1 2019-02-18T00:16:53  *** Dean_Guss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  2 2019-02-18T00:18:40  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  3 2019-02-18T00:22:04  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
  4 2019-02-18T00:23:40  *** schmidty has quit IRC
  5 2019-02-18T00:28:52  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  6 2019-02-18T00:32:48  *** ap4lmtree has quit IRC
  7 2019-02-18T00:39:15  *** ap4lmtree has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2019-02-18T00:44:00  *** spinza has quit IRC
  9 2019-02-18T00:52:56  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
 10 2019-02-18T01:09:05  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2019-02-18T01:10:12  *** Zenton has quit IRC
 12 2019-02-18T01:15:55  *** zivl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 13 2019-02-18T01:18:51  *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2019-02-18T01:23:29  *** Karyon has quit IRC
 15 2019-02-18T01:24:01  *** rh0nj has quit IRC
 16 2019-02-18T01:25:07  *** rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2019-02-18T01:29:43  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2019-02-18T01:34:27  *** schmidty has quit IRC
 19 2019-02-18T01:34:53  *** dviola has quit IRC
 20 2019-02-18T01:42:30  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2019-02-18T01:47:08  *** schmidty has quit IRC
 22 2019-02-18T01:57:11  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2019-02-18T01:58:49  *** Karyon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2019-02-18T01:58:57  *** promag has quit IRC
 25 2019-02-18T02:30:04  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 26 2019-02-18T02:50:50  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2019-02-18T02:55:28  *** schmidty has quit IRC
 28 2019-02-18T02:56:24  *** drexl has quit IRC
 29 2019-02-18T03:00:14  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: as a compromise to your tor bundling thing-- what about the idea just of a seperate bundled download being available?
 30 2019-02-18T03:00:57  <gmaxwell> Seems to me that would have some of the advantage without most of the downsides... and would help make a case for doing it more broadly?
 31 2019-02-18T03:02:51  <echeveria> gmaxwell: I'm uncomfortable with increasing the number of people using Tor. as you pointed out the attack surface is greatly increased versus running bitcoind. depending how its configured this will result in people listening who wouldn't otherwise expect it.
 32 2019-02-18T03:03:25  <echeveria> if the purpose *isn't* to listen on a HS by default, there's no increase in listening sockets. if it's the default configured this way, people will be listening when they never expected to be able to.
 33 2019-02-18T03:04:15  <echeveria> if it requires configuration to have it listening, why bundle it at all?
 34 2019-02-18T03:06:07  <echeveria> echo "apt install tor" > ./setup_hs.sh; chmod +x setup_hs.sh
 35 2019-02-18T03:06:10  <echeveria> magic.
 36 2019-02-18T03:09:15  *** StopAndDecrypt has quit IRC
 37 2019-02-18T03:12:52  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2019-02-18T03:20:10  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2019-02-18T03:21:12  <gmaxwell> echeveria: bitcoind listens by default, if you want it not to listen you have to turn it off...
 40 2019-02-18T03:21:45  <echeveria> gmaxwell: yeah, but most people are behind NAT at least on their home networks.
 41 2019-02-18T03:22:02  <echeveria> so actually listening without configuration would be a surprise
 42 2019-02-18T03:22:58  <gmaxwell> echeveria: like most other p2p software until two years ago bitcoind used upnp to automatically enable incoming connections.
 43 2019-02-18T03:23:11  <gmaxwell> it only stopped because of the non-stop CVEs in the upnp software.
 44 2019-02-18T03:24:16  <echeveria> gmaxwell: that's been gone for like, 2, 3 years right?
 45 2019-02-18T03:25:42  <gmaxwell> yes, and its been a disaster that it's gone-- the end result is a massive shift towards listeners on VPSes, god knows what percentage of them are spys&sybils.
 46 2019-02-18T03:28:09  <echeveria> I acknowledge there's been a shift in where peers are, but supplementing them with even more trivially sybil attacked HS peers is if anything more harmful.
 47 2019-02-18T03:29:12  <gmaxwell> Adding more honest peers does not make any of that worse.
 48 2019-02-18T03:30:02  <echeveria> if you're never making outgoing connections over Tor or HS, yeah.
 49 2019-02-18T03:31:38  <echeveria> if the quality of peers on the network is a concern, perhaps the raise from 5 outgoing peers to 8 was too conservative. if the concern is the number, or availability of listening sockets, then there's probably a bit more of an engineering challenge there.
 50 2019-02-18T03:32:52  <echeveria> (I've mentioned it before, but I'd like to see a separate "headers only" socket which you make as many connections to as possible, even hundreds of peers- but when I looked into actually doing that the engineering involved was ridiculous)
 51 2019-02-18T03:33:57  <gmaxwell> echeveria: we'll soon be able to realistically handle many times the current number of peers with little cost.
 52 2019-02-18T03:34:01  <gmaxwell> not just limited to headers.
 53 2019-02-18T03:34:11  <gmaxwell> (well 'soon' relatively speaking)
 54 2019-02-18T03:34:42  <echeveria> from using select()?
 55 2019-02-18T03:34:52  <gmaxwell> no though we don't use select anymore.
 56 2019-02-18T03:35:11  <gmaxwell> right now having more peers is a problem because of the extreme amount of bandwidth wasted by txn rumoring.
 57 2019-02-18T03:35:28  <gmaxwell> but that'll be largely eliminated.
 58 2019-02-18T03:41:28  <echeveria> right.
 59 2019-02-18T03:42:10  <echeveria> I'm not saying peer quality isn't a concern, to be clear. there's lots which I can identify as crappy, which means there's a lot more that I'm not most likely.
 60 2019-02-18T03:42:43  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
 61 2019-02-18T03:46:47  *** StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 62 2019-02-18T03:52:36  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2019-02-18T03:52:36  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #15433: Use a single wallet batch for UpgradeKeyMetadata (master...2019/02/wallet_key_upgrade_batch) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15433
 64 2019-02-18T03:52:40  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 65 2019-02-18T03:54:23  <aj> oh, whatever happened to supporting nat-pmp?
 66 2019-02-18T03:54:54  <gmaxwell> sounds like a great idea. No one has done it.
 67 2019-02-18T03:55:15  <aj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12288 <-- there was a pr a while ago
 68 2019-02-18T03:56:40  <echeveria> gmaxwell: perhaps ipv6 will save all.
 69 2019-02-18T03:58:24  <gmaxwell> aj: ah, well-- see the history there.
 70 2019-02-18T03:58:55  <gmaxwell> (I'm not quite sure it why it was subtreeing a library for a protocol that consists of "send a struct with a few fields filled out to the network", but there you go)
 71 2019-02-18T04:00:48  <aj> getting the info to populate the fields is OS specific iirc, so using the library saves redoing all the windows/mac/linux code
 72 2019-02-18T04:07:08  *** Karyon has quit IRC
 73 2019-02-18T04:08:48  <gmaxwell> IIRC you need your local port and address, and such, which we already have.
 74 2019-02-18T04:09:04  <gmaxwell> (as we need to stuff it into addr messages)
 75 2019-02-18T04:11:34  <aj> hmm, i think you need the gw address too?
