1 2016-01-12T00:00:42  *** jgarzik has quit IRC
  2 2016-01-12T00:03:31  *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  3 2016-01-12T00:03:31  *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2016-01-12T00:19:31  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2016-01-12T00:20:38  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
  6 2016-01-12T00:30:20  *** jgarzik has quit IRC
  7 2016-01-12T00:33:00  *** jtimon has quit IRC
  8 2016-01-12T00:40:37  *** brg444 has quit IRC
  9 2016-01-12T01:03:25  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 10 2016-01-12T01:06:44  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2016-01-12T01:07:07  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 12 2016-01-12T01:08:41  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 13 2016-01-12T01:14:52  *** davec has quit IRC
 14 2016-01-12T01:20:43  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2016-01-12T01:27:04  *** arowser has quit IRC
 16 2016-01-12T01:27:38  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2016-01-12T01:38:21  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 18 2016-01-12T02:10:34  *** jgarzik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2016-01-12T02:16:59  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2016-01-12T02:27:49  *** Jimmy16 has quit IRC
 21 2016-01-12T02:35:57  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2016-01-12T03:05:53  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 23 2016-01-12T03:16:09  *** belcher has quit IRC
 24 2016-01-12T03:17:48  *** SmiteMeSmith has quit IRC
 25 2016-01-12T03:18:59  *** SmiteMeSmith has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 26 2016-01-12T03:33:13  *** guest21333 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2016-01-12T04:21:42  *** tripleslash_v has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2016-01-12T05:09:00  *** guest21333 has quit IRC
 29 2016-01-12T05:12:52  *** brg444 has quit IRC
 30 2016-01-12T05:17:13  *** maaku has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2016-01-12T06:24:55  *** zookolap` has quit IRC
 32 2016-01-12T06:32:22  <GitHub113> [bitcoin] btcdrak opened pull request #7328: Update README.md website link (master...website) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7328
 33 2016-01-12T06:38:00  <Quent> the bitcoin-core website will be copyrighted?
 34 2016-01-12T06:45:58  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 35 2016-01-12T07:07:20  <btcdrak> Quent #bitcoin
 36 2016-01-12T07:13:31  *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
 37 2016-01-12T07:28:22  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2016-01-12T07:47:29  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 39 2016-01-12T08:03:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 40 2016-01-12T08:04:06  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2016-01-12T08:31:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 42 2016-01-12T08:32:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2016-01-12T08:41:12  *** Quent has quit IRC
 44 2016-01-12T08:41:41  *** Quent has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2016-01-12T08:47:03  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 46 2016-01-12T08:57:12  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
 47 2016-01-12T09:05:00  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2016-01-12T09:10:15  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2016-01-12T09:10:15  *** dcousens has quit IRC
 50 2016-01-12T09:10:31  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2016-01-12T09:18:56  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
 52 2016-01-12T09:29:19  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
 53 2016-01-12T09:36:11  <GitHub168> [bitcoin] chriswheeler opened pull request #7329: Trivial: fix typo (master...typofix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7329
 54 2016-01-12T09:37:59  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 55 2016-01-12T09:47:54  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 56 2016-01-12T09:49:30  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
 57 2016-01-12T09:49:47  *** neilf_ has quit IRC
 58 2016-01-12T09:50:11  *** neilf_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 59 2016-01-12T09:50:20  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2016-01-12T09:52:13  *** arowser has quit IRC
 61 2016-01-12T09:52:35  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 62 2016-01-12T09:53:19  *** fkhan_ has quit IRC
 63 2016-01-12T09:53:22  *** davec has quit IRC
 64 2016-01-12T09:53:22  *** baldur_ has quit IRC
 65 2016-01-12T09:55:06  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2016-01-12T10:06:52  *** fkhan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 67 2016-01-12T10:10:56  *** adam3us has quit IRC
 68 2016-01-12T10:15:15  *** davec has quit IRC
 69 2016-01-12T10:16:18  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2016-01-12T10:16:19  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
 71 2016-01-12T10:16:47  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2016-01-12T10:18:04  *** fkhan_ has quit IRC
 73 2016-01-12T10:18:44  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
 74 2016-01-12T10:18:44  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2016-01-12T10:21:46  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 76 2016-01-12T10:31:28  *** fkhan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2016-01-12T10:47:15  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2016-01-12T10:53:44  *** dcousens has quit IRC
 79 2016-01-12T10:53:56  *** p15 has quit IRC
 80 2016-01-12T10:54:26  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 81 2016-01-12T10:55:16  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 82 2016-01-12T10:55:29  *** arowser has quit IRC
 83 2016-01-12T10:56:03  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2016-01-12T10:58:45  *** adam3us has quit IRC
 85 2016-01-12T10:58:55  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2016-01-12T11:07:52  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2016-01-12T11:17:24  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2016-01-12T11:27:50  *** adam3us has quit IRC
 89 2016-01-12T11:33:32  *** jcorgan is now known as jcorgan|away
 90 2016-01-12T11:44:18  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 91 2016-01-12T11:54:13  *** baldur_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2016-01-12T12:35:56  *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
 93 2016-01-12T12:36:50  *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2016-01-12T12:52:56  *** adam3us has quit IRC
 95 2016-01-12T12:56:56  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
 96 2016-01-12T12:57:39  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2016-01-12T13:03:33  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
 98 2016-01-12T13:07:55  *** SmiteMeSmith_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2016-01-12T13:11:24  *** SmiteMeSmith has quit IRC
100 2016-01-12T13:11:49  *** p15 has quit IRC
101 2016-01-12T13:12:26  *** fkhan_ has quit IRC
102 2016-01-12T13:21:13  <GitHub118> [bitcoin] btcdrak closed pull request #7328: Update README.md website link (master...website) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7328
103 2016-01-12T13:22:17  <GitHub36> [bitcoin] btcdrak reopened pull request #7328: Update README.md website link (master...website) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7328
104 2016-01-12T13:29:30  *** fkhan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
105 2016-01-12T14:13:22  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
106 2016-01-12T14:15:12  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2016-01-12T14:22:03  <morcos> wumpus: is the only hold up for RC1 my 2 PR's? (sorry)  anything i can do to help move things along?
108 2016-01-12T14:22:54  <morcos> i'm happy to try to get jonasschnelli's gui/rpc output improvements in if you think that makes it better for 0.12...
109 2016-01-12T14:40:29  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2016-01-12T14:44:49  <jonasschnelli> morcos: you mean the listtransaction and GUI transaction detail improvements?
