> Actually, it fits better in contributing, I think. Moving it.
248 2018-07-30T14:05:13  <wumpus> that's where people automatically get linked afaik
249 2018-07-30T14:07:32  <kallewoof> Moved
250 2018-07-30T14:17:22  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
251 2018-07-30T14:17:42  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252 2018-07-30T14:19:54  <fanquake> ken2812221 Are you following any of the upstream Windows/leveldb work? I've seen a few different PRs that also seem to be working on the unicode problems that you are.
253 2018-07-30T14:21:02  <fanquake> i.e https://github.com/google/leveldb/pull/526
254 2018-07-30T14:21:26  <fanquake> However progress on them seems to be stagnating.
255 2018-07-30T14:22:22  <ken2812221> fanquake: No, I haven't seen those yet.
256 2018-07-30T14:23:56  <ken2812221> google might not want to port leveldb to Windows.
257 2018-07-30T14:25:09  <ken2812221> I just do the minimum changes base on current env_win.cc
258 2018-07-30T14:26:33  <fanquake> np. Just mentioned as it was worth a look incase you could cherry-pick anything useful.
259 2018-07-30T14:28:11  <ken2812221> Thanks, will take a look.
260 2018-07-30T14:29:00  <fanquake> wumpus You can probably merge 13803 straight in. 13554 also ready.
261 2018-07-30T14:30:41  <wumpus> thanks!
262 2018-07-30T14:32:56  *** harding has quit IRC
263 2018-07-30T14:33:27  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
264 2018-07-30T14:33:46  *** harding has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2018-07-30T14:34:03  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
266 2018-07-30T14:35:34  <fanquake> Also 13797, backporting to 0.16
267 2018-07-30T14:37:45  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
268 2018-07-30T14:42:15  *** promag has quit IRC
269 2018-07-30T14:44:51  <kallewoof> wumpus: mind if I fix commit message s/developer/contributor/ on 13803? don't wanna touch if you intend to merge it now.
270 2018-07-30T14:47:20  <kallewoof> Actually promag nit is valid so gonna fix that too. Apologies.
271 2018-07-30T14:47:44  <wumpus> kallewoof: for sure!
272 2018-07-30T14:48:10  <wumpus> kallewoof: this should be open for a while for discussion probably nayway
273 2018-07-30T14:48:32  <kallewoof> Yes, good point.
274 2018-07-30T14:50:34  <kallewoof> Although practicalswift did already ACK it. Not sure if anyone else is affected (apart from myself, of course.. I mean, this obviously means #12879 is not gonna see the light of day, ever).
275 2018-07-30T14:50:36  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12879 | [scripted-diff] No extern function declarations by kallewoof · Pull Request #12879 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
276 2018-07-30T14:50:41  <satwo> Is there a more detailed guide (than what is currently found in CONTRIBUTING.md) that explains, step-by-step, the proper testing of a PR? I would assume at minimum: compile and run the patch set, make sure the intended behavior is present, make sure no unintended behaviors have been introduced (is there a systematic way to approach this?), and run (all, or just relevant?) unit tests.
277 2018-07-30T14:52:19  <kallewoof> satwo: Not to my knowledge. In fact, I wrote an entire framework (https://www.npmjs.com/package/bctest and https://www.npmjs.com/package/bitcointest) before I finally found out there was a pythong testing framework already :P
278 2018-07-30T14:55:07  <fanquake> "compile and run the patch set" Quite often this needs to be done across multiple OS's, as occasionally a something will break a *BSD build, or Windows etc
279 2018-07-30T14:55:35  <fanquake> Running all the tests suites (--extended), running any linters etc.
280 2018-07-30T14:56:01  <fanquake> However what your testing/checking is always dependant on the actual change.
281 2018-07-30T14:57:27  <fanquake> There was at one point a bitcoin test cases/writeups repo, but I don't think it ever got much traction
282 2018-07-30T14:58:48  <wumpus> it depends on the change; if it is aspecific, say a refactoring, then running the test framework (both unit and functional) should be enough
283 2018-07-30T14:59:03  <wumpus> if it is specific, for example you're adding an API call, then you need to add a functional test for that call
284 2018-07-30T14:59:30  <wumpus> for more complex internal functionality you'd want to add unit tests
285 2018-07-30T15:01:10  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
286 2018-07-30T15:02:00  <satwo> kallewoof: ha! That must have been quite the learning experience, if nothing else :)
287 2018-07-30T15:02:20  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
288 2018-07-30T15:02:58  <satwo> fanquake: That was something I was wondering about: how does one know when a change should be tested on different platforms, and when testing on any single platform is sufficient?