 76 2019-02-18T04:12:33  <aj> ah, nat-pmp tells you your local port, but you need the gw address to send the query in the first place
 77 2019-02-18T04:12:43  <aj> local addr, not local port
 78 2019-02-18T04:13:21  <aj> ugh, not local addr, it tells you your external ipv4 address
 79 2019-02-18T04:14:05  <gmaxwell> yes, it tells you the external info.
 80 2019-02-18T04:15:01  <aj> but yeah, it's https://github.com/miniupnp/libnatpmp/blob/master/getgateway.c that's most of the code
 81 2019-02-18T04:16:25  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 82 2019-02-18T04:16:26  <gmaxwell> fair enough.
 83 2019-02-18T04:18:36  <gmaxwell> aj: some context, the reason we don't have upnp anymore is that the miniupnp library's code which can only be described as obviously frightening. (XML parsing with a mixture C string functions and raw pointer throbbing, clearly written by someone whos never had their hand burned by doing that before), so I can only imagine that no one was really excited about taking a huge ball of code from
 84 2019-02-18T04:18:36  <gmaxwell> miniupnp.
 85 2019-02-18T04:19:23  <gmaxwell> perhaps the natpmp code is a lot better, no idea.
 86 2019-02-18T04:19:26  <aj> yeah
 87 2019-02-18T04:19:41  <aj> well, there's no xml which already counts as a lot better to me, but... yeah
 88 2019-02-18T04:19:49  <gmaxwell> absolutely.
 89 2019-02-18T04:26:14  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 90 2019-02-18T04:26:15  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
 91 2019-02-18T04:26:34  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2019-02-18T04:28:37  *** Dean_Guss has quit IRC
 93 2019-02-18T04:32:52  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2019-02-18T04:37:11  *** jarthur has quit IRC
 95 2019-02-18T04:38:13  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
 96 2019-02-18T04:51:50  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2019-02-18T04:54:30  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 98 2019-02-18T04:59:28  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2019-02-18T05:10:34  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
100 2019-02-18T05:14:23  *** rhavar has quit IRC
101 2019-02-18T05:14:48  *** promag has quit IRC
102 2019-02-18T05:43:23  *** schmidty has quit IRC
103 2019-02-18T06:01:40  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2019-02-18T06:04:40  *** OneFive has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
105 2019-02-18T06:05:59  *** OneFive_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2019-02-18T06:09:41  *** OneFive has quit IRC
107 2019-02-18T06:40:52  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
108 2019-02-18T06:48:31  <wumpus> luke-jr | wumpus: why would tor be illegal? <- because authoritarian politicians don't like it, probably because in unstable countries it has sometimes be used to plan uprisings and such, as in Egypt
109 2019-02-18T06:49:23  <wumpus> (someone from Egypt once told me you could get in trouble for running Tor there, I don't know if it's still true, but where human lives are at stake it's kind of important to be careful)
110 2019-02-18T06:49:37  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
111 2019-02-18T06:51:34  <wumpus> and yes, some vps definitely kick you off for running tor, I've had to explain quite a few times I'm not running an exit node
112 2019-02-18T06:52:22  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2019-02-18T07:02:35  *** StopAndDecrypt has quit IRC
114 2019-02-18T07:03:17  <wumpus> also I've always believed the way forward would be to improve the bitcoin protocol itself; BIP150/151, Dandelion, as well as lightning onion routing
115 2019-02-18T07:03:54  <wumpus> back in 2012 I'd probably have agreed with you to integrate Tor, but it seems overkill now
116 2019-02-18T07:04:14  <wumpus> a heavy-handed, noisy measure
117 2019-02-18T07:09:14  <wumpus> but yes as gmaxwell already says, it could be a separate bundle people could choose to download, I'm fine with that, but not as only option
118 2019-02-18T07:10:38  <wumpus> and yes natpmp support would be good, who is going to pick up #12288 ?
119 2019-02-18T07:10:40  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12288 | [WIP][NET] Add NATPMP support. by annanay25 · Pull Request #12288 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
120 2019-02-18T07:11:20  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
121 2019-02-18T07:14:52  <gmaxwell> probably tor usage provides the most value when part of the network does it...
122 2019-02-18T07:15:53  *** promag has quit IRC
123 2019-02-18T07:17:12  <wumpus> gmaxwell: how do you mean? you mean having tor part of the network code?
124 2019-02-18T07:19:07  <wumpus> ohh I get it now, sorry
125 2019-02-18T07:19:38  <wumpus> yes, I think even in general it's good to have part of the network on different transports
126 2019-02-18T07:19:55  <wumpus> which reminds me I should pick up my new address message BIP again
127 2019-02-18T07:20:47  <wumpus> c.f. https://gist.github.com/laanwj/4fe8470881d7b9499eedc48dc9ef1ad1
128 2019-02-18T07:22:44  <gmaxwell> oops yep, thats it.-- effectively having seperate network topologies means that to knock everything out an attacker has to hit all of them.
129 2019-02-18T07:39:11  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2019-02-18T07:40:00  *** promag has quit IRC
131 2019-02-18T07:40:12  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2019-02-18T07:40:25  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2019-02-18T07:43:02  *** promag has quit IRC
134 2019-02-18T07:43:52  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2019-02-18T07:57:04  <provoostenator> Tor hidden services avoid the need for true inbound connections. We could try to do something similar? Somehow have peers introduce eachother. Or does require keeping that introducing node in the loop?
136 2019-02-18T08:00:26  <wumpus> I'm not sure I understand; doesn't one of the nodes have to be listening for the other to connect to it?
137 2019-02-18T08:01:18  <wumpus> whether the nodes are on clearnet, tor, i2p, or another overlay network doesn't change that
138 2019-02-18T08:01:27  <gmaxwell> provoostenator: not really.
139 2019-02-18T08:02:34  <provoostenator> How does Tor avoid this problem?
140 2019-02-18T08:02:50  <wumpus> they use relays and onion routing
141 2019-02-18T08:03:49  <gmaxwell> tor is a tunneling protocol... and tor nodes are all listening.  you can connect to a HS running on a tor client behind a firewall because the client connects out to the tor network.
142 2019-02-18T08:04:29  <provoostenator> So who's doing the listening? A smaller number of tor nodes?
143 2019-02-18T08:04:33  <wumpus> yes, exactly, they're indirectly connected through relays
144 2019-02-18T08:04:55  <wumpus> routing your traffic over a relay would make zero sense for the bitcoin protocol as all the data is public
145 2019-02-18T08:05:20  <wumpus> well okay there's the onion routing proposal for transactions, but besides that
146 2019-02-18T08:05:33  <provoostenator> It could make sense for authentical (RPC like) stuff, which is what Luke was trying to solve.
147 2019-02-18T08:05:40  <provoostenator> But it seems a bit heavy.
148 2019-02-18T08:06:47  <provoostenator> I mean it's kind of cool being able to connect to your own node from mobile without revealing the destination IP by going through a bunch a lightning hops, but Tor seems easier.
149 2019-02-18T08:06:56  <echeveria> provoostenator: it's heavy, makes a crap tonne of noise about its usage, and has a large attack surface. it's exactly what you don't want.