111 2016-01-12T14:44:58  <jonasschnelli> Not sure if we need them for 0.12.
112 2016-01-12T14:45:02  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2016-01-12T14:45:18  <jonasschnelli> "listtransactions" abandoned-category maybe
114 2016-01-12T14:45:20  <morcos> jonasschnelli: yes, thats what i meant, just wanted to let wumpus know if he preferred to have those for 0.12, that was fine by me
115 2016-01-12T14:45:54  <morcos> jonasschnelli: did you see my question about it seemed like you were only allowing that for "send" txs, but any tx can be abandoned
116 2016-01-12T14:45:55  <jonasschnelli> What I don't like in the GUI is, that abandoned transactions are still in the tx-list, but don't count for the balance (obviously).
117 2016-01-12T14:46:35  <morcos> jonasschnelli: that is the same as it as always been.  in 0.11 any tx not in the mempool counts as conflicted and in 0.11 and 0.12 all conflicted txs don't count towards balance
118 2016-01-12T14:46:51  <morcos> so while i agree that maybe this could be improved, i think its a much bigger change
119 2016-01-12T14:47:04  <jonasschnelli> Yes... somehow i think a transaction-list sum should be the balance.
120 2016-01-12T14:47:13  <morcos> if anything abandoning a tx causes the behavior to be exactly the same as the 0.11 behavior
121 2016-01-12T14:47:32  <jonasschnelli> okay... yes. Let's keep the listtransaction and GUI stuff for 0.13.
122 2016-01-12T14:48:00  <jonasschnelli> And your right,... listtransaction abandoned category only gets detected for "sending" tx.
123 2016-01-12T14:48:07  <jonasschnelli> (need to be fixed)
124 2016-01-12T14:48:40  *** adam3us has quit IRC
125 2016-01-12T15:05:42  *** guest21333 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
126 2016-01-12T15:07:19  *** arowser has quit IRC
127 2016-01-12T15:07:37  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2016-01-12T15:24:46  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
129 2016-01-12T15:34:44  *** dcousens has quit IRC
130 2016-01-12T15:43:53  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
131 2016-01-12T15:45:12  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
132 2016-01-12T15:47:29  *** guest21333 has quit IRC
133 2016-01-12T15:51:14  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2016-01-12T15:53:32  *** USfV5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2016-01-12T15:55:22  *** deego has quit IRC
136 2016-01-12T15:56:47  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2016-01-12T15:56:50  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
138 2016-01-12T15:59:07  *** USfV5 has quit IRC
139 2016-01-12T16:10:13  *** tripleslash_d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2016-01-12T16:12:06  *** tripleslash_v has quit IRC
141 2016-01-12T16:18:10  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2016-01-12T16:19:07  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2016-01-12T16:19:20  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
144 2016-01-12T16:24:23  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
145 2016-01-12T16:33:46  *** lecusemble has quit IRC
146 2016-01-12T16:37:24  *** lecusemble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2016-01-12T16:49:04  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2016-01-12T16:56:16  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2016-01-12T17:03:58  <wangchun> where is the "bitcoin" classic 2MB patch? I've checked their master branch but MAX_BLOCK_SIZE remains at 1000000 bytes
150 2016-01-12T17:05:09  <morcos> wangchun: i'm not sure this is the right channel for that question, as this is for the Core implementation.  But I think there are a couple of pull requests open on their github repo which have the changes.
151 2016-01-12T17:07:35  <wangchun> morcos: I only see BIP101 style doubling every 2 years from pull reqs but only start from 2MB
152 2016-01-12T17:07:57  <wangchun> From their intros on the website, it should be fixed 2MB right?
153 2016-01-12T17:08:54  <morcos> wangchun: sorry i didn't look at their actual code.  i don't know what they are doing.   I've been helping the Core team with segregated witness as I think it gives us the effective increase of 2MB with a much safer rollout
154 2016-01-12T17:09:06  <morcos> while at the same time fixing long standing issues and adding needed security toools
155 2016-01-12T17:10:41  <morcos> happy to help with any questions you have about that! :)
156 2016-01-12T17:11:02  <btcdrak> wangchun: they dont seem to have any code for it. However there is a 2MB patch in Core
157 2016-01-12T17:11:06  <instagibbs> wangchun, http://bitcoinco.re/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/
158 2016-01-12T17:11:42  <btcdrak> wangchun: Here is a 2MB patch in Core https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451
159 2016-01-12T17:12:24  <btcdrak> wangchun: there is Chinese version of the FAQ http://bitcoinco.re/zh_CN/2015/12/21/%E7%B3%BB%E7%BB%9F%E6%89%A9%E5%B1%95%E5%B8%B8%E8%A7%81%E9%97%AE%E9%A2%98%E8%A7%A3%E7%AD%94/
160 2016-01-12T17:16:40  *** tripleslash_d has quit IRC
161 2016-01-12T17:20:51  <wangchun> btcdrak: #6451 looks good to me. It would be nice if we mix this with segwit. May I have an update why many devs want to deploy segwit as a softfork?
162 2016-01-12T17:21:19  <sipa> wangchun: because a softfork does not require the entire world to agree
163 2016-01-12T17:21:23  <btcdrak> wangchun: a hard fork will take longer to deploy. Even if we do 2MB hard fork, segwit would deploy first
164 2016-01-12T17:21:42  <sipa> because it allows us to make progress right now, without needing to force one choice or another
165 2016-01-12T17:22:41  <wangchun> sipa: But Antpool/BW/BTCC already voted for 2MB, it shouldn't be hard to push that out right?
166 2016-01-12T17:22:42  *** davec has quit IRC
167 2016-01-12T17:23:00  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
168 2016-01-12T17:23:03  <sipa> wangchun: that's 3 people, not the whole world
169 2016-01-12T17:23:21  <sipa> wangchun: for a hardfork not only miners have to agree
170 2016-01-12T17:23:37  <btcdrak> wangchun: all 5000 fullnodes must also upgrade
171 2016-01-12T17:23:48  <wangchun> Should we ACK Bitcoin Classic? I think it might be a good thing...
172 2016-01-12T17:23:50  <sipa> wangchun: segwit SF gives 2 MB blocks, but without forcing anyone to change
173 2016-01-12T17:24:05  <sipa> wangchun: what benefit does it have?