289 2018-07-30T15:03:05  <kallewoof> Yeah I enjoyed it. :) LImited use but still
290 2018-07-30T15:03:25  *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
291 2018-07-30T15:03:43  <gmaxwell> ISTM that the project has sped up in the last year in terms of changes, but I don't think that the number of interesting new features, performance improvements, or bug fixes have increased at the same rate which sometimes just makes it seem like more work to keep up but less interesting.
292 2018-07-30T15:03:44  <wumpus> satwo: in any case if you are working on something, just ask, and people here can probably answer what you need
293 2018-07-30T15:04:04  <gmaxwell> satwo: In terms of "systematic way" -- the systematic part should be largely implemented by the automated tests.
294 2018-07-30T15:04:57  <gmaxwell> So for testing a PR: run the automated tests, test your own use cases, and test whatever you can come up with specific to the PR that isn't automated.
295 2018-07-30T15:06:05  <satwo> wumpus: thanks! I definitely need to familiarize myself with functional vs unit tests in bitcoin. I'll continue to come here to ask my noobish questions.
296 2018-07-30T15:06:21  <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: there are two merge commits in #13804
297 2018-07-30T15:06:22  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13804 | Stacked Transaction Pool Layer by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #13804 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHubAsset 1Asset 1
298 2018-07-30T15:07:23  <kallewoof> satwo: functional = start up one or several nodes and try stuff out by calling them via RPC. unit = actually call C++ methods directly and check if they behave right
299 2018-07-30T15:07:25  <fanquake> satwo: Here's one example of a PR that "silently" broke builds on FreeBSD 10 9598.
300 2018-07-30T15:10:00  <fanquake> There gui can also get somewhat limited testing, especially on Windows. Although, that stems more from so few of the developers, at least working on Core, using Windows.
301 2018-07-30T15:13:21  <fanquake> However that might seem to be changing if you take into account recent PRs.
302 2018-07-30T15:16:57  *** ExtraCrispy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
303 2018-07-30T15:17:04  <wumpus> breaking FreeBSD is a good way to make me angry :)
304 2018-07-30T15:17:08  <satwo> gmaxwell: thanks for the clarification! Very helpful.
305 2018-07-30T15:18:12  <wumpus> but that doesn't happen that often, usually with build system changes, those I test on *BSD first before merging
306 2018-07-30T15:19:32  <satwo> kallewoof: Thanks for the clarification! Pretty straightforward yet I'd never considered the difference until today.
307 2018-07-30T15:22:37  <satwo> fanquake: thanks for the PR reference, very interesting. I do have Windows running on Parallels so I could certainly help out on that front.
308 2018-07-30T15:25:10  *** fanquake has quit IRC
309 2018-07-30T15:29:39  *** booyah has quit IRC
310 2018-07-30T15:29:54  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
311 2018-07-30T15:30:17  *** booyah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312 2018-07-30T15:30:38  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
313 2018-07-30T16:01:54  *** booyah has quit IRC
314 2018-07-30T16:02:22  *** marcinja has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
315 2018-07-30T16:04:12  *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
316 2018-07-30T16:06:06  *** booyah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
317 2018-07-30T16:22:30  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
318 2018-07-30T16:26:52  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
319 2018-07-30T16:29:46  *** contrapumpkin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
320 2018-07-30T16:30:55  *** setpill has quit IRC
321 2018-07-30T16:31:39  *** booyah has quit IRC
322 2018-07-30T16:32:05  *** copumpkin has quit IRC
323 2018-07-30T16:36:11  <jamesob> did we recently bump the required version of protobuf?