150 2019-02-18T08:06:58  <wumpus> ( I mean, blocks and transactions *themselves* are relayed, there's no need to relay/bounce at the TCP level)
151 2019-02-18T08:07:36  <wumpus> there's alrady no problem if you can't accept incoming connections, there's always someone who does listen that you an connect to
152 2019-02-18T08:07:47  <gmaxwell> I guess what luke would want would be like getting your own node to sign headers then have some way of getting those headers from a public host.
153 2019-02-18T08:08:29  <provoostenator> I think it's more about having a super light weight wallet on your phone that's really just a remote control for your node.
154 2019-02-18T08:08:38  <gmaxwell> Which could be done, but ... it just seems kinda pointless to me. Luke's usecase is 99% conjecture... spv clients don't care about security beyond yolo hope no one attacks grade security, which is why they are spv lcients.
155 2019-02-18T08:08:42  <echeveria> (an eighth of the listening IPV4 nodes also have 8332 exposed, btw)
156 2019-02-18T08:08:45  <wumpus> that's valid idea but it has nothing at all with bitoin P2P anymore
157 2019-02-18T08:09:20  <provoostenator> wumpus: I tend to agree that remote control is a more generic internet problem that can be solved outside of Bitcoin.
158 2019-02-18T08:09:21  <gmaxwell> provoostenator: not superlight weight but just an spv wallet which has security that is tracable to the security of your own node (which runs on some headless host of yours)
159 2019-02-18T08:09:39  <wumpus> remote control over bitcoin P2P? what?
160 2019-02-18T08:09:43  <wumpus> i need coffee
161 2019-02-18T08:09:52  <echeveria> gmaxwell: just have some central neutrino repo that you can add your own signatures to. done.
162 2019-02-18T08:10:18  <gmaxwell> echeveria: right.
163 2019-02-18T08:10:19  <echeveria> gmaxwell: block_header, signatures[]
164 2019-02-18T08:10:25  <wumpus> provoostenator: definitely
165 2019-02-18T08:10:42  <provoostenator> wumpus: you'd rely on your node at home (or wherever) to validate blocks, your phone has some private keys and wants to know the balance, so it just asks your node.
166 2019-02-18T08:11:15  <wumpus> r;
167 2019-02-18T08:11:18  <provoostenator> That's on one extreme of light-weightness, you could do something more hybrid like gmaxwell says where the phone does more work.
168 2019-02-18T08:11:21  <wumpus> provoostenator: so electrum, basically
169 2019-02-18T08:11:29  <echeveria> what I don't want to deal with is the bitcoin project being responsible for a bunch of people running outdated, vulnerable tor software that's doing nothing but harm them. include some scripts for setting this up in contrib/ if people really want it. I certainly do not.
170 2019-02-18T08:11:41  <gmaxwell> echeveria: stop.
171 2019-02-18T08:11:47  <gmaxwell> echeveria: wumpus already said we're not doing that.
172 2019-02-18T08:11:51  <gmaxwell> you don't need to repeat.
173 2019-02-18T08:11:52  <gmaxwell> Case made.
174 2019-02-18T08:11:56  <echeveria> fine.
175 2019-02-18T08:11:58  <gmaxwell> :)
176 2019-02-18T08:12:15  <echeveria> sorry, this was mentioned to me out of band today as well.
177 2019-02-18T08:12:36  <echeveria> I'd definitely like to see things like more p2p transports, don't let me detract from that.
178 2019-02-18T08:13:34  <provoostenator> Funny how #11902 is tagged as "good first issue"
179 2019-02-18T08:13:35  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11902 | NAT-PMP port forwarding support · Issue #11902 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
180 2019-02-18T08:13:39  <gmaxwell> take a step back.  I believe the history of this discussion is that luke told someone somewhere don't use wallet X  (some untrusted server SPV thing) because its insecure.  Then someone said something like "well obviously I'm not going to run bitcoin core on my phone so how should I solve this"?
181 2019-02-18T08:13:49  <gmaxwell> provoostenator: it is because you don't need to know essentially anything about bitcoin.
182 2019-02-18T08:13:58  <gmaxwell> (something about _networking_ sure. :) )
183 2019-02-18T08:14:22  <gmaxwell> good first issue doesn't mean good for newbies to development or something like that. :)
184 2019-02-18T08:14:58  <provoostenator> I know, but I don't think this is easy for anyone unfamiliar with the codebase either, but I could be wrong. Don't want to discourage someone from trying :-)
185 2019-02-18T08:15:23  *** mmgen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2019-02-18T08:15:40  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
187 2019-02-18T08:15:59  <gmaxwell> (continuing) and luke's response was run your favorite SPV phone wallet against your own node.  Which is good enough advice except (1) existing lite wallets (mostly) don't let you do that, (2) it's really hard to actually connect into your own node for most users. (3) you won't know for sure that you're connecting to your own node due to lack of auth.
188 2019-02-18T08:16:06  <gmaxwell> Tor happens to solve (2) and (3).
189 2019-02-18T08:16:15  <gmaxwell> though it's a blunt instrument.
190 2019-02-18T08:17:55  <provoostenator> BIP 151 solves (3), but not (2).
191 2019-02-18T08:19:31  <gmaxwell> technically BIP150 (or whatever replaces it... sipa and I really need to finish that)
192 2019-02-18T08:20:04  *** promag has quit IRC
193 2019-02-18T08:20:10  <gmaxwell> (2) though can be substantially addressed through PMP/UPNP/etc.  the users least likely to know how to punch a hole themselves are most likely to have a nat box that does pmp/upnp.
194 2019-02-18T08:21:10  <gmaxwell> though maybe I'm being cynical but I don't see (1) changing.  esp since we don't (and won't be) providing the kinds of crazy indexes that these wallets are written to need,  they still rely on some somewhat trusted server regardless.
195 2019-02-18T08:21:22  <provoostenator> Agreed, the combination of PMP/UPNP and ~BIP150 seems a more precise tool for this job.
196 2019-02-18T08:22:36  <gmaxwell> Also if people want to improve things with tor there is a lot of stuff to do unrelated to bundling it.
197 2019-02-18T08:22:37  <provoostenator> gmaxwell: now that we have descriptor support for importmulti, (1) is more doable, but it requires RPC access.
198 2019-02-18T08:22:45  <gmaxwell> E.g. wumpus' work on a new addr message.
199 2019-02-18T08:23:10  <gmaxwell> Or getting txn relay to preferentally relay through tor peers, to further frustrate tx forwarding spying.
200 2019-02-18T08:24:32  <provoostenator> (but with RPC access you're right back to the remote control scenario)
201 2019-02-18T08:25:10  <provoostenator> I think that as soon as you have trusted connection to your own node, you might as well just use it for everything.
202 2019-02-18T08:25:27  <provoostenator> Except maybe holding private keys.
203 2019-02-18T08:26:42  <gmaxwell> right.
204 2019-02-18T08:27:21  <gmaxwell> using bitcoin-cli over ssh is pretty dandy.   I assume thats what most people in here do, it's just not super gui-enduser friendly. :)
205 2019-02-18T08:28:37  <provoostenator> Which is where #10102 comes in
206 2019-02-18T08:28:41  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10102 | [experimental] Multiprocess bitcoin by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10102 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
207 2019-02-18T08:29:45  <provoostenator> With "some" additional modifications, as if that PR isn't big enough, you could just run QT on your phone and have it connect to a node+wallet instance over SSH anywhere.
