1 2016-02-05T00:04:21  *** dcousens has quit IRC
  2 2016-02-05T00:21:50  *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
  3 2016-02-05T00:25:17  *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2016-02-05T00:26:55  *** arubi has quit IRC
  5 2016-02-05T00:43:56  *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
  6 2016-02-05T00:44:03  *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  7 2016-02-05T00:56:06  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2016-02-05T01:00:32  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
  9 2016-02-05T01:08:28  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 10 2016-02-05T01:09:11  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2016-02-05T01:30:29  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 12 2016-02-05T01:43:20  <cfields> michagogo: hmm?
 13 2016-02-05T01:49:47  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2016-02-05T01:50:13  <cfields> gitian builders: sigs for rc3 have been pushed
 15 2016-02-05T01:51:44  <cfields> a few extra +1s from Windows testers would be great. rc3 switches us to a new cert using sha2, in order to comply with Microsoft's new rules this year
 16 2016-02-05T01:52:09  *** belcher has quit IRC
 17 2016-02-05T01:58:24  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 18 2016-02-05T01:59:49  <gijensen> I upgraded from 0.12RC2 to 0.12RC3, now bitcoind crashes seemingly at random during a reindex. Here's the crash error and debug.log tail: https://pastee.org/th29d any ideas?
 19 2016-02-05T02:00:36  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 20 2016-02-05T02:12:00  <gijensen> I'll just open an issue
 21 2016-02-05T02:20:00  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2016-02-05T02:23:11  * zooko looks at https://pastee.org/th29d
 23 2016-02-05T02:23:12  <zooko> gross.
 24 2016-02-05T02:24:28  *** p15 has quit IRC
 25 2016-02-05T02:24:49  *** bityogi has quit IRC
 26 2016-02-05T02:25:53  *** bityogi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2016-02-05T02:32:33  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 28 2016-02-05T03:03:48  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 29 2016-02-05T03:11:28  <wumpus> despite it probably being a false positive, the lock usage in the network code is pretty gross in places, cfields how's the net rework going? :)
 30 2016-02-05T03:11:55  <cfields> heh
 31 2016-02-05T03:12:12  <cfields> wumpus: i've been distracted by segwit for a few weeks, but i got back to cleaning it up yesterday
 32 2016-02-05T03:13:36  <wumpus> cfields: ok, good to hear
 33 2016-02-05T03:23:15  <wumpus> I have trouble parsing *which* locks are conflicting from that log message though. It's supposed to detect A->B  B->A lock conflicts, but it looks like, except cs_main the two sequences have nothing in common?
 34 2016-02-05T03:23:54  *** bityogi has quit IRC
 35 2016-02-05T03:29:31  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2016-02-05T03:32:26  <PRab> cfields: With the new windows cert, the email address is unknown.
 37 2016-02-05T03:32:51  <PRab> The old one was hello@bitcoinfoundation.org
 38 2016-02-05T03:33:13  <PRab> I don't think its a problem, just different.
 39 2016-02-05T03:34:11  <wumpus> doesn't seem like an issue, unless it prevents it from validating
 40 2016-02-05T03:34:49  <PRab> Also, if the point of going to a new cert was to use sha2, I'm not sure if it worked. When I bring up the cert, I still see "COMODO SHA-1 Time Stamping Signer" as the Countersignature.
 41 2016-02-05T03:36:36  <PRab> For good news, rc3 just passed my super simple smoke test. (It installed and launched without issue)
 42 2016-02-05T03:37:06  <wumpus> ouch! But seems that's the name of the signer, maybe COMODO didn't change that. Is there a direct way to check the algorithm?
 43 2016-02-05T03:37:19  <cfields> PRab: the rules are... complicated.
 44 2016-02-05T03:37:20  <PRab> checking...
 45 2016-02-05T03:38:06  <cfields> our new cert is sha256. From what i gather, for compat, best bet is still using an actual sha1 digest for the payload, and sha1 for the timestamp
 46 2016-02-05T03:38:49  <PRab> gotcha. I'm just poking around the various View Certificate pages and see a pretty good mix of sha2 and sha1.