174 2016-01-12T17:24:12  <wangchun> If the Classic get succeed, we have 2MB, and then we merge it back into core, we have segwit
175 2016-01-12T17:24:15  <wangchun> win-win
176 2016-01-12T17:24:23  <sipa> that makes no sense
177 2016-01-12T17:24:54  <sipa> then you'll have 4 MB blocks, with all latency problems that causes, and still need to force the world to adopt a change
178 2016-01-12T17:25:24  <wangchun> With 2MB, we'll have 8MB blocks, that is better
179 2016-01-12T17:25:47  <wangchun> And it is not 8MB in fact. not every tx is p2sh
180 2016-01-12T17:26:00  <wangchun> much like 5MB or so
181 2016-01-12T17:26:55  <sipa> what block sizes are you confortable with?
182 2016-01-12T17:27:25  *** BashCo has quit IRC
183 2016-01-12T17:28:01  <wangchun> 2MB+segwit would be nice
184 2016-01-12T17:28:21  <sipa> what effective block size are you comfortable wit
185 2016-01-12T17:28:30  <sipa> the size of blocks going over the wire
186 2016-01-12T17:28:45  <wangchun> 5MB is good
187 2016-01-12T17:29:15  <sipa> well then you'll need a hard fork, and need to convince everyone to accept that
188 2016-01-12T17:29:20  <wangchun> I think hardfork is much more desirable as it makes many things cleaner
189 2016-01-12T17:29:40  <wangchun> I heard you guys want every coinbase tx to have an additional OP_RETURN vout, that is so ugly
190 2016-01-12T17:29:58  <sipa> there are alternatives to that, i am very open to discuss
191 2016-01-12T17:30:13  <btcdrak> wangchun: BTCC is selling advertising in the coinbase =__=
192 2016-01-12T17:30:32  <wangchun> i also know many people who want to see a hardfork version of segwit
193 2016-01-12T17:31:04  <wangchun> btcdrak: i know, if we enlarge coinbase string from 100 bytes to 256, they will be very happy
194 2016-01-12T17:32:10  <wangchun> btcdrak: actually in the past we also sold a few coinbases, for 1 BTC each
195 2016-01-12T17:32:28  *** zookolaptop has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
196 2016-01-12T17:32:29  <btcdrak> wow
197 2016-01-12T17:32:31  <wangchun> in 2013
198 2016-01-12T17:32:53  <sipa> wangchun: the problem is that for a hard fork, everyone has to agree precisely on what the new rule will be
199 2016-01-12T17:33:06  <sipa> wangchun: and that takes time
200 2016-01-12T17:33:36  <JackH> it could get ugly, and in worst case scenario put us back months if not everyone upgrades
201 2016-01-12T17:34:09  <sipa> a softfork is safe and possible with just miners accepting it
202 2016-01-12T17:34:31  <sipa> which is why we strongly favor softforks where possible
203 2016-01-12T17:34:40  <morcos> wangchun: Everyone in core would prefer to see segwit as a hard fork rather than a soft fork.  but we take very seriously the notion that we should not be forcing the rules of bitcoin to change for people who might not agree
204 2016-01-12T17:34:42  <sipa> it does not rule out doing a hardfork later
205 2016-01-12T17:34:49  *** brg444 has quit IRC
206 2016-01-12T17:35:25  <morcos> wangchun: so hopefully one day, there will be widespread consensus about a hardfork, whether its cleaning up segwit or whether its a block size increase, or both or other things.
207 2016-01-12T17:36:14  <morcos> but given that we can get all the benefits of segwit without that, it seems clearly the right next step.   it doesn't preclude everyone coming to agreement on some hard fork, but it allows progress to happen without waiting for that
208 2016-01-12T17:36:53  <wangchun> then we may consider support the classic hope it get 2MB to be deployed sooner than segwit
209 2016-01-12T17:37:23  <wangchun> but i think it is unlikely
210 2016-01-12T17:37:36  <sipa> we already have a test version of segwit up and running
211 2016-01-12T17:38:04  <wangchun> a race is better to everyone
212 2016-01-12T17:38:10  <sipa> wangchun: you can support a 2 MB HF, but you can only run it when you know everyone agrees
213 2016-01-12T17:38:32  <sipa> wangchun: you can run segwit immediately
214 2016-01-12T17:38:33  <wangchun> there will be a 95% threshold i suppose
215 2016-01-12T17:38:50  <morcos> wangchun: i think its great to announce you support 2MB HF blocks if thats what you want.  but its risky to run code that will switch to that if only 75% of miners agree.  it runs the risk of forkinig the network and creating two coins.
216 2016-01-12T17:39:09  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2016-01-12T17:39:34  <morcos> wangchun: they are proposing i believe a 75% or lower threshold.  and of course that only measures miner support, not support from the rest of the community
218 2016-01-12T17:39:36  <wangchun> I agree 75% is not enough
219 2016-01-12T17:39:55  <wangchun> if 95% miner support it, i believe others will follow
220 2016-01-12T17:40:12  <sipa> wangchun: a hard fork requires everyone to agree, not just miners
221 2016-01-12T17:40:25  <sipa> wangchun: even 100% of miners cannot decide a hard fork
222 2016-01-12T17:40:26  <wangchun> if 95% miners support it, others have no choice :)
223 2016-01-12T17:40:39  <helo> there should be no "hopefully others will follow"
224 2016-01-12T17:40:54  <helo> others may not want to follow, and they may be right in not doing so
225 2016-01-12T17:41:01  <wangchun> 5% hashrate cannot secure their own branch
226 2016-01-12T17:41:30  <helo> that doesn't mean they are incorrect
227 2016-01-12T17:41:53  <petertodd> wangchun: it's not a question about them securing that branch, it's a question of whether or not more blocks are added to it
228 2016-01-12T17:42:12  <wangchun> anyway practically, if we got 95% hashrate in one branch, the other branch is over
229 2016-01-12T17:42:27  <sipa> wangchun: not necessarily true for a hard fork
230 2016-01-12T17:42:34  <sipa> for a softfork, yes
231 2016-01-12T17:42:40  <petertodd> wangchun: 95% is probably high enough that's it's unlikely to end up with people being forked off, but that's not really certain in a hardfork case
232 2016-01-12T17:42:49  <morcos> wangchun: regardless of whether you support the 2MB HF, I'd like to encourage you to help us with the segregated witness soft fork.
233 2016-01-12T17:43:09  <wangchun> morcos: sure
234 2016-01-12T17:43:33  <sipa> wangchun: and input on where you want the witness commitment is very welcome
235 2016-01-12T17:44:10  <wangchun> witness commitment?