208 2019-02-18T08:30:51  <provoostenator> Or you run qt+wallet on the phone and connect to node process over SSH, but that would generate an insane amount of traffic the way the wallet currently scans for relevant transactions.
209 2019-02-18T08:31:53  <provoostenator> IIUC currently the wallet tells the node "give me everything, I'll figure out what's relevant", rather than "here's what I care about, tell me what's relevant"
210 2019-02-18T08:33:19  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2019-02-18T08:33:39  *** schmidty has quit IRC
212 2019-02-18T08:36:58  *** jungly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
213 2019-02-18T08:37:27  *** jarthur has quit IRC
214 2019-02-18T08:39:12  *** jb55 has quit IRC
215 2019-02-18T08:39:52  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
216 2019-02-18T08:39:57  *** murrayn has quit IRC
217 2019-02-18T08:40:40  *** murrayn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2019-02-18T08:40:40  *** murrayn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
219 2019-02-18T08:45:15  *** notemurtas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
220 2019-02-18T08:54:13  *** notemurtas has quit IRC
221 2019-02-18T09:01:09  *** notemurtas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222 2019-02-18T09:13:20  *** elichai2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2019-02-18T09:13:22  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
224 2019-02-18T09:15:50  *** notemurtas has quit IRC
225 2019-02-18T09:33:18  *** jcorgan has quit IRC
226 2019-02-18T09:34:28  *** irc_viewer_test has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
227 2019-02-18T09:36:03  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2019-02-18T09:37:41  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
229 2019-02-18T09:41:58  *** promag has quit IRC
230 2019-02-18T09:42:04  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2019-02-18T09:42:58  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
232 2019-02-18T09:44:17  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2019-02-18T09:46:14  *** Zenton has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2019-02-18T09:53:54  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
235 2019-02-18T09:53:54  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b72c787dc8f7...f5a623eb66c8
236 2019-02-18T09:53:54  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a083f75 Gregory Maxwell: Update assumevalid, minimumchainwork, and getchaintxstats to height 563378...
237 2019-02-18T09:53:54  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f5a623e Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #15429: Update assumevalid, minimumchainwork, and getchaintxstats to...
238 2019-02-18T09:53:55  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2019-02-18T09:54:45  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
240 2019-02-18T09:54:45  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #15429: Update assumevalid, minimumchainwork, and getchaintxstats to height 563378 (master...201902-assumevalid) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15429
241 2019-02-18T09:54:49  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
242 2019-02-18T09:55:09  <gmaxwell> Danke.
243 2019-02-18T09:55:24  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
244 2019-02-18T09:56:19  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
245 2019-02-18T09:57:05  <gmaxwell> fun fact, the new chainwork is 2x the old chainwork...
246 2019-02-18T09:57:19  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
247 2019-02-18T09:57:19  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f5a623eb66c8...29e82e460e19
248 2019-02-18T09:57:20  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1435fab Pieter Wuille: Use RdSeed when available, and reduce RdRand load
249 2019-02-18T09:57:21  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 29e82e4 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #15250: Use RdSeed when available, and reduce RdRand load
250 2019-02-18T09:57:22  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
251 2019-02-18T09:57:25  <gmaxwell> \O/
252 2019-02-18T09:58:00  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
253 2019-02-18T09:58:00  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj merged pull request #15250: Use RdSeed when available, and reduce RdRand load (master...201901_rdseed) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15250
254 2019-02-18T09:58:04  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
255 2019-02-18T10:00:32  <irc_viewer_test> gmaxwell: can you explain what it means for the chainwork to be 2x the old chainwork in simple terms?
256 2019-02-18T10:00:45  <irc_viewer_test> gmaxwell: 2x more work is being done since when?
257 2019-02-18T10:00:51  <gmaxwell> since ever
258 2019-02-18T10:01:48  <gmaxwell> Probably this is not the best channel for stuff that is interesting once converted to simple terms. Some fun facts are only fun to geeks.
259 2019-02-18T10:01:50  <gmaxwell> :)
260 2019-02-18T10:03:25  *** kexkey has quit IRC
261 2019-02-18T10:03:34  <irc_viewer_test> haha
262 2019-02-18T10:03:37  <irc_viewer_test> :)
263 2019-02-18T10:03:58  <irc_viewer_test> sorry
264 2019-02-18T10:04:07  <wumpus> doubled old value would be 0x51045fde384612c6a6b521a ... yep, close enough
265 2019-02-18T10:07:11  *** siom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
266 2019-02-18T10:24:52  *** harding has quit IRC
267 2019-02-18T10:25:02  *** irc_viewer_test has quit IRC
268 2019-02-18T10:31:05  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
269 2019-02-18T10:34:14  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
270 2019-02-18T10:38:23  *** spinza has quit IRC
271 2019-02-18T10:41:52  *** notemurtas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272 2019-02-18T10:47:07  *** harding has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
273 2019-02-18T11:02:25  *** ap4lmtree has quit IRC
274 2019-02-18T11:02:45  *** ap4lmtree has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
275 2019-02-18T11:08:50  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
276 2019-02-18T11:13:34  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
277 2019-02-18T11:13:34  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] domob1812 opened pull request #15435: Add missing #include (master...fix-include) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15435
278 2019-02-18T11:13:35  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
279 2019-02-18T11:19:14  *** Ethan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
280 2019-02-18T11:20:34  <Ethan_> ‪New Crypto Security Concept:‬  Frozen Storage  Much like Cold Storage except coins are sent to a special address with a special prefix on them.  If private key is obtained by attacker who tries to spend them miners refuse to mine transaction from addresses with this prefix for specified time period. (i.e: 3 days give or take).  If a spend is detected by owner of coins they will be able to reverse the spend before the tim
281 2019-02-18T11:20:58  <Ethan_> In a situation where a standoff occurs a hard fork update can be legally applied for and issued to the miners for a possible small fee to incentivise them to agree to the update.
282 2019-02-18T11:21:16  <Ethan_> In a situation where a standoff occurs a hard fork update can be legally applied for and issued to the miners for a possible small fee to incentivise them to agree to the update.
283 2019-02-18T11:21:31  <Ethan_> These hard forks could occur yearly or whenever is suitable to minimise disruptions.
284 2019-02-18T11:21:57  <Ethan_> The standoff situation would be a rare occurrence as coins located at these addresses are unlikely to be targeted.