 47 2016-02-05T03:39:19  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2016-02-05T03:39:37  <wumpus> so it uses sha256 only for the value to sign. Doesn't seem much safer if the cert still contains sha1 hashes, but okay, if it makes microsoft happy
 49 2016-02-05T03:40:12  <cfields> PRab: yes. for the most part, sha1 is still fine "until pre-image attacks are possible". It's the cert's algo that matters.
 50 2016-02-05T03:40:26  <PRab> For example, on the cert the "Signature hash algorithm" is sha256, but "Thumbprint algorithm" is sha1.
 51 2016-02-05T03:40:29  <cfields> wumpus: heh, you'd think. the actual signed value can still be md5 even
 52 2016-02-05T03:40:38  <wumpus> (may be easier to generate a collision on the cert than on the payload or timestamp)
 53 2016-02-05T03:40:42  <wumpus> right
 54 2016-02-05T03:40:56  <PRab> Gotcha. Well from my point of view, it installed without any warning on Win 7 64bit.
 55 2016-02-05T03:41:44  <cfields> wumpus: i assumed the idea was that if collisions became possible, you can always re-sign yourself. But if your cert is vulnerable, you're screwed.
 56 2016-02-05T03:42:49  <cfields> *re-sign with a stronger hash
 57 2016-02-05T03:47:16  <wumpus> but, seems to me, the idea of win7 forcing the hash algo change is to preempt abuse by stopping to use an algorithm that may be compromised in the near future. If you need to resign you're probably too late, someone could have published corrupted executables with your name on it
 58 2016-02-05T03:49:07  <wumpus> anyhow, the canonical way of checking if bitcoin core executables are untampered with is by checking the GPG signature (which uses sha256), or checking the sha256 hash against the gitian signatures. The windows signing is pretty much because windows requires it.
 59 2016-02-05T03:49:32  <wumpus> GPG signature on SHA256SUMS.asc, that is
 60 2016-02-05T03:51:36  <cfields> wumpus: i think a ton of the complication comes from the fact that there's an ugly overlap in what some OS versions requre vs. what they permit
 61 2016-02-05T03:51:57  <cfields> ie i think winxp and maybe even win7 will flag if you use sha256 across the board
 62 2016-02-05T03:52:54  <cfields> eventually i just settled with what _seemed_ to be the most compatible based on what i can find, since as you said, we only do it because it's required
 63 2016-02-05T03:53:23  <cfields> but by all means if there's a better combination we could be using, we should do so
 64 2016-02-05T03:54:52  <PRab> Honestly, the level of build reproducibility and verification that bitcoin core has is so far ahead of pretty much anything else that I don't worry about it too much.
 65 2016-02-05T03:55:26  <wumpus> it's not completely theoretical, e.g. the Flame malware used a collided MD5 signature to pose as certified windows kernel driver. But compatibility is most important here, I agree.
 66 2016-02-05T03:55:47  <PRab> I'm more worried that somebody could create a signature hash collision on a windows update and mitm a windows machine.
 67 2016-02-05T03:58:24  <wumpus> (or did it use that to hijack windows update? I think that happened too, though I don't remember precisely. Anyhow, SHA1 isn't by far as broken yet as MD5)
 68 2016-02-05T03:59:02  <cfields> wumpus: either way, I'll pr a change that adds a script for signing, same as how OSX is done. That way the paramaters are in git and not something the signer can tweak arbitrarily
 69 2016-02-05T03:59:39  <wumpus> makes sense
 70 2016-02-05T04:12:26  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 71 2016-02-05T04:20:11  <Luke-Jr> cfields: did you manage to get two? how difficult is the process?