236 2016-01-12T17:44:13  <petertodd> wangchun: now, if we had a 100% threshold that might put us in a better place. It also might be good to get a small % of hashing power willing to mine empty blocks on top of the old chain in the event that some miners still mine it. (aka, 51% attack it to ensure it stays dead)
237 2016-01-12T17:44:39  <sipa> wangchun: segregated witness needs a 32-byte value somewhere in coinbase
238 2016-01-12T17:44:39  <morcos> i'd like to avoid the outcome where neither happens because people are too entrenched in having their solution.  it seems to me that the only objection to segregated witness as a soft fork is what you said about it being ugly compared to doing it as a hard fork.
239 2016-01-12T17:44:55  <sipa> wangchun: this can go in an OP_RETURN output, or in the scriptSig
240 2016-01-12T17:45:07  <wangchun> scriptSig of course
241 2016-01-12T17:45:26  <sipa> wangchun: but others may not want to loose so much scriptSig space
242 2016-01-12T17:45:31  <morcos> but i think t hats a very small price to pay for being able to get it implemented.  if we tried to do it as a hard fork it would be hard to get it rolled out in any reasonable time period.
243 2016-01-12T17:45:40  <wangchun> but the coinbase string max size limit should be lifted in the very next hard fork
244 2016-01-12T17:45:58  <sipa> wangchun: ok, but we can't do that now
245 2016-01-12T17:46:05  <wangchun> sipa: how many bytes? 32? 36?
246 2016-01-12T17:46:10  <sipa> 32
247 2016-01-12T17:46:14  <sipa> plus a header
248 2016-01-12T17:46:18  <wangchun> header?
249 2016-01-12T17:46:19  <sipa> 36 is ok
250 2016-01-12T17:46:33  <sipa> magic bytes to say "here follows the witness commitment"
251 2016-01-12T17:46:33  <jl2012> the "header" could be put in nLockTime
252 2016-01-12T17:46:37  <wangchun> hmm
253 2016-01-12T17:46:41  <jl2012> some 32 is the minimum
254 2016-01-12T17:46:46  <wangchun> it's only 100 bytes... we cannot have a header
255 2016-01-12T17:46:49  <jl2012>  s/some/so/
256 2016-01-12T17:46:59  <wangchun> put it immeidately follow the height bytes
257 2016-01-12T17:46:59  <petertodd> wangchun: alternative to a header is to have it in a fixed position
258 2016-01-12T17:47:14  <petertodd> wangchun: I think that makes sense
259 2016-01-12T17:47:20  <sipa> wangchun: that is why i believe an OP_RETURN is easier to get accepted, even if it is uglier
260 2016-01-12T17:47:23  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
261 2016-01-12T17:47:30  <sipa> immediately after the height is also possible
262 2016-01-12T17:47:32  <wangchun> i've talked to jl2012 earlier
263 2016-01-12T17:47:36  <sipa> ok
264 2016-01-12T17:47:43  <wangchun> if people want more bytes, put extranonce to op_return
265 2016-01-12T17:48:05  <jl2012> would it break some mining hardware?
266 2016-01-12T17:48:24  <wangchun> or do like what we do, put extranonce to nsequence
267 2016-01-12T17:48:54  <wangchun> jl2012: extranonce in nsequence is not breaking any hardware
268 2016-01-12T17:49:05  <wangchun> i suppose extranonce in op_return should be fine too
269 2016-01-12T17:49:46  <morcos> wangchun: i don't know how much all the miners talk to each other, but this seems a concern that affects them the most
270 2016-01-12T17:50:06  <morcos> perhaps it would be useful for them to discuss among each other
271 2016-01-12T17:50:11  <wangchun> so we have 4 bytes height + 32 bytes segwit + 44 bytes merged mining
272 2016-01-12T17:50:26  <wangchun> 80 bytes
273 2016-01-12T17:50:49  <wangchun> 20 bytes left for signature, no advertisement space for sell
274 2016-01-12T17:50:50  <jl2012> what is the 44 bytes look like?
275 2016-01-12T17:51:17  <wangchun> 4 bytes magic header + 32 bytes hash + 4 bytes merkle branch length + 4 bytes nonce
276 2016-01-12T17:51:17  <sipa> wangchun: indeed, i thought the lack of ad space would be a problem
277 2016-01-12T17:51:40  <wangchun> 4 bytes merkle branch length is a waste, 1 byte is enough, 4 bytes nonce is completely useless
278 2016-01-12T17:52:03  <sipa> wangchun: we're working on a replacement for the MM header
279 2016-01-12T17:52:12  <sipa> that can be used for more things
280 2016-01-12T17:52:23  <jl2012> it's the mm of namecoin?
281 2016-01-12T17:52:27  <sipa> yes
282 2016-01-12T17:52:33  <wangchun> sipa: namecoin is planning the same thing, you may want to talk to them
283 2016-01-12T17:52:40  <sipa> wangchun: i'm aware
284 2016-01-12T17:52:50  <petertodd> wangchun: potentially, the witness commitment could be arranged to also work for MM, as well as any other future commitment
285 2016-01-12T17:53:33  <wangchun> sipa: not just namecoin, we also have ixcoin, i0coin, groupcoin, 611, uno, huc, and some other dead ones
286 2016-01-12T17:54:09  <jl2012> they should only commit 32 bytes in bitcoin, and leave the rest of meta data in their own header
287 2016-01-12T17:54:44  <wangchun> anyway, it the size limit should be lifted in the next hard fork
288 2016-01-12T17:54:51  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
289 2016-01-12T17:54:54  <wangchun> 256 bytes is preferred
290 2016-01-12T17:56:32  <wangchun> satoshi likes decimals..