324 2018-07-30T16:38:16  <wumpus> jamesob: I don't think so, and I'd be really surprised
325 2018-07-30T16:38:37  <wumpus> the only use of protobuf is the payment request code in bitcoin-qt and that hasn't seen serious changes since... forever
326 2018-07-30T16:39:17  <jamesob> I just started getting some related-looking compile failures: https://gist.github.com/jamesob/70fda4b96499f7b86c938370ffe92b49
327 2018-07-30T16:40:35  *** Dizzle has quit IRC
328 2018-07-30T16:41:10  <wumpus> that looks like you need to make clean (or even clear your tree) and rebuild -- this is most likely caused by the protobuf version on your system changing through package managers or such
329 2018-07-30T16:41:34  <jamesob> thanks, I'll give that a shot
330 2018-07-30T16:41:49  <wumpus> (pb.h isn't part of the repository but generated)
331 2018-07-30T16:43:18  *** gribble has quit IRC
332 2018-07-30T16:52:30  *** owowo has quit IRC
333 2018-07-30T16:54:24  *** booyah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
334 2018-07-30T16:56:46  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
335 2018-07-30T17:00:06  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
336 2018-07-30T17:18:39  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
337 2018-07-30T17:44:09  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
338 2018-07-30T17:48:22  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
339 2018-07-30T17:59:47  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
340 2018-07-30T18:01:50  *** nodweber has quit IRC
341 2018-07-30T18:17:47  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342 2018-07-30T18:18:30  *** jhfrontz has quit IRC
343 2018-07-30T18:22:29  *** nodweber has quit IRC
344 2018-07-30T18:23:07  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
345 2018-07-30T18:24:09  *** rabidus has quit IRC
346 2018-07-30T18:26:25  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
347 2018-07-30T18:29:38  *** promag has quit IRC
348 2018-07-30T18:33:23  *** quitobro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
349 2018-07-30T18:33:53  <quitobro> hey guys i have a question about best practice for managing watch-only addresses
350 2018-07-30T18:34:20  <quitobro> specifically, which RPC commands are best to use in order to *get transactions tied to an input address*
351 2018-07-30T18:35:01  <quitobro> i was expecting `getreceivedbyaddress` to take an address param and return a list of UTXOs or tx's
352 2018-07-30T18:35:19  *** jhfrontz has quit IRC
353 2018-07-30T18:35:46  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
354 2018-07-30T18:36:02  <quitobro> furthermore, when i was exploring the `*byaccount` RPC commands it seems like many of them are deprecated - is the 'account' concept being deprecated or just select commands like `getreceivedbyaccount`?
355 2018-07-30T18:38:06  *** jhfrontz has quit IRC
356 2018-07-30T18:38:25  <sipa> quitobro: the accounts concept is deprecated
357 2018-07-30T18:38:40  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
358 2018-07-30T18:39:08  <sipa> quitobro: if you import a watch only address, the usual RPCs like getreceivedbyaddress will work
359 2018-07-30T18:39:12  <sipa> but you first need to import them
360 2018-07-30T18:39:51  <sipa> quitobro: labels will replace accounts; so you'll still be able to give a label to an address and see transactions to a label etc
361 2018-07-30T18:40:01  <sipa> but there won't be a "label balance" like there is an account balance
362 2018-07-30T18:40:12  <sipa> they're just a way to tag addresses for receives
363 2018-07-30T18:40:48  <quitobro> sipa: ok thanks. yea, `getreceivedbyaddress` is nice but i want something which returns the transaction history at address, not just the balance...
364 2018-07-30T18:41:38  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
365 2018-07-30T18:41:40  <sipa> quitobro: listreceivedbyaddress
366 2018-07-30T18:41:54  <quitobro> i suppose i can go thru `listtransactions` and filter by address?
367 2018-07-30T18:43:18  *** nodweber has quit IRC
368 2018-07-30T18:43:38  <quitobro> ah, ok, and then filter thru the list of tx summaries grabbing only the ones i care about, or something like that. thank you sipa!
369 2018-07-30T18:43:47  <quitobro> this is what i needed :)
370 2018-07-30T18:44:18  *** jhfrontz has quit IRC
371 2018-07-30T18:46:20  *** jhfrontz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372 2018-07-30T18:55:01  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
373 2018-07-30T18:56:14  *** quitobro has quit IRC
374 2018-07-30T18:59:33  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
375 2018-07-30T19:00:55  <jamesob> wumpus: turns out I had a mismatch between my protoc version (newer) and libprotobuf-dev
376 2018-07-30T19:01:56  <wumpus> jamesob: whoops
377 2018-07-30T19:03:49  *** tripleslash has quit IRC
378 2018-07-30T19:04:02  *** nodweber has quit IRC
379 2018-07-30T19:05:55  *** quitobro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
380 2018-07-30T19:06:30  *** promag has quit IRC
381 2018-07-30T19:06:42  <quitobro> sipa: one more question - when calling `importaddress` with `rescan=true`, will that operation be blocking other reads/writes to the local blockchain database?