285 2019-02-18T11:23:04  <meshcollider> Ethan_: not the place
286 2019-02-18T11:23:16  <meshcollider> Try ##altcoin-dev
287 2019-02-18T11:23:23  *** schmidty has quit IRC
288 2019-02-18T11:25:09  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
289 2019-02-18T11:25:10  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
290 2019-02-18T11:26:19  *** Ethan_ has quit IRC
291 2019-02-18T11:27:25  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292 2019-02-18T11:29:14  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
293 2019-02-18T11:31:11  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
294 2019-02-18T11:32:08  *** schmidty has quit IRC
295 2019-02-18T11:32:25  <wumpus> what an horrible idea
296 2019-02-18T11:34:38  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
297 2019-02-18T11:37:26  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
298 2019-02-18T11:42:00  *** schmidty has quit IRC
299 2019-02-18T11:42:10  *** notemurtas has quit IRC
300 2019-02-18T11:44:24  *** notemurtas has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2019-02-18T11:58:48  *** shesek has quit IRC
302 2019-02-18T12:05:42  *** zhangzf has quit IRC
303 2019-02-18T12:08:47  <cjd> :D
304 2019-02-18T12:16:54  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
305 2019-02-18T12:31:21  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
306 2019-02-18T12:33:25  *** notemurtas has quit IRC
307 2019-02-18T12:54:21  *** promag has quit IRC
308 2019-02-18T12:56:36  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
309 2019-02-18T12:58:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
310 2019-02-18T12:59:18  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
311 2019-02-18T13:03:27  *** schmidty has quit IRC
312 2019-02-18T13:06:57  *** drexl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
313 2019-02-18T13:10:28  *** crised has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
314 2019-02-18T13:11:12  <crised> Where can I learn the basics of bitcoin from developer point of view?
315 2019-02-18T13:16:12  *** promag has quit IRC
316 2019-02-18T13:17:59  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
317 2019-02-18T13:17:59  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
318 2019-02-18T13:22:01  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
319 2019-02-18T13:27:06  *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
320 2019-02-18T13:32:09  *** mistergold has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
321 2019-02-18T13:35:26  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
322 2019-02-18T13:41:56  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
323 2019-02-18T13:42:58  *** zhangzf has quit IRC
324 2019-02-18T13:43:34  *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
325 2019-02-18T13:46:14  *** schmidty has quit IRC
326 2019-02-18T13:47:25  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
327 2019-02-18T13:54:48  *** OneFive_ has quit IRC
328 2019-02-18T13:56:55  *** OneFive has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
329 2019-02-18T14:02:01  *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
330 2019-02-18T14:04:14  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
331 2019-02-18T14:05:34  *** m8tion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332 2019-02-18T14:08:40  *** fanquake has quit IRC
333 2019-02-18T14:11:47  <instagibbs> crised, #bitcoin-dev or #bitcoin for general development questions
334 2019-02-18T14:17:36  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
335 2019-02-18T14:17:39  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
336 2019-02-18T14:17:40  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/29e82e460e19...6ba3f1fdfd88
337 2019-02-18T14:17:40  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6aaa0ab Gregory Sanders: Remove manual byte editing in wallet_tx_clone func test
338 2019-02-18T14:17:41  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6ba3f1f MarcoFalke: Merge #15397: Remove manual byte editing in wallet_tx_clone func test
339 2019-02-18T14:17:42  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
340 2019-02-18T14:18:27  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
341 2019-02-18T14:18:27  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #15397: Remove manual byte editing in wallet_tx_clone func test (master...wallet_clone_magic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15397
342 2019-02-18T14:18:28  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
343 2019-02-18T14:24:23  <instagibbs> MarcoFalke, how is Travis letting through Python 3.5 if the .yml requests 3.4?
344 2019-02-18T14:24:30  <instagibbs> (too late now, just asking)
345 2019-02-18T14:35:31  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
346 2019-02-18T14:36:29  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
347 2019-02-18T14:41:06  *** schmidty has quit IRC
348 2019-02-18T14:43:10  <luke-jr> wumpus: BIP150/151 solve authentication when they're finally done, but I don't see any better solution for dynamic IPs and NAT traversal (when UPnP/NAT-PMP are unavailable).. at the end of the day, I'm not sure it makes sense to reinvent what already exists
349 2019-02-18T14:49:48  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
350 2019-02-18T14:50:47  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
351 2019-02-18T14:52:02  *** zhangzf has quit IRC
352 2019-02-18T14:54:43  *** spinza has quit IRC
353 2019-02-18T14:56:31  <luke-jr> I suppose it could be simpler to add an even more-centralised dynamic DNS/tunnel service, but that seems likely even more controversial :/
354 2019-02-18T14:59:13  *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
355 2019-02-18T15:01:22  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
356 2019-02-18T15:02:21  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
357 2019-02-18T15:02:21  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
358 2019-02-18T15:04:46  *** zhangzf has quit IRC
359 2019-02-18T15:33:50  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
360 2019-02-18T15:33:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6ba3f1fdfd88...f78cd3dd5115
361 2019-02-18T15:33:51  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5b76c31 Carl Dong: doc: Add separate productivity notes document
362 2019-02-18T15:33:52  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f78cd3d MarcoFalke: Merge #15348: doc: Add separate productivity notes document
363 2019-02-18T15:33:54  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
364 2019-02-18T15:34:36  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
365 2019-02-18T15:34:36  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #15348: doc: Add separate productivity notes document (master...2019-02-productivity-md) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15348
366 2019-02-18T15:34:47  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
367 2019-02-18T15:50:33  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
368 2019-02-18T15:52:48  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
369 2019-02-18T15:52:59  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
370 2019-02-18T15:53:04  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
371 2019-02-18T15:53:50  *** setpill has quit IRC
372 2019-02-18T15:56:29  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
373 2019-02-18T15:56:29  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
374 2019-02-18T15:56:29  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
375 2019-02-18T16:05:01  *** rockhouse1 has quit IRC
376 2019-02-18T16:05:01  *** victorSN9 has quit IRC
377 2019-02-18T16:09:24  *** schmidty has quit IRC
378 2019-02-18T16:10:00  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
379 2019-02-18T16:10:00  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
380 2019-02-18T16:14:32  *** schmidty has quit IRC
381 2019-02-18T16:23:55  *** booyah_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382 2019-02-18T16:24:05  <MarcoFalke> instagibbs: travis runs the functional tests on ubuntu xenial and bionic, they come with python3.5+
383 2019-02-18T16:24:05  *** booyah has quit IRC
384 2019-02-18T16:24:34  <promag> should loadwallet() eventually use gArgs?
385 2019-02-18T16:25:16  <promag> either that it should use a different args or some flags should be reset after init?
386 2019-02-18T16:26:26  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
387 2019-02-18T16:28:19  *** kexkey has quit IRC
388 2019-02-18T16:40:00  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
389 2019-02-18T16:40:00  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
390 2019-02-18T16:51:11  *** jungly has quit IRC
391 2019-02-18T16:53:56  *** schmidty has quit IRC
392 2019-02-18T16:54:59  *** promag has quit IRC
393 2019-02-18T16:58:01  *** helo_ is now known as helo
394 2019-02-18T17:02:40  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
395 2019-02-18T17:02:57  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
396 2019-02-18T17:04:06  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
397 2019-02-18T17:06:30  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
398 2019-02-18T17:08:30  *** schmidty has quit IRC
399 2019-02-18T17:09:38  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
400 2019-02-18T17:24:50  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
401 2019-02-18T17:34:12  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
402 2019-02-18T17:38:38  *** owowo has quit IRC
403 2019-02-18T17:41:20  *** fabianfabian has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
404 2019-02-18T17:43:45  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
405 2019-02-18T18:04:32  *** schmidty has quit IRC
406 2019-02-18T18:09:54  *** StopAndDecrypt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
407 2019-02-18T18:17:45  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
408 2019-02-18T18:23:16  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
409 2019-02-18T18:38:31  *** Zenton has quit IRC
410 2019-02-18T18:38:48  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
411 2019-02-18T18:40:11  *** elichai2 has quit IRC
412 2019-02-18T18:41:56  <promag> luke-jr: is #15428 wip or you'd like reviews?