291 2016-01-12T17:58:55  <sipa> wangchun: that seems like a reasonable thing
292 2016-01-12T17:59:11  <sipa> but for now, we need a solution
293 2016-01-12T17:59:32  <wangchun> put everything in coinbase is acceptable
294 2016-01-12T17:59:42  <wangchun> BTCC and Antpool are not merged mining
295 2016-01-12T17:59:47  <wangchun> so i think they will be fine
296 2016-01-12T18:00:05  <wangchun> for those who do merge, 20 bytes for signature is just enough
297 2016-01-12T18:00:19  <sipa> i thought BTCC was the one who suggested not using scriptSig :)
298 2016-01-12T18:00:21  <jl2012> Samson told me that would kill their service
299 2016-01-12T18:01:08  <wangchun> You can told them a hard fork to make their service shining is not very far
300 2016-01-12T18:01:18  <sipa> we don't know that
301 2016-01-12T18:01:25  <wangchun> s/told/tell/
302 2016-01-12T18:01:30  <sipa> a hard fork will only happen if everyone agrees
303 2016-01-12T18:01:53  <JackH> it would be interesting to see how many nodes we loose in a hardfork
304 2016-01-12T18:02:38  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
305 2016-01-12T18:03:49  <wangchun> BTCC still has 64 bytes for sale
306 2016-01-12T18:03:59  <wangchun> 63 bytes
307 2016-01-12T18:04:30  <wangchun> extranonce1 cannot be empty, otherwise it may break some stupid stratum proxies
308 2016-01-12T18:05:54  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
309 2016-01-12T18:15:13  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
310 2016-01-12T18:15:30  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
311 2016-01-12T18:17:36  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
312 2016-01-12T18:33:37  <Quent> if you excuse my comment - - - interesting isn't it, the hierarchy, one can say developers are employed by miners as shown by this little chat, with miners employed by users, while at the same time, like a quantum particle, everyone holding and not holding power at the same time.
313 2016-01-12T18:34:00  *** sipa has left #bitcoin-core-dev
314 2016-01-12T18:42:45  <Luke-Jr> morcos: what? segwit softfork is so much cleaner than a hardfork
315 2016-01-12T18:42:59  <midnightmagic> :-(
316 2016-01-12T18:43:25  <midnightmagic> Quent: Highly offtopic for in here.
317 2016-01-12T18:44:19  <morcos> Luke-Jr: I wasn't referring to the act of forking but to what the protocol specification is at the end.  By definition you can make anything you want as a hardfork, so clearly whatever optimal format is you could do that with a hard fork.
318 2016-01-12T18:45:17  <Luke-Jr> morcos: if we had 100% of Bitcoin users convinced to do either a hardfork or softfork for segwit, the softfork would still be better
319 2016-01-12T18:45:38  <morcos> Luke-Jr: b/c of rollout risk?
320 2016-01-12T18:45:49  <Luke-Jr> morcos: because of backward compatibility with present wallets
321 2016-01-12T18:46:28  <Luke-Jr> the ideal segwit structure would break current signatures
322 2016-01-12T18:47:43  <morcos> Luke-Jr: ok, perhaps you are correct that the case for doing a HF isn't as straight forward as i implied.  Regardless, its academic.  SF is clearly the only reasonable choice for segwit now.
323 2016-01-12T18:59:57  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
324 2016-01-12T19:00:11  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
325 2016-01-12T19:06:17  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
326 2016-01-12T19:07:31  <wangchun> not just backward compatiblility, in the case of segwit
327 2016-01-12T19:07:44  <wangchun> segwit tx is anyone spendable to older clients
328 2016-01-12T19:08:42  <wangchun> imagine some 0-conf tx service that still running old software after the activation
329 2016-01-12T19:08:53  *** fkhan_ has quit IRC
330 2016-01-12T19:09:12  <wangchun> a hard fork is safer for them
331 2016-01-12T19:10:58  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
332 2016-01-12T19:11:11  <zookolaptop> wangchun: could you explain how such an older, 0-conf-accepting client would be in danger in the soft-fork deployment?
333 2016-01-12T19:11:20  <instagibbs> wangchun, they will simply get trivially double-spent being left behind on the old chain
334 2016-01-12T19:11:29  <instagibbs> (in hard fork scenario)
335 2016-01-12T19:12:53  <brg444> right, they have to upgrade in both scenarios else they can get cheated. not sure I see the difference?
336 2016-01-12T19:12:59  <wangchun> i can send coins i can't move under the new rule
337 2016-01-12T19:13:10  <zookolaptop> wangchun: hm.
338 2016-01-12T19:13:11  <instagibbs> wangchun, in both hardfork/softfork, if user upgrades, great. In the non-upgraded scenario, they both have some drawbacks
339 2016-01-12T19:13:35  <wangchun> and if someone mine a block on the old fork, it can even get a confirm
340 2016-01-12T19:13:42  <wangchun> to old clients
341 2016-01-12T19:14:48  <instagibbs> then can certainly get confirmations on the dead chain
342 2016-01-12T19:15:11  <instagibbs> in hardfork
343 2016-01-12T19:15:14  <wangchun> as segwit-enabled tx flies on the new fork, the old fork would become a mess
344 2016-01-12T19:17:04  <Luke-Jr> wangchun: no, a hardfork does not make ANYTHING safer, EVER
345 2016-01-12T19:17:47  <Luke-Jr> and that's ignoring the fact that unconfirmed transactions are never safe
346 2016-01-12T19:18:26  <wangchun> Luke-Jr: softfork version of segwit != hardfork version of segwit, we don't have to use anyone can spend tx if it is a hardfork
347 2016-01-12T19:18:41  <Luke-Jr> wangchun: that doesn't matter though
348 2016-01-12T19:18:43  <instagibbs> wangchun, why do you care?
349 2016-01-12T19:18:46  <instagibbs> it's not your money
350 2016-01-12T19:18:50  <Luke-Jr> if it's a hardfork, those old nodes lose ALL security
351 2016-01-12T19:19:31  <zookolaptop> One fact that matters to me is that Ethereum has done a series of hard fork upgrades over the last year or so.
352 2016-01-12T19:19:51  <zookolaptop> I like to try to learn from empirical evidence.
353 2016-01-12T19:20:14  <zookolaptop> Although of course, you could still be right, and one or another lucky break or special condition allowed Ethereum to succeed at that where Bitcoin wouldn't be able to do the same. Who knows.
354 2016-01-12T19:20:25  <wangchun> many altcoins do hardfork upgrades regularly
355 2016-01-12T19:20:56  <moli> wangchun: yes, but they're altcoins with not as large markets as bitcoin
356 2016-01-12T19:20:59  <zookolaptop> I think it is easy for people, especially smart people, to convince themselves strongly of some belief, and paying attention to empirical evidence like that can help shake one's confidence.
357 2016-01-12T19:21:45  <instagibbs> a closer example would be Bitcoin in the first or second year and Ethereum
358 2016-01-12T19:21:47  <Luke-Jr> again, softfork segwit is superior to hardfork segwit even if both were equally possible
359 2016-01-12T19:21:49  <moli> i went through many hardforks with an altcoin, where devs can never get consensus with miners, have to use a closed source dirty trick
360 2016-01-12T19:22:05  <zookolaptop> moli: interesting. :-)
361 2016-01-12T19:22:14  <zookolaptop> moli: thanks for giving me yet more empirical evidence for my hoard.