 72 2016-02-05T04:44:36  *** brg444 has quit IRC
 73 2016-02-05T04:47:42  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
 74 2016-02-05T04:52:05  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2016-02-05T05:17:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 76 2016-02-05T05:18:06  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2016-02-05T05:25:51  *** adnn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2016-02-05T05:28:22  *** adnn__ has quit IRC
 79 2016-02-05T05:58:34  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 80 2016-02-05T06:26:27  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 81 2016-02-05T06:52:23  *** arowser has quit IRC
 82 2016-02-05T06:59:57  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 83 2016-02-05T07:07:09  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2016-02-05T07:10:23  *** arowser has quit IRC
 85 2016-02-05T07:10:45  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2016-02-05T07:11:07  *** pmienk has quit IRC
 87 2016-02-05T07:19:11  *** pmienk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2016-02-05T07:38:30  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 89 2016-02-05T07:41:23  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 90 2016-02-05T07:45:06  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 91 2016-02-05T07:46:11  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2016-02-05T07:53:48  *** Tasoshi has quit IRC
 93 2016-02-05T07:54:16  *** Tasoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2016-02-05T08:28:58  *** adam3us has quit IRC
 95 2016-02-05T08:39:01  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2016-02-05T08:44:49  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 97 2016-02-05T08:51:47  *** arowser has quit IRC
 98 2016-02-05T08:52:09  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2016-02-05T08:53:56  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
100 2016-02-05T09:05:44  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
101 2016-02-05T09:13:43  <michagogo> cfields: one of them does 64-bit and then 32, the other is the opposite. That's mildly annoying when you're trying to gauge progress from tailing the log.
102 2016-02-05T09:16:02  <michagogo> 5:51:57 <cfields> ie i think winxp and maybe even win7 will flag if you use sha256 across the board <-- Um, do we actually still support XP?
103 2016-02-05T09:17:21  <wumpus> we should add the "system requirement for buildling" back in the build-unix.md, it's gone a few days and we have someone complaining you can't compile with 512MB of memory https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7471
104 2016-02-05T09:17:40  <wumpus> the corrent wording suggest that tweaking gcc will make it possible to compile with any amount of memory
105 2016-02-05T09:18:22  <wumpus> michagogo: we've never officially dropped support for winxp, so I suppose so. I wouldn't recommend using it but as long as it is easy to support too, why not. 70% of PCs on the world probably still runs it :p
106 2016-02-05T09:19:45  <wumpus> (while those tweaks are already needed to compile *with 1GB* of memory)
107 2016-02-05T09:20:37  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
108 2016-02-05T09:26:55  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2016-02-05T09:27:41  <Luke-Jr> wumpus: Microsoft doesn't support XP AFAIK?
110 2016-02-05T09:28:03  <Luke-Jr> in an ideal world, unmaintained systems would be banned from the internet :P
111 2016-02-05T09:36:18  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
112 2016-02-05T09:38:27  <wumpus> the BOFH in me tends to agree, but realizing that'd probably mean banning all poor countries from the internet I'm not sure that's an ideal world :P
113 2016-02-05T09:38:51  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2016-02-05T09:41:28  <wumpus> and although Microsoft did offer a free upgrade to windows 10, that doesn't apply to XP
115 2016-02-05T09:49:05  <GitHub8> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #7472: rpc: Add WWW-Authenticate header to 401 response (master...2016_02_www_authenticate) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7472
116 2016-02-05T09:54:51  <wumpus> ... also barring hardware which wouldn't have drivers for W10 anyway so the upgrade would be bricking
117 2016-02-05T09:55:24  <wumpus> in an ideal world, they would just use some free OS
118 2016-02-05T09:56:13  <Luke-Jr> :P
119 2016-02-05T10:00:06  <GitHub69> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/152a8216cc7b...e7eeb945cd2d
120 2016-02-05T10:00:07  <GitHub69> bitcoin/master 0830552 Matt: Fix spelling: misbeha{b,v}ing
121 2016-02-05T10:00:07  <GitHub69> bitcoin/master e7eeb94 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7469: net.h fix spelling: misbeha{b,v}ing...
122 2016-02-05T10:00:15  <GitHub59> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7469: net.h fix spelling: misbeha{b,v}ing (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7469
123 2016-02-05T10:18:12  <GitHub71> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e7eeb945cd2d...cf63d5c710ed
124 2016-02-05T10:18:12  <GitHub71> bitcoin/master 7689041 mrbandrews: [rpc-tests] Change solve() to use rehash
125 2016-02-05T10:18:13  <GitHub71> bitcoin/master cf63d5c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7468: [rpc-tests] Change solve() to use rehash...