413 2019-02-18T18:41:57  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/15428 | GUI: Add Pairing tab with Tor onion address as copyable text and QR code by luke-jr · Pull Request #15428 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
414 2019-02-18T18:53:10  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
415 2019-02-18T18:56:31  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
416 2019-02-18T19:01:35  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
417 2019-02-18T19:12:12  <luke-jr> promag: I guess I need to address the no-wallet issues before code review, but concept review is welcome
418 2019-02-18T19:14:25  *** bitcoinEnthusias has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
419 2019-02-18T19:14:39  <achow101> promag: are you working on a create wallet thing for the gui?
420 2019-02-18T19:14:42  <bitcoinEnthusias> hey folks.... i
421 2019-02-18T19:15:09  <promag> luke-jr: ok, will look into that
422 2019-02-18T19:15:15  <promag> achow101: I was going to
423 2019-02-18T19:15:37  <bitcoinEnthusias> hey folks.... i've got some noob questions concerning btc core development`, just out of interest. is this the right place to ask?
424 2019-02-18T19:15:58  <jarthur> Probably, unless it's usage help.
425 2019-02-18T19:16:02  <promag> a dialog, probably a wizard or with a advanced option, idk yet
426 2019-02-18T19:16:32  <bitcoinEnthusias> is schnorr to be expected to be included in a main release 2019, what is the expected timeframe?
427 2019-02-18T19:16:33  <promag> achow101: a drawing would be cool
428 2019-02-18T19:16:54  <promag> achow101: for 0.19 right?
429 2019-02-18T19:16:56  <achow101> promag: if you haven't started yet, I'll take a stab at it. i need it for the getting rid of default wallet with I'm doing
430 2019-02-18T19:17:19  <promag> achow101: ah right, start without wallet?
431 2019-02-18T19:17:42  <achow101> yeah, start without the wallet, but gui users need to be able to make one
432 2019-02-18T19:19:06  <promag> achow101: ok, btw, what would happen if you always start with -nowallet ?
433 2019-02-18T19:19:43  <promag> always prompt for "start by creating a wallet?"?
434 2019-02-18T19:19:51  <luke-jr> bitcoinEnthusias: the next possible opportunity for code to be added is October, and typically softforks are only enabled on minor releases, so I'd give it at least a month after that. it's not impossible, but if you mean activation, I would be very surprised if it was during 2019. I have no particular info on Schnorr specifically, just going from normal processes.
435 2019-02-18T19:20:02  <achow101> promag: i think so
436 2019-02-18T19:20:18  <achow101> i don't think nowallet is an alias of disablewallet
437 2019-02-18T19:21:04  *** OneFive_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
438 2019-02-18T19:21:36  <promag> achow101: -nowallet results in not loading wallets
439 2019-02-18T19:21:50  <promag> not the same as --disablewallet
440 2019-02-18T19:21:57  <bitcoinEnthusias> ok. thx. another question, as fees are rising again (i know vulnerable topic): is a blocksize increase completely out of roadmap, or is sth. like this still concidered for later releases?
441 2019-02-18T19:22:14  <achow101> promag: right. so nowallet will become the default behavior
442 2019-02-18T19:22:54  <bitcoinEnthusias> i think fees will rise again heavily if btc gains traction again
443 2019-02-18T19:22:57  <jarthur> bitcoinEnthusias: on the protocol side, sipa has been organizing a BIP for Schnorr signatures. It hasn't officially been proposed yet, and typically an implementation would follow a proposal. https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki if you want to see the current state. bitcoin-dev mailing list a fine place to discuss the proposal
444 2019-02-18T19:22:58  <achow101> I'm thinking there's going to be something that saves the last loaded wallet and loads that on following starts
445 2019-02-18T19:24:38  *** OneFive has quit IRC
446 2019-02-18T19:26:18  <bitcoinEnthusias> @jarthur ah thx. i wonder why implementation/development is done in pyton and go while core is c++ :)
447 2019-02-18T19:27:03  *** schmidty has quit IRC
448 2019-02-18T19:27:05  <jarthur> bitcoinEnthusias: the BIPs are designed to be readable and reviewable, and Python tends to work well for that.
449 2019-02-18T19:27:20  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
450 2019-02-18T19:27:32  <bitcoinEnthusias> i see
451 2019-02-18T19:28:07  <bitcoinEnthusias> thx for the explanation
452 2019-02-18T19:28:13  <luke-jr> bitcoinEnthusias: the only thing up for discussion at this time is a reduction in block sizes; take this topic to #bitcoin if you want to continue it
453 2019-02-18T19:28:29  <bitcoinEnthusias> erm.... reduction?
454 2019-02-18T19:28:35  <bitcoinEnthusias> ok
455 2019-02-18T19:30:36  <bitcoinEnthusias> thx for the answers!
456 2019-02-18T19:31:47  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I am beside myself at what appears to be straight up malicious misinformation from you.
457 2019-02-18T19:32:34  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: The only ongoing active thread on the mailing list is the discussion around segwit v1 schnorr signatures. Your absurd blocksize reduction proposal has never been even posted there.
458 2019-02-18T19:32:58  <gmaxwell> Meanwhile there is a finished and widely reviewed bip on the schnorr signature scheme.
459 2019-02-18T19:33:23  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: It's not clear to me what you're disagreeing with.
460 2019-02-18T19:33:32  <gmaxwell> It's difficult for me to imagine how your answer to bitcoinEnthusias could have been _more_ misleading.
461 2019-02-18T19:34:08  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: he asked about the status of some work, instead of telling him the status, you said the "the only thing up for discussion at this time is a reduction in block sizes"
462 2019-02-18T19:34:42  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: he asked if it could be expected during 2019, so I gave an answer; then he asked about increasing block sizes, so I pointed out that was the opposite of what we needed
463 2019-02-18T19:35:28  <luke-jr> if you don't think my answers went into enough detail, feel free to elaborate
464 2019-02-18T19:35:44  <luke-jr> if you positively disagree with them, please be more specific
465 2019-02-18T19:38:25  <gmaxwell> I don't agree that any reduction of block sizes is "up for discussion" in bitcoin core development. Quite the opposite: You have already been privately censured for creating drama in the press for annoucing some absurd reduction fait accompli when you hadn't even brought the subject up with other developers.
466 2019-02-18T19:41:34  <luke-jr> nonsense. nothing has been announced, and it has been brought up, even though it's probably still too premature to make any serious action on. unlike increasing block sizes which is completely out of the question, there is an actual possibility of block size reduction (even if you think that possibility is small).
467 2019-02-18T19:43:53  <luke-jr> ironically, you're now saying it's not up for discussion, and at the same time condemning that it supposed hasn't been brought up for discussion!