362 2016-01-12T19:23:14  <zookolaptop> moli: was it just that the miners were unaware, disinterested, etc., or did the miners actively object to the change?
363 2016-01-12T19:23:22  <zookolaptop> I would assume it was the former.
364 2016-01-12T19:23:51  <instagibbs> Are you really surprised that Vitalik could get unanimous consensus for hardforks?
365 2016-01-12T19:23:58  <instagibbs> we know it could theoretically be done, but it's not the same
366 2016-01-12T19:24:51  <zookolaptop> Right, that's the limitation of trying to learn from empirical evidence: there are always reasons why the prior experience may not apply to your case.
367 2016-01-12T19:24:53  <moli> zookolaptop: i can tell you in pm if you want
368 2016-01-12T19:25:00  <instagibbs> in 6 years it'll def be interesting
369 2016-01-12T19:25:20  <instagibbs> Esp if Vitalik doesn't vanish :P
370 2016-01-12T19:25:38  *** fkhan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
371 2016-01-12T19:28:12  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
372 2016-01-12T19:29:49  <brg444> Bitcoin as a considerably stronger inertia than any other altcoins for very good reasons. It's important to take this in consideration when pondering the eventuality of a hard fork.
373 2016-01-12T19:29:57  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
374 2016-01-12T19:30:52  <Quent> on the other hand bitcoin has stronger incentive based self interest than any other altcoin
375 2016-01-12T19:31:20  <morcos> any chance we could move this discussion back to bitcoin-dev?  unless anyone wants to review #7296 or #7312 so we can move forward with getting 0.12 released?
376 2016-01-12T19:32:16  <jl2012> just for record, segwit tx are non standard to existing nodes
377 2016-01-12T19:33:07  <instagibbs> morcos, agreed, sorry
378 2016-01-12T19:41:47  <Luke-Jr> morcos: simply changing getrawmempool does not appear to fix the problems btw
379 2016-01-12T20:05:34  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
380 2016-01-12T20:06:30  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
381 2016-01-12T20:15:58  *** teward has quit IRC
382 2016-01-12T20:16:58  *** max__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
383 2016-01-12T20:17:26  *** max__ is now known as Guest93153
384 2016-01-12T20:19:26  *** Guest93153 has quit IRC
385 2016-01-12T20:47:01  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
386 2016-01-12T20:49:15  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
387 2016-01-12T20:53:31  <JackH> if we hard fork, it would spiral the price down and all we have been working for could be reduced back to 100
388 2016-01-12T20:54:00  <JackH> as a Bitcoin business representative, this is THE most scary thing we can do with Bitcoin
389 2016-01-12T20:54:06  <JackH> especially since it all works so fine right now
390 2016-01-12T20:54:24  <JackH> and the perception of it at the end of 2015 started to really get more positive
391 2016-01-12T20:54:43  *** tripleslash_v has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392 2016-01-12T20:57:25  *** tripleslash_v has quit IRC
393 2016-01-12T20:58:39  <brg444> JackH agreed, but unfortunately I'm worried this is being done on purpose
394 2016-01-12T20:59:15  <brg444> I'm very concerned with the prospects of a hard fork severely undermining the investors trust
395 2016-01-12T21:00:24  <paveljanik> Everyone can fork. Please remember this is dev list... You can fork on github easily...
396 2016-01-12T21:01:33  <brg444> That is why claiming that hard forks are cleaner from a technical standpoint is misleading and ignores the socio-economic nightmare they entail
397 2016-01-12T21:02:00  <brg444> paveljanik Right, I won't continue this discussion here
398 2016-01-12T21:02:08  <Quent> it has to be done, it was always intended, the only mistake is that this wasn't included in versions long ago
399 2016-01-12T21:02:26  <Quent> but then no one could foresee the atmosphere that developed in 2013
400 2016-01-12T21:02:43  <JackH> yeah the whole cleaner debate is just WRONG brg444
401 2016-01-12T21:02:58  <JackH> personally I would wait for payment channels and skip any blocksize
402 2016-01-12T21:03:08  <JackH> but, someone outside is influencing people to do a hardfork
403 2016-01-12T21:03:17  <JackH> very sad to see people following the sheep mentality
404 2016-01-12T21:03:23  <brg444> it should be done on sound technical grounds. a mere 100% increase in throughput is not valid reason to force every node on the network to upgrade, IMO
405 2016-01-12T21:03:38  <Quent> yes, satoshi is influencing them and they say you are the outsider jackh, those sort of comments do not assist
406 2016-01-12T21:04:07  <JackH> I am just saying it is not safe, period
407 2016-01-12T21:04:11  <JackH> therefore it should not be done
408 2016-01-12T21:04:14  <JackH> the system works perfect
409 2016-01-12T21:04:18  <Quent> you said outsiders influence them!
410 2016-01-12T21:04:22  <JackH> and payment channels solve all and any scale
411 2016-01-12T21:04:25  <Quent> that's nazi tactics
412 2016-01-12T21:04:30  <Quent> dehumanising etc
413 2016-01-12T21:04:33  <paveljanik> do you speak C++?
414 2016-01-12T21:04:37  <brg444> Quent Satoshi has left years ago, he should not influence anyone anymore and if he wish to do so then may he come back and provide input
415 2016-01-12T21:05:35  <Quent> satoshi laid out how bitcoin is to scale, what he stated then remains relevant
416 2016-01-12T21:05:37  <instagibbs> how do we call for mods again
417 2016-01-12T21:05:57  <Quent> omg, people have different opinions, we out to only groupthink here
418 2016-01-12T21:06:03  <Quent> ought*
419 2016-01-12T21:06:05  <instagibbs> it's completely off-topic
420 2016-01-12T21:06:06  <instagibbs> stop it
421 2016-01-12T21:06:17  <Quent> it was for quite some time, yet you said nothing!
422 2016-01-12T21:06:46  <JackH> Quent, stop telling people what Satoshi thought
423 2016-01-12T21:06:50  <Quent> what you afraid of? words?
424 2016-01-12T21:06:52  <JackH> you are not Satoshi
425 2016-01-12T21:06:57  <JackH> you dont know what he thought
426 2016-01-12T21:07:00  <instagibbs> !admin
427 2016-01-12T21:07:00  <gribble> Error: "admin" is not a valid command.