126 2016-02-05T10:18:22  <GitHub176> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7468: [rpc-tests] Change solve() to use rehash (master...ba-fix-rehash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7468
127 2016-02-05T10:20:01  <GitHub53> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cf63d5c710ed...e7ea5db0c190
128 2016-02-05T10:20:02  <GitHub53> bitcoin/master f3757a0 Jorge Timón: Consensus: Decouple pow.cpp from util.h
129 2016-02-05T10:20:02  <GitHub53> bitcoin/master e7ea5db Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7459: Consensus: Decouple pow.o from util.o...
130 2016-02-05T10:20:11  <GitHub169> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7459: Consensus: Decouple pow.o from util.o (master...consensus-pow-from-util-0.12.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7459
131 2016-02-05T10:21:58  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
132 2016-02-05T10:30:56  *** BashCo has quit IRC
133 2016-02-05T10:34:40  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2016-02-05T11:00:45  *** afk11 has quit IRC
135 2016-02-05T11:09:54  *** grubles1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2016-02-05T11:11:27  *** gribble has quit IRC
137 2016-02-05T11:11:36  *** grubles has quit IRC
138 2016-02-05T11:11:36  *** bad_duck has quit IRC
139 2016-02-05T11:12:12  *** arubi has quit IRC
140 2016-02-05T11:12:12  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
141 2016-02-05T11:12:12  *** zxzzt has quit IRC
142 2016-02-05T11:12:13  *** nOgAnOo has quit IRC
143 2016-02-05T11:12:17  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2016-02-05T11:13:41  *** zxzzt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
145 2016-02-05T11:15:47  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2016-02-05T11:16:53  *** bad_duck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2016-02-05T11:19:47  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2016-02-05T11:30:45  *** adnn_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2016-02-05T11:30:51  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2016-02-05T11:32:10  *** adnn has quit IRC
151 2016-02-05T11:35:25  *** adnn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152 2016-02-05T11:35:46  *** adnn_ has quit IRC
153 2016-02-05T11:46:30  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
154 2016-02-05T11:55:37  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
155 2016-02-05T12:18:26  *** arubi has quit IRC
156 2016-02-05T12:18:57  *** fuirbob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
157 2016-02-05T12:21:49  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2016-02-05T13:29:56  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2016-02-05T13:35:57  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
160 2016-02-05T13:38:26  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2016-02-05T13:58:46  *** p15 has quit IRC
162 2016-02-05T14:07:34  <GitHub16> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.12: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/996c27d1d916d41ed06fa31af9c25b8ae0be139a
163 2016-02-05T14:07:35  <GitHub16> bitcoin/0.12 996c27d Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: add PR authors to release notes...
164 2016-02-05T14:14:47  *** adnn has quit IRC
165 2016-02-05T14:26:48  *** zooko has quit IRC
166 2016-02-05T14:35:51  *** fuirbob has quit IRC
167 2016-02-05T14:38:38  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
168 2016-02-05T14:44:07  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
169 2016-02-05T14:57:46  *** arubi has quit IRC
170 2016-02-05T15:21:40  *** Rebroad has quit IRC
171 2016-02-05T15:22:11  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2016-02-05T15:22:12  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
173 2016-02-05T15:22:12  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
174 2016-02-05T15:24:16  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
175 2016-02-05T15:38:48  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2016-02-05T15:47:22  *** loltastic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
177 2016-02-05T15:51:40  *** loltastic has quit IRC
178 2016-02-05T15:53:30  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
179 2016-02-05T15:58:51  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2016-02-05T16:03:53  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
181 2016-02-05T16:05:05  *** zibbo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182 2016-02-05T16:05:13  *** instagibbs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
183 2016-02-05T16:07:31  *** sotisoti_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
184 2016-02-05T16:07:54  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