382 2018-07-30T19:07:25  <sipa> quitobro: it will block pretty much everything
383 2018-07-30T19:08:36  *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
384 2018-07-30T19:10:45  <quitobro> sipa: okay sounds like we may need to schedule our rescans very carefully then
385 2018-07-30T19:10:58  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
386 2018-07-30T19:11:25  <sipa> quitobro: you should import addresses before they're being used :)
387 2018-07-30T19:11:26  <quitobro> how long do rescans take usually? relative to say initial sync time?
388 2018-07-30T19:13:04  <sipa> a significant fraction
389 2018-07-30T19:14:09  <gmaxwell> quitobro: Can you talk about your usecase? why are you performing rescans at all?
390 2018-07-30T19:14:24  <quitobro> hm okay... for our application we don't manage users' keys, but want to provide essentially a blockchain explorer... is there a way to get tx & balance details for an arbitrary valid address, without importing as watch-only?
391 2018-07-30T19:15:01  <quitobro> we looked at using a 3rd party service but we don't want those blockchain queries to potentially reveal customers' addresses
392 2018-07-30T19:15:13  <quitobro> and would prefer to run our own nodes and fulfill those requests
393 2018-07-30T19:15:47  <quitobro> we sell a cryptocurrency trading platform as a software service
394 2018-07-30T19:16:03  <quitobro> so there is a large blockchain explorer-esque component as part of e.g. trade settlement
395 2018-07-30T19:16:41  <gmaxwell> Importing as watching before issing the addresses is the canonical, supported way.  Your next best alternative is to write your own indexer. The issue is that the resource costs of indexing all transactions in history will continue to rapidly grow... so most people who setup that way will eventually need to switch to using a centeralized service due to the resource costs.
396 2018-07-30T19:17:17  <gmaxwell> There hasn't been much interest in maintaining that kind of index in bitcoind because of the above.
397 2018-07-30T19:18:20  <quitobro> gmaxwell: in other words everyone's index needs/requirements vary so there isn't a good way to implement arbitrary indexes in bitcoind?
398 2018-07-30T19:18:36  <quitobro> or rather indexes for arbitrary watch-only addresses
399 2018-07-30T19:20:30  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
400 2018-07-30T19:20:36  <gmaxwell> We may have a feature in 0.18 that makes rescan much faster (e.g. a minute maybe, instead of hours), but likely still too slow for your application.
401 2018-07-30T19:22:36  <quitobro> gmaxwell: cool what is that feature? sounds quite nite
402 2018-07-30T19:22:36  <gmaxwell> quitobro: diversity of needs is one issue, but scalablity is another.  At least in the community people aren't generally excited on working on technology that will only be usable on large dedicated servers, if not now, then in a couple years.  If someone showed up and wanted to add optional indexing, and was willing to jump through the right hoops to isolate it, I think the contribution would be
403 2018-07-30T19:22:36  <gmaxwell>  welcome.
404 2018-07-30T19:22:38  <quitobro> nice*
405 2018-07-30T19:23:25  <gmaxwell> quitobro: use of BIP-158 filters locally. Basically for every block we'd save a small fingerprint of the addresses involved in the block.
406 2018-07-30T19:23:35  <gmaxwell> Then scanning only has to check those, and not the whole blockchain.
407 2018-07-30T19:23:55  <gmaxwell> it's still a linear scan, rather than an index, but of a lot less data.
408 2018-07-30T19:24:40  <gmaxwell> There is a pull req implementing the filters, but not the wallet rescan using it, yet.
409 2018-07-30T19:24:57  *** nodweber has quit IRC
410 2018-07-30T19:25:11  <gmaxwell> It's too late to make 0.17 right now, but I think it's somewhat likely for 0.18.
411 2018-07-30T19:25:18  <quitobro> gmaxwell: i see, ok maybe if we continue down this path (as opposed to running a super beefy, indexed dedicated server) we will be able to make a contribution
412 2018-07-30T19:25:32  <gmaxwell> If nothing else, being willing to show up and test it would help.