428 2016-01-12T21:07:03  <JackH> you were not even there back then
429 2016-01-12T21:07:05  <instagibbs> !mods
430 2016-01-12T21:07:05  <gribble> Error: "mods" is not a valid command.
431 2016-01-12T21:07:19  <JackH> your arguments should come from a technical perspective where you tell us WHY we need a hard fork
432 2016-01-12T21:07:23  <Quent> jackH, it's not even about satoshi
433 2016-01-12T21:07:25  <JackH> not that: Satoshi may have thought
434 2016-01-12T21:07:29  <Quent> 2mb is nothing
435 2016-01-12T21:07:32  <JackH> then what is it about
436 2016-01-12T21:07:35  <JackH> exactly I agree
437 2016-01-12T21:07:48  <Quent> whats this obsession with no fork ever then?
438 2016-01-12T21:07:48  <JackH> 2mb is a waste of time and excessively dangerous for absolutely nothing in return
439 2016-01-12T21:07:54  <JackH> why do you want a fork?
440 2016-01-12T21:07:59  <Quent> capacity?
441 2016-01-12T21:08:04  <JackH> how much
442 2016-01-12T21:08:15  <Quent> is this to be an irrelevant project or a world changing project?
443 2016-01-12T21:08:31  <Quent> 1mb - 2mb - 4mb - 8mb -10 -100 -even 1gb in time...
444 2016-01-12T21:08:36  <Quent> we want to change the world!
445 2016-01-12T21:08:41  <JackH> ok so
446 2016-01-12T21:08:43  <brg444> !op
447 2016-01-12T21:08:44  <gribble> Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-core-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
448 2016-01-12T21:08:49  <JackH> how many nodes can handle the load you think?
449 2016-01-12T21:09:05  <instagibbs> JackH, please stop feeding him
450 2016-01-12T21:09:18  <JackH> I am not, and he will understand why he is wrong
451 2016-01-12T21:09:24  <Quent> what sort of nodes?
452 2016-01-12T21:09:25  <JackH> this will end with a sound debate where he understands
453 2016-01-12T21:09:35  <JackH> full nodes, stop playing stupid, if you want this conversation
454 2016-01-12T21:09:40  <JackH> propagating nodes
455 2016-01-12T21:09:41  <instagibbs> #bitcoin or stop
456 2016-01-12T21:09:44  <Quent> are you talking basement nodes?
457 2016-01-12T21:09:49  <JackH> ok, on to bitcoin then
458 2016-01-12T21:09:50  <Quent> some basement kid?
459 2016-01-12T21:09:58  <Quent> or are you talking nodes which actually matter?
460 2016-01-12T21:10:05  <JackH> #bitcoin
461 2016-01-12T21:10:17  <Quent> checkmated were you?
462 2016-01-12T21:10:23  <helo> Quent: go toss a pebble if you want to change the world. this channel is for bitcoin core dev discussion.
463 2016-01-12T21:10:40  <Quent> helo, brg44, instagibbs and all the other trolls
464 2016-01-12T21:10:46  <Quent> you have no power in this chan!
465 2016-01-12T21:10:51  <Quent> so keep your authoritarian tounge
466 2016-01-12T21:10:56  <Quent> telling people to shut up
467 2016-01-12T21:11:08  <brg444> ...
468 2016-01-12T21:11:23  <Quent> if the mod here wants to warn he is welcome to
469 2016-01-12T21:11:37  <Quent> if you who have been scaremongering for 3 years now want to debate you are welcome to
470 2016-01-12T21:11:47  <Quent> but dont try to silence me when I call your bullshit
471 2016-01-12T21:11:59  <Quent> as I called jackh out on his insinuation there is some outside influence
472 2016-01-12T21:12:02  *** arowser has quit IRC
473 2016-01-12T21:12:05  <Quent> you have been deceiving for 3 years
474 2016-01-12T21:12:08  *** nkuttler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
475 2016-01-12T21:12:12  <Quent> and look where your deception has gotten us!
476 2016-01-12T21:12:24  <Quent> stand to light or shut your tongue
477 2016-01-12T21:12:29  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
478 2016-01-12T21:13:13  <instagibbs> wumpus, please zap
479 2016-01-12T21:13:27  <JackH> and here I was, naive to think this guy was serious
480 2016-01-12T21:16:23  <Quent> you should have been more naive JackH to think man would do anything else but what is self evidently obvious and good
481 2016-01-12T21:16:38  <Anduck> please quit with the offtopic Quent
482 2016-01-12T21:16:52  <Quent> I said it all the way back, I said it when theymost started his games
483 2016-01-12T21:17:10  <Quent> because it applies to bitcoin first and foremost, what is self evidently good and in the interest of man shall prevail
484 2016-01-12T21:17:35  *** teward has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
485 2016-01-12T21:18:25  <Quent> you have the whole people up in arms
486 2016-01-12T21:18:29  <Quent> they hate rbf
487 2016-01-12T21:18:42  <Quent> they hate the breach of 0confs non 100% securtiy
488 2016-01-12T21:18:54  <Quent> they hate the rigidness in regards to the blocksize debate
489 2016-01-12T21:19:16  <Quent> what on earth you lot are thinking they understand not because it has no basis in reason or bitcoins design
490 2016-01-12T21:19:40  <Quent> but on what peter todd and peter todd alone has been feeding you for some 3 years now
491 2016-01-12T21:19:51  <Quent> with his character assasination attempts of gavin
492 2016-01-12T21:19:57  <Quent> at every opprotunity
493 2016-01-12T21:20:24  <Quent> with his hate for spv wallets, for oconf transactions, for all that makes bitcoin convenient
494 2016-01-12T21:24:45  <Quent> the way was lost in 2013 when the developers segregated themselves, isolated themselves to the mailing list and dividied themselves from the users, creating an extreme group think, to the point where the developers started thinking they are gods, they are in charge, they can order around, leading to the great wall which Jeff says is greatest he has seen in 20 years of open source development
495 2016-01-12T21:25:29  <Quent> we ought to learn from what has and is happening and forge a path forward where we can cooperate and do things better rather than enage in venemous accusations of socpupets or "outsiders" influencing etc
496 2016-01-12T21:25:57  <paveljanik> this looks like C# 8)
497 2016-01-12T21:28:23  *** teward has quit IRC
498 2016-01-12T21:29:30  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
499 2016-01-12T21:29:49  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
500 2016-01-12T21:34:04  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Luke-Jr
501 2016-01-12T21:34:10  <Luke-Jr> Quent: please take this to #bitcoin or not at all
502 2016-01-12T21:34:13  *** Luke-Jr sets mode: -o Luke-Jr
503 2016-01-12T21:45:07  *** ryitpm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
504 2016-01-12T21:49:32  *** teward has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
505 2016-01-12T21:55:06  <btcdrak> Quent: please take this to #bitcoin
506 2016-01-12T21:57:11  *** teward has quit IRC
507 2016-01-12T21:57:24  <zookolaptop> Hello folks: per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7330#issuecomment-171069106, could you please tell me who authored https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement?