185 2016-02-05T16:08:11  *** Eliel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2016-02-05T16:10:26  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
187 2016-02-05T16:14:31  *** BashCo has quit IRC
188 2016-02-05T16:14:31  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
189 2016-02-05T16:14:31  *** Eliel_ has quit IRC
190 2016-02-05T16:14:31  *** sotisoti has quit IRC
191 2016-02-05T16:14:31  *** zibbo has quit IRC
192 2016-02-05T16:15:22  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2016-02-05T16:17:26  *** instagibbs_ is now known as instagibbs
194 2016-02-05T16:24:16  *** grubles1 is now known as grubles
195 2016-02-05T16:24:33  *** grubles has quit IRC
196 2016-02-05T16:24:34  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
197 2016-02-05T16:59:30  <cfields> michagogo: ah
198 2016-02-05T16:59:55  <cfields> michagogo: switching them around would be reasonable then, sure
199 2016-02-05T17:00:49  <cfields> Luke-Jr: no, sorry. Didn't apply for new certs this time around, to avoid complications. Just replaced our old one with a new one without updating any info, in order to avoid the verification process
200 2016-02-05T17:09:08  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
201 2016-02-05T17:13:26  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
202 2016-02-05T17:20:12  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
203 2016-02-05T17:44:37  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2016-02-05T17:53:10  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
205 2016-02-05T17:54:50  *** Omega-Xi has quit IRC
206 2016-02-05T17:55:35  *** arubi has quit IRC
207 2016-02-05T17:58:11  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2016-02-05T18:01:32  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
209 2016-02-05T18:06:32  *** davec has quit IRC
210 2016-02-05T18:12:23  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2016-02-05T18:12:51  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212 2016-02-05T18:15:19  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
213 2016-02-05T18:30:24  <Luke-Jr> cfields: oh, so it'll be BCF cert still? O.o
214 2016-02-05T18:32:11  <cfields> Luke-Jr: yes. Otherwise, I was afraid it would trigger a verification of "Bitcoin Core", which of course doesn't exist as a corporate entity. That could've made the process drag on for a while, so I took the easy route this time and just fixed the sha256 issue, leaving all else the same
215 2016-02-05T18:33:56  <Luke-Jr> i c
216 2016-02-05T19:12:17  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
217 2016-02-05T19:26:13  <morcos> gmaxwell: can i pick your brain about a couple of things?  i'm trying to think of some longer term projects to work on and had some questions
218 2016-02-05T19:27:03  <morcos> #1 It appears 300M for a mempool is much more ample than I was guessing.  I think its quite unlikely we'd need a disk based mempool anytime soon.  It appears to be quite rare that we have more than few M's backed up with any fee
219 2016-02-05T19:27:23  <morcos> And the rest of the mempool is just shoved full of 1 sat/kB txs
220 2016-02-05T19:28:03  <morcos> Along those lines, I wonder if there is any cost to all these 1 sat/B  (sorry B, not kB)  txs bouncing around
221 2016-02-05T19:28:47  <morcos> we had made the calculation that the slow decay of rolling min rate combined with the limit on free relay would be enough to keep these low
222 2016-02-05T19:29:20  <morcos> but i'm not sure we fully though through all the system effects, espeically the fact that some communication happens trying to inv and send these same txs over and over
223 2016-02-05T19:29:48  <morcos> Is there anybody working on measuring all of this bandwidth utilaztion to know whether its worth worrying about?
224 2016-02-05T19:30:05  <gmaxwell> INV traffic on a node is already most of the bandwidth.
225 2016-02-05T19:30:08  <morcos> What do we think about adding ban points of some kind for bad P2P behavior?
226 2016-02-05T19:30:16  <gmaxwell> (at least when it has a full compliment of peers)
227 2016-02-05T19:30:23  <morcos> IS there any reason we don't send the fee rate with the inv for txs
228 2016-02-05T19:30:26  <morcos> ?
229 2016-02-05T19:30:30  <gmaxwell> we do have the reject filter so that we'll not waste time rerequesting things.
230 2016-02-05T19:30:41  <morcos> The reject filter gets reset after a block though right?
231 2016-02-05T19:31:26  <gmaxwell> Just not in the protocol though it would be a good idea... or even better: being able to tell out peers not to even bother INVing transactions below some threshold towards us (because we'll not fetch them)
232 2016-02-05T19:32:49  <gmaxwell> since INVs are already so much of the bandwidth it's more important to suppress them than to suppress sending the transaction.