413 2018-07-30T19:26:03  <quitobro> definitely; should we just keep our eyes on bitcoin-dev-mailing-list?
414 2018-07-30T19:26:28  <gmaxwell> In general, when there are features that are mostly interesting for commerical players, we'd still welcome them, but industry needs to step up and do more of that work... there is just too much to do. :)
415 2018-07-30T19:26:35  <gmaxwell> quitobro: you might want to also keep an eye on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12254
416 2018-07-30T19:27:20  <gmaxwell> After it's merged presumably there will be more PRs to actually make use of it.
417 2018-07-30T19:29:37  *** promag has quit IRC
418 2018-07-30T19:37:18  <midnightmagic> I actually thought working on the weird higher-end functionality was the best thing I used to do professionally. (as limited as that was)
419 2018-07-30T19:38:05  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
420 2018-07-30T19:39:59  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
421 2018-07-30T19:42:25  *** promag has quit IRC
422 2018-07-30T19:45:13  *** intcat has quit IRC
423 2018-07-30T19:45:13  *** arubi has quit IRC
424 2018-07-30T19:47:33  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
425 2018-07-30T19:48:46  *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
426 2018-07-30T19:52:30  *** quitobro has quit IRC
427 2018-07-30T19:53:03  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
428 2018-07-30T19:59:09  <MarcoFalke> Just a PSA for member of the GitHub-labels group:
429 2018-07-30T19:59:27  <MarcoFalke> You can tag with "Needs gitian build" and DrahtBot will create a built in the next day or so
430 2018-07-30T20:00:38  *** nodweber has quit IRC
431 2018-07-30T20:05:15  *** elkalamar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432 2018-07-30T20:06:05  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
433 2018-07-30T20:17:39  *** nodweber has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
434 2018-07-30T20:24:32  *** sturles has quit IRC
435 2018-07-30T20:33:32  *** promag has quit IRC
436 2018-07-30T20:45:12  *** sturles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
437 2018-07-30T20:47:02  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
438 2018-07-30T20:48:18  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
439 2018-07-30T21:12:14  *** booyah has quit IRC
440 2018-07-30T21:21:35  *** nodweber has quit IRC
441 2018-07-30T21:32:10  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
442 2018-07-30T21:59:57  *** arubi has quit IRC
443 2018-07-30T22:00:22  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
444 2018-07-30T22:00:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
445 2018-07-30T22:01:20  <promag> provoostenator: let me know if you can try #13791 in windows? ty!
446 2018-07-30T22:01:21  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13791 | gui: Reject dialogs if key escape is pressed by promag · Pull Request #13791 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHubAsset 1Asset 1
447 2018-07-30T22:04:37  *** timothy has quit IRC
448 2018-07-30T22:19:36  *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
449 2018-07-30T22:20:06  *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
450 2018-07-30T22:25:18  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
451 2018-07-30T22:25:26  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452 2018-07-30T22:28:04  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
453 2018-07-30T22:29:19  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
454 2018-07-30T22:29:21  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
455 2018-07-30T22:35:21  *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
456 2018-07-30T22:39:00  *** masonicboom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
457 2018-07-30T23:04:38  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
458 2018-07-30T23:14:09  *** Krellan has quit IRC
459 2018-07-30T23:22:21  <ken2812221> promag: It works fine on Windows.
460 2018-07-30T23:22:46  <promag> ty ken2812221
461 2018-07-30T23:22:57  <promag> just saw your reply there
462 2018-07-30T23:22:58  *** Krellan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
463 2018-07-30T23:23:28  <promag> ken2812221: if you change value in the options dialog, press esc, and reopen, is the value reset?
464 2018-07-30T23:24:45  <ken2812221> promag: Yes, it does not store the setting if I press esc.
465 2018-07-30T23:25:39  *** masonicboom has quit IRC
466 2018-07-30T23:26:10  *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
467 2018-07-30T23:26:34  <promag> ken2812221: ok cool
468 2018-07-30T23:28:54  *** Emcy has quit IRC
469 2018-07-30T23:40:02  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
470 2018-07-30T23:49:12  *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
471 2018-07-30T23:59:12  *** promag has quit IRC