468 2019-02-18T19:44:00  <luke-jr> kinda self-contradicting there
469 2019-02-18T19:47:13  <gmaxwell> I'm saying your response is absurdly deceptive.  You say that the signature stuff isn't happening in 2019, yet there is one completed BIP and a lot of discussion but then say that a reduction is the only thing "up for discussion" when it hasn't in fact been discussed (other than people privately WTFing you when we heard about it for the first time via false claims that this project was working
470 2019-02-18T19:47:14  <gmaxwell> on it in the press).
471 2019-02-18T19:47:27  *** bitcoinEnthusias has quit IRC
472 2019-02-18T19:49:05  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: do you expect Schnorr in 2019? what about my statement on that was unreasonable?
473 2019-02-18T19:49:31  <luke-jr> the topic of block size is a separate question, I don't know how you're mixing the two questions together
474 2019-02-18T19:50:23  <luke-jr> and I'm sure if I dig through logs I can find at least two discussions as counter-examples
475 2019-02-18T19:51:18  *** Skirmant has quit IRC
476 2019-02-18T19:51:36  *** Skirmant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
477 2019-02-18T19:52:08  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: no idea, but it's radically ahead of any reduction proposal which as far as I can tell is agressively not supported by major contributors to this project.
478 2019-02-18T19:52:33  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: great, I don't see how my answers would suggest otherwise.
479 2019-02-18T19:53:05  <sipa> i think both of these things are offtopic here; proposals should be complete and discussed in the wider development space before they can be considered for inclusion in core
480 2019-02-18T19:56:46  <BlueMatt> (and very clearly neither has that level of support, so, seriously, stop spreading misinformation luke-jr)
481 2019-02-18T19:58:08  *** jarthur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482 2019-02-18T20:00:17  <luke-jr> never claimed any level of support; no misinformation has been cited
483 2019-02-18T20:00:56  <gmaxwell> You are also responsible for the reasonable and expected beliefs your statements create, not just the fine rules lawyer reading of the words.
484 2019-02-18T20:01:10  *** promag has quit IRC
485 2019-02-18T20:01:21  <luke-jr> if you want to criticise what I actually said, fine, but making up strawmen is a waste of time
486 2019-02-18T20:01:32  *** jarthur has quit IRC
487 2019-02-18T20:01:48  <gmaxwell> If you don't want to be yelled at for misinforming people, then when someone asks about active proposal X don't respond that it'll be a long time then suggest your hardly discussed hobby horse in a way that makes it sound more present and realistic.
488 2019-02-18T20:02:04  <gmaxwell> I'm critizing the result, which you are responsible for.
489 2019-02-18T20:02:55  <gmaxwell> You can't make carefully worded statements that mislead people and expect to not recieve complaint.
490 2019-02-18T20:03:19  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
491 2019-02-18T20:03:19  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #15437: p2p: Remove remote debugging code (master...Mf1809-noBip61) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15437
492 2019-02-18T20:03:20  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
493 2019-02-18T20:04:11  *** crised has quit IRC
494 2019-02-18T20:08:15  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
495 2019-02-18T20:12:38  *** promag has quit IRC
496 2019-02-18T20:16:44  *** schmidty has quit IRC
497 2019-02-18T20:20:24  *** Jaamg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
498 2019-02-18T20:23:32  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
499 2019-02-18T20:25:35  *** jarthur_ is now known as jarthur
500 2019-02-18T20:25:43  *** DeanWeen has quit IRC
501 2019-02-18T20:26:16  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
502 2019-02-18T20:27:02  *** timothy has quit IRC
503 2019-02-18T20:32:46  *** savil has quit IRC
504 2019-02-18T20:36:51  *** jarthur has quit IRC
505 2019-02-18T20:37:19  *** jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
506 2019-02-18T20:39:39  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
507 2019-02-18T20:39:39  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MeshCollider pushed 2 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f78cd3dd5115...904308dca3ff
508 2019-02-18T20:39:39  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0bedcba Jonas Schnelli: Use a single wallet batch for UpgradeKeyMetadata
509 2019-02-18T20:39:40  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 904308d MeshCollider: Merge #15433: Use a single wallet batch for UpgradeKeyMetadata
510 2019-02-18T20:39:51  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
511 2019-02-18T20:40:24  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512 2019-02-18T20:40:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MeshCollider merged pull request #15433: Use a single wallet batch for UpgradeKeyMetadata (master...2019/02/wallet_key_upgrade_batch) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15433
513 2019-02-18T20:40:25  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
514 2019-02-18T20:42:06  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
515 2019-02-18T20:52:44  *** OneFive_ has quit IRC
516 2019-02-18T21:02:25  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
517 2019-02-18T21:10:59  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: I'm sorry that I was unclear, but I assure you it was not malice or carefully worded (I guess the lack of carefully wording is the real problem); what I meant was that *with regard to block size*, the only thing worth considering was a reduction - it wasn't intended to berate or address the earlier question about schnorr at all (and I would have expected from the context that was clear, but I guess not)
518 2019-02-18T21:11:48  *** schmidty has quit IRC
519 2019-02-18T21:12:32  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
520 2019-02-18T21:13:54  *** palfun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
521 2019-02-18T21:14:19  <palfun> hey folks
522 2019-02-18T21:16:07  <palfun> what's the deal with the rpc wallet interfaces? I don't want to use node-side wallets, but it seems all nice affordances (ie "get unspent outputs") are only available on a per-wallet basis, rather than per-arbitrary-address
523 2019-02-18T21:16:51  <achow101> palfun: doing things per arbitrary address is expensive and most people don't care about that
524 2019-02-18T21:17:30  <palfun> isn't that how you implement clients/wallet software though?
525 2019-02-18T21:17:35  <sipa> no
526 2019-02-18T21:17:36  <palfun> or am I thinking about that the wrong way?
527 2019-02-18T21:17:43  <sipa> i mean, you can
528 2019-02-18T21:17:58  *** schmidty has quit IRC
529 2019-02-18T21:18:11  <sipa> but it requires a fully indexed blockchain on the server
530 2019-02-18T21:18:27  <sipa> (and then trusting that server to do it right)
531 2019-02-18T21:18:39  *** Zenton has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532 2019-02-18T21:18:40  <achow101> palfun: no. wallet software typically just scan the blockchain for things that pertain to that wallet. to have everything per arbitrary address means that you are maintaining a lot of extra data for addresses that you don't care about
533 2019-02-18T21:18:43  <palfun> ah right, that makes sense
534 2019-02-18T21:19:11  *** ap4lmtree has quit IRC
535 2019-02-18T21:19:14  <palfun> wait, but, then how do bip32 wallet clients work? they need to scan large amounts of addresses for outputs/transaction history right?
536 2019-02-18T21:19:40  <sipa> they go through history
537 2019-02-18T21:19:58  <sipa> once, for all addresses combimed
538 2019-02-18T21:20:30  <sipa> and only the part of the chain after the address was created
539 2019-02-18T21:21:12  <palfun> "go through history" here meaning "look at *all* blocks, see if any transactions include one of our addresses", right?