233 2016-02-05T19:33:05  <morcos> Also I was thinking about this idea of extending fee estimation for longer time horizons, but its not clear to me if the idea that there is usage that doesn't care about immediate confirmation is theoretical or actually exists
234 2016-02-05T19:33:19  <gmaxwell> (the reason for this is that the inv is 38 bytes, but you send or recieve it from _every_ peer, while the transaction is transfered less)
235 2016-02-05T19:33:33  <morcos> Yes, I think it could be reasonable to send a min threshold which expires after some time, and you coudl update it more frequently than that timeout
236 2016-02-05T19:34:33  <morcos> You could even assume that each of your peers minimums decays
237 2016-02-05T19:35:02  <gmaxwell> There are absolute use cases for non-immediate confirmation; but the UI and human factors (people worrying that it'll never go through) probably diminish them a lot.
238 2016-02-05T19:35:13  <morcos> This of course all ties into free/priority txs.  I.e. Are we ok getting rid of FREE txs regardless of making a decision about priority.
239 2016-02-05T19:36:09  <gmaxwell> that question is probably 80% of why a fee filter wasn't done two years ago. Of course one could also say "send me things with priority over X" ... but then thats more functionality to specify.
240 2016-02-05T19:36:13  <gmaxwell> and implement.
241 2016-02-05T19:36:55  <gmaxwell> BBIAB.
242 2016-02-05T19:37:29  *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
243 2016-02-05T19:44:35  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
244 2016-02-05T19:56:27  * gmaxwell back
245 2016-02-05T19:57:06  *** zooko has quit IRC
246 2016-02-05T20:01:34  <morcos> gmaxwell: i think the simple version of just sending a feefilter threshold every X minutes and having it expire after Y minutes would work pretty well
247 2016-02-05T20:01:44  <morcos> and wouldn't really change the free tx use case
248 2016-02-05T20:02:01  <morcos> that is once your mempool is no longer limited and you're accepting free txs you'd just send a 0
249 2016-02-05T20:02:37  <morcos> free rate limiting i suppose still might trigger excess invs...
250 2016-02-05T20:02:53  <phantomcircuit> morcos, or you set the fee filter to match the mempool minimum fee amount
251 2016-02-05T20:03:03  <morcos> phantomcircuit: yes thats what i meant
252 2016-02-05T20:03:20  <phantomcircuit> that would actually significantly reduce bandwidth
253 2016-02-05T20:05:09  <gmaxwell> morcos: is there any reason for it to expire?
254 2016-02-05T20:05:20  <gmaxwell> (if you want it gone you can just send a filter of 0)
255 2016-02-05T20:05:34  <morcos> gmaxwell: well the way mempool limiting works is your effective min decays
256 2016-02-05T20:06:10  <morcos> so for instance imagine the case where there is a temporary huge fee boost and everyones mempool b/c limited to some relatively significant fee
257 2016-02-05T20:06:19  <morcos> your own acceptance decays
258 2016-02-05T20:06:27  <morcos> accentance threshold that is
259 2016-02-05T20:06:41  <morcos> so you'd want your peers to decay your filter for you or just periodically update them
260 2016-02-05T20:06:50  <gmaxwell> right, so after a block that cleared things back, you'd end up sending a new value. ... but sending a filter update message once per block isn't a ton of overhead.
261 2016-02-05T20:07:05  <gmaxwell> The amount of decay is highly dependant on local state and policy.
262 2016-02-05T20:07:24  <morcos> yeah i was thinking like phantomcircuit said you just watch your own threshold, and when it has deviated signficantly then you send an update
263 2016-02-05T20:07:43  <morcos> but yeah maybe the expiry isn't needed
264 2016-02-05T20:08:03  <morcos> just seemed safer
265 2016-02-05T20:09:39  <gmaxwell> My intuition about the expiration is that it's another periodic counter to manage, and you have some racing around the expiration. (meaning that e.g. banning peers that send you things you don't want might be less sane)
266 2016-02-05T20:09:52  <gmaxwell> One question I have:  feerate or ancestor feerate?