508 2016-01-12T21:59:15  <morcos> Luke-Jr: I think you'll have to be a bit more explicit as to what the problem is.  but i think entry.GetPriority(chainActive.Height + 1) should always return the correct answer
509 2016-01-12T22:00:03  <Luke-Jr> zookolaptop: I do not see a reason to disclose that, and it seems possibly harmful to do so.
510 2016-01-12T22:00:36  <Luke-Jr> morcos: I haven't figured out what the problem is. At this time I am trying to extend the test to cover reorganisations
511 2016-01-12T22:01:00  <morcos> Luke-Jr: well modulo the change so that inputs included in blocks after the transaction originally entered the mempool won't age unless you are using 7149
512 2016-01-12T22:01:28  <morcos> Luke-Jr: ah!  let me take a look at that again.  7149 should handle that properly
513 2016-01-12T22:01:47  <morcos> Luke-Jr: but you might be right that the code in master will not handle that correctly
514 2016-01-12T22:01:56  <Luke-Jr> I am testing on top of 7149
515 2016-01-12T22:02:10  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
516 2016-01-12T22:02:15  <morcos> Luke-Jr: I flagged that originally with the code that got merged, but perhaps not clearly enough
517 2016-01-12T22:02:51  <morcos> Well 7149 is meant to work properly with that situation, but I can't guarantee it does.   The difficulty of getting that right is why I keep saying 7149 is too complicated
518 2016-01-12T22:03:17  <kanzure> zookolaptop: and you just ignored my comment or something? what
519 2016-01-12T22:03:30  <MarcoFalke> morcos, if you still plan to squash 7296, you should do it now, I guess.
520 2016-01-12T22:03:31  <kanzure> zookolaptop: why should i even bother replying to you if you are going to ignore me? :-(
521 2016-01-12T22:04:10  <morcos> MarcoFalke: I have no preference as to whether it is squashed or not.
522 2016-01-12T22:04:21  <zookolaptop> kanzure: I'm sorry, which comment?
523 2016-01-12T22:04:32  <morcos> MarcoFalke: I've been trying to take the approach that changing the PR's less will make them more likely to get merged
524 2016-01-12T22:04:41  <kanzure> zookolaptop: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7330#issuecomment-171060441
525 2016-01-12T22:04:50  <MarcoFalke> I like it unsquashed, generally.
526 2016-01-12T22:05:02  <MarcoFalke> But I don't like the SQUASHME in git blame either
527 2016-01-12T22:05:17  <morcos> MarcoFalke: :)  eh...  priorities
528 2016-01-12T22:06:50  <MarcoFalke> Let's just leave the SQUASHME out of the commits in the future. ;)
529 2016-01-12T22:06:54  <zookolaptop> kanzure: thanks for that!
530 2016-01-12T22:07:13  <MarcoFalke> wumpus, is there anything particular holding back 7296?
531 2016-01-12T22:07:47  <kanzure> zookolaptop: it is morally dubious for you to claim that the names of 2000000 authors would for some reason change the merits of the content. it's just wrong. stop wasting our time.
532 2016-01-12T22:09:20  *** murch has quit IRC
533 2016-01-12T22:10:34  *** teward has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
534 2016-01-12T22:12:28  <morcos> kanzure: (i'll keep this in core-dev for the time being since it is specifically about core development even if not technical) i disagree.  and i sympathize with zooko's request.
535 2016-01-12T22:12:40  <morcos> however i dont think there is any easy way to satisfy his request
536 2016-01-12T22:12:57  <morcos> Bitcoin Core is not well defined
537 2016-01-12T22:13:10  <kanzure> what exactly do you think is not well defined?
538 2016-01-12T22:13:33  <morcos> I think it is reasonable in the interim to sign such messages Bitcoin Core but to be able to explain to people what the process for making a decision on them is
539 2016-01-12T22:13:41  <morcos> or who are the people that stand behind thme
540 2016-01-12T22:13:54  <morcos> these are things not that we want to hide, but that we don't have clear answers for
541 2016-01-12T22:14:04  <morcos> actually, on second though, this really shouldn't be in this channel
542 2016-01-12T22:14:05  <kanzure> i have no idea what you are talking about.
543 2016-01-12T22:14:09  <kanzure> yes.
544 2016-01-12T22:14:19  <morcos> not sure where to move it, but happy to continue elsewhere
545 2016-01-12T22:14:22  <MarcoFalke> #bitcoin ?
546 2016-01-12T22:14:25  <kanzure> i'll take a pm.
547 2016-01-12T22:14:32  <morcos> ha ha ha
548 2016-01-12T22:14:32  *** JackH has quit IRC
549 2016-01-12T22:14:54  <zookolaptop> morcos: if you find an appropriate channel let me know. ☺
550 2016-01-12T22:15:01  <kanzure> morcos: convincing me in pm is useful because then i can resolve problems for you.
551 2016-01-12T22:15:08  *** teward has quit IRC
552 2016-01-12T22:15:12  <morcos> i don't know how irc works.   can i just say /join #zookosquestion and then we can discuss there?
553 2016-01-12T22:15:34  <kanzure> yes, but i don't care about his question.
554 2016-01-12T22:15:43  <zookolaptop> kanzure: then you know what to do!
555 2016-01-12T22:15:59  <zookolaptop> Yes, I'll discuss this with morcos and whoever else would like to in #zookosquestion.
556 2016-01-12T22:16:15  <kanzure> your question has nothing to do with morcos' statement that he was trying to explain to me.
557 2016-01-12T22:22:32  *** adam3us has quit IRC
558 2016-01-12T22:27:06  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
559 2016-01-12T22:31:08  *** dcousens has quit IRC
560 2016-01-12T22:32:37  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
561 2016-01-12T22:44:29  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
562 2016-01-12T22:46:23  *** jtimon has quit IRC
563 2016-01-12T23:25:27  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
564 2016-01-12T23:25:27  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
565 2016-01-12T23:59:15  *** Thireus has quit IRC