540 2019-02-18T21:21:47  *** jb55 has quit IRC
541 2019-02-18T21:21:59  <sipa> yes
542 2019-02-18T21:22:00  <palfun> and I guess they then just keep an eye out for new blocks and write them down whenever "one of our addresses" is involved, like some sort of specialized light client
543 2019-02-18T21:22:28  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
544 2019-02-18T21:23:13  <palfun> is that really the best way to do wallet software, assuming you want to just hook up with rpc to an arbitrary node? that's... somewhat painful, you have to "catch up" constantly
545 2019-02-18T21:23:26  <sipa> bip37 allows client-side filtering (it has severe privacy concerns, and is not advised), or client-side filtering (bip157, which is still new)
546 2019-02-18T21:24:29  <luke-jr> you mean server-side for BIP37, right?
547 2019-02-18T21:24:42  <sipa> oops, yes
548 2019-02-18T21:24:50  <sipa> bip37 is server side filtering
549 2019-02-18T21:25:05  <sipa> palfun: it's only way to be sure you're not being lied to
550 2019-02-18T21:25:20  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
551 2019-02-18T21:25:27  <sipa> it's certainly not efficien
552 2019-02-18T21:25:28  <sipa> *t
553 2019-02-18T21:26:01  <palfun> ah cool, filters! but that's on the node protocol level, not the rpc one, right?
554 2019-02-18T21:26:18  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
555 2019-02-18T21:26:31  <sipa> right
556 2019-02-18T21:26:48  <palfun> I had imagined it'd be possible to "just like implement simple wallet software" by calling out over rpc, but that's starting to seem... impractical
557 2019-02-18T21:26:56  <sipa> yes
558 2019-02-18T21:27:01  <luke-jr> palfun: you could use something like Electrum Personal Server (I think? never used it myself) to build the indexes you want, but there are scalability concerns to relying on this
559 2019-02-18T21:27:11  <sipa> and privacy
560 2019-02-18T21:27:18  <luke-jr> palfun: you can implement simple wallet software still, check out importaddress
561 2019-02-18T21:27:32  <luke-jr> sipa: well, if you use your own Electrum server, it should be fine for privacy, no?
562 2019-02-18T21:28:12  <palfun> luke-jr: I'd rather not put private keys onto nodes, I know people feel bad about doing that. I'm really looking to just support the simplest case of "I have a node, now let me hook a wallet up"
563 2019-02-18T21:28:31  <luke-jr> palfun: importaddress doesn't require the private key
564 2019-02-18T21:28:43  <luke-jr> it just tells the node to track the address in question
565 2019-02-18T21:28:55  <luke-jr> (and the key backing said address)
566 2019-02-18T21:29:15  <palfun> ohh I see, so it just does the indexing for you, giving you the read-benefits of a fully in-node wallet
567 2019-02-18T21:29:24  <luke-jr> yes
568 2019-02-18T21:29:38  *** promag has quit IRC
569 2019-02-18T21:30:26  <palfun> so for the bip32 case, you'd just feed it your first 20 addresses, see what turns up, and then proceed as appropriate
570 2019-02-18T21:31:43  <palfun> cool, I'll have to play around with this! I bet I'll be back for more questions once I get to actually wrangling inputs/outputs into transactions (^:
571 2019-02-18T21:31:54  <palfun> thanks luke-jr , sipa !
572 2019-02-18T21:32:12  <belcher> read the source code of Electrum Personal Server because it does all that with rpc, so could be useful
573 2019-02-18T21:32:34  <luke-jr> palfun: well, you ideally want to track from the creation of the wallet; rescanning is slow and doesn't work with pruned nodes
574 2019-02-18T21:33:02  <luke-jr> belcher: oh, EPS doesn't actually build a full index?
575 2019-02-18T21:33:06  <palfun> belcher: I thought Electrum used their own nodes for indexing etc? but that still goes over rpc? interesting, will take a look
576 2019-02-18T21:33:10  <belcher> luke-jr nope
577 2019-02-18T21:33:28  <luke-jr> belcher: interesting, good to know
578 2019-02-18T21:33:30  <belcher> its a wrapper around bitcoin core's wallet that speaks the electrum server protocol, so it has no extra indexes and is compatible with pruning etc
579 2019-02-18T21:34:16  <luke-jr> belcher: does that mean it doesn't get your wallet's history?
580 2019-02-18T21:34:18  <belcher> palfun there are many electrum server implementations, the one which builds all the indexes is called ElectrumX and its much more complicated
581 2019-02-18T21:34:26  <belcher> luke-jr it does, bitcoin core's wallet has the history
582 2019-02-18T21:34:26  <luke-jr> maybe we should take this to #bitcoin
583 2019-02-18T21:34:53  <palfun> luke-jr: right, so importing "used" bip32 wallets will be slow to detect all previous usage. does that still get done automatically, do I kick that off, or do it manually?
584 2019-02-18T21:35:04  * palfun should probably not care about the "import wallet" case
585 2019-02-18T21:35:29  <luke-jr> palfun: there's various RPC options
586 2019-02-18T21:36:34  <palfun> I've pulled up the docs now, I see it can do rescans yeah
587 2019-02-18T21:39:24  <palfun> cool, this seems fairly doable again. thanks! (:
588 2019-02-18T21:39:58  *** mmgen has quit IRC
589 2019-02-18T21:42:46  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
590 2019-02-18T21:45:04  *** shesek has quit IRC
591 2019-02-18T21:53:58  <palfun> is there a practical difference between importaddress and importpubkey? docs recommend using the latter if you can, but I'm not sure I understand why
592 2019-02-18T21:56:27  *** ap4lmtree has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
593 2019-02-18T21:58:05  <luke-jr> palfun: IIRC (but my memory is fuzzy on this), there are some features missing with just importaddress, but I forget what
594 2019-02-18T22:00:00  <palfun> looks like importmulti is probably preferable in most real-world cases anyway?
595 2019-02-18T22:00:19  <palfun> is it just me or is the documentation around these things a bit shallow? perhaps idk where to look
596 2019-02-18T22:18:08  *** schmidty has quit IRC
597 2019-02-18T22:22:05  *** fabianfabian has quit IRC
598 2019-02-18T22:22:56  *** fabianfabian has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
599 2019-02-18T22:26:17  *** pinheadmz has quit IRC
600 2019-02-18T22:27:05  *** pinheadmz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
601 2019-02-18T22:30:29  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
602 2019-02-18T22:57:55  *** spinza has quit IRC
603 2019-02-18T23:03:49  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
604 2019-02-18T23:05:07  *** fabianfabian has quit IRC
605 2019-02-18T23:15:30  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
606 2019-02-18T23:15:40  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
607 2019-02-18T23:19:59  *** zhangzf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
608 2019-02-18T23:23:46  *** zhangzf has quit IRC
609 2019-02-18T23:24:25  *** DeanWeen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
610 2019-02-18T23:33:09  *** v8c9X has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
611 2019-02-18T23:38:34  *** siom has quit IRC
612 2019-02-18T23:53:57  <meshcollider> palfun: youre probably right, the importing RPCs (esp importmulti) have had quite a few changes recently so not a great deal of documentation exists at the moment I guess
613 2019-02-18T23:58:43  *** jarthur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
614 2019-02-18T23:59:08  *** schmidty has quit IRC