267 2016-02-05T20:10:19  <morcos> it has to be the same as what governs admittance to your mempool
268 2016-02-05T20:10:20  <gmaxwell> I guess without a way to relay a group as a group that question isn't so useful.
269 2016-02-05T20:10:28  <morcos> which is feerate
270 2016-02-05T20:10:46  <morcos> if that changes then yeah we'd need a way to change
271 2016-02-05T20:11:35  <gmaxwell> well perhaps the way we'd change that is with a package relay. And then it's just something that offers a package, and the filter just applies to the feerate of the package.
272 2016-02-05T20:11:44  <morcos> right, i think that would work
273 2016-02-05T20:13:44  <Tasoshi> Sorry to interupt, but I suppose I must ask if I may. Our community is so terribly divided gmaxwell, is there a way to return to the cheerful days?
274 2016-02-05T20:14:54  <morcos> sending packages gets dangerous though, b/c of the asymmetry between ancestor and descendant branching.  but thats a problem for the future.  need CPFP mining first.
275 2016-02-05T20:15:08  <Tasoshi> The unthinkable is happening with r/bitcoin being censored/banned, that affects all for it breaches all principles
276 2016-02-05T20:15:26  <Tasoshi> hard forks are being considered
277 2016-02-05T20:15:37  <Tasoshi> these are difficult times for bitcoin
278 2016-02-05T20:15:46  <morcos> Tasoshi: Thats a good coverstion, but sometimes we need to step away from it for our sanity.  This channel is not the place.  This is where we try to get work done.
279 2016-02-05T20:15:51  <Tasoshi> it shouldnt be so
280 2016-02-05T20:16:22  <Tasoshi> morcos gmaxwell is not accesible anywhere as far as I am aware
281 2016-02-05T20:16:39  <Tasoshi> I understand of course it is difficult for him too
282 2016-02-05T20:16:49  <morcos> Not on this channel please
283 2016-02-05T20:16:58  <Tasoshi> but I thought to ask, if I may
284 2016-02-05T20:17:15  <Tasoshi> are we to burn the world?
285 2016-02-05T20:19:50  <Tasoshi> how can bitcoin operate when r/bitcoin is banned and censored, on what basis would anyone find this community welcoming at all
286 2016-02-05T20:19:59  <Tasoshi> I know you want to focus on the code
287 2016-02-05T20:22:41  *** gmaxwell has left #bitcoin-core-dev
288 2016-02-05T20:22:54  <Tasoshi> there you are...
289 2016-02-05T20:23:21  *** adnn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
290 2016-02-05T20:26:41  *** adnn_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
291 2016-02-05T20:27:45  *** adnn has quit IRC
292 2016-02-05T20:35:56  *** Tasoshi has left #bitcoin-core-dev
293 2016-02-05T20:51:11  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
294 2016-02-05T20:54:12  *** adnn_ has quit IRC
295 2016-02-05T21:04:22  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
296 2016-02-05T21:11:36  *** adnn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
297 2016-02-05T21:12:41  *** adnn has quit IRC
298 2016-02-05T21:13:44  *** Nuief has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
299 2016-02-05T21:15:45  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
300 2016-02-05T21:44:54  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2016-02-05T21:51:54  *** Thireus has quit IRC
302 2016-02-05T21:57:17  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
303 2016-02-05T22:02:06  *** zooko has quit IRC
304 2016-02-05T22:06:32  *** raedah has quit IRC
305 2016-02-05T22:15:06  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
306 2016-02-05T22:16:07  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
307 2016-02-05T22:16:36  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
308 2016-02-05T22:16:50  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
309 2016-02-05T22:17:30  *** treehug88 has quit IRC
310 2016-02-05T22:18:25  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
311 2016-02-05T22:23:29  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
312 2016-02-05T22:30:12  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
313 2016-02-05T22:37:35  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
314 2016-02-05T23:03:34  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
315 2016-02-05T23:17:31  <Luke-Jr> morcos: CPFP mining has been live on the network since 2012 (or 2011)
316 2016-02-05T23:37:35  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev