1 2016-02-24T00:00:21  *** haakonn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  2 2016-02-24T00:00:28  *** skyraider_ has quit IRC
  3 2016-02-24T00:59:07  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2016-02-24T01:01:13  *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
  5 2016-02-24T01:01:13  *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  6 2016-02-24T01:05:29  *** jamesob has quit IRC
  7 2016-02-24T01:28:27  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  8 2016-02-24T01:33:41  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2016-02-24T01:38:25  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
 10 2016-02-24T01:40:27  *** libertalis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2016-02-24T02:03:20  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 12 2016-02-24T02:03:55  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 13 2016-02-24T02:05:12  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2016-02-24T02:10:48  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 15 2016-02-24T02:11:27  *** belcher has quit IRC
 16 2016-02-24T02:17:17  *** Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 17 2016-02-24T02:21:39  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: oops, i meant its parent - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9ef7c5 is unsigned
 18 2016-02-24T02:21:42  <BlueMatt> (on the 0.12 branch)
 19 2016-02-24T02:22:22  <BlueMatt> ugh, wumpus you fucked up 44fef99e too
 20 2016-02-24T02:22:38  <BlueMatt> so the 0.12 branch doesnt validate because both of y'all have unsigned non-merge-commit rebased backports
 21 2016-02-24T02:29:08  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
 22 2016-02-24T02:29:19  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 23 2016-02-24T02:29:42  *** Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2016-02-24T02:30:00  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 25 2016-02-24T02:36:43  *** jamesob has quit IRC
 26 2016-02-24T02:45:45  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2016-02-24T02:45:48  <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, to be clear you're talking about the deterministic builds, not about consensus code
 28 2016-02-24T02:45:52  <phantomcircuit> (this confused someone)
 29 2016-02-24T02:46:02  <BlueMatt> huh?
 30 2016-02-24T02:46:04  <BlueMatt> no?
 31 2016-02-24T02:46:11  <BlueMatt> I'm talking about commit signing
 32 2016-02-24T02:46:33  <gmaxwell> *facepalm* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1375183.0
 33 2016-02-24T02:46:43  <BlueMatt> we sign git merges, and all is good on master, but we have two commits in the 0.12 branch that are unsigned
 34 2016-02-24T02:46:51  <BlueMatt> (they are just copies of signed commits, but are themselves unsigned)
 35 2016-02-24T02:47:16  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wut
 36 2016-02-24T02:49:02  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
 37 2016-02-24T02:49:39  *** Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2016-02-24T02:52:36  <BlueMatt> if whoever was confused by the original comments is concerned, its a very minor policy violation...something we never really clarified as policy anyway
 39 2016-02-24T02:54:16  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
 40 2016-02-24T02:59:22  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2016-02-24T03:00:08  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 42 2016-02-24T03:01:00  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2016-02-24T03:06:27  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
 44 2016-02-24T03:07:31  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2016-02-24T03:08:01  *** Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 46 2016-02-24T03:25:58  *** p15 has quit IRC
 47 2016-02-24T03:35:12  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2016-02-24T03:39:58  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
 49 2016-02-24T03:48:09  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 50 2016-02-24T03:55:15  *** brg444 has quit IRC
 51 2016-02-24T03:56:53  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 52 2016-02-24T04:25:23  *** zooko has quit IRC
 53 2016-02-24T04:31:08  *** AaronvanW_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2016-02-24T04:31:42  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 55 2016-02-24T04:32:37  *** Tasoshi has quit IRC
 56 2016-02-24T05:00:05  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 57 2016-02-24T05:00:40  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 58 2016-02-24T05:36:40  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 59 2016-02-24T05:46:59  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
 60 2016-02-24T06:13:15  *** Don_John has quit IRC
 61 2016-02-24T06:30:42  <GitHub78> [bitcoin] AliceWonderMiscreations opened pull request #7585: Update rpcconsole.cpp (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7585
 62 2016-02-24T06:42:57  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 63 2016-02-24T06:43:06  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2016-02-24T06:43:58  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 65 2016-02-24T06:53:49  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: I guess many non-merge commits are unsigned? But right, this was during a time where I only signed merge commits and not my own PR commits.
 66 2016-02-24T06:54:26  <jonasschnelli> As example: 44fef99e666e85caa7616765412d7becf97ab673 and fab83476acf4a1eaeb5d6c3fe6195b9ff80b193c are also unsigned (aprox same timeregion)
 67 2016-02-24T07:00:00  *** mesmer has quit IRC
 68 2016-02-24T07:10:34  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 69 2016-02-24T07:18:07  *** PRab has quit IRC
 70 2016-02-24T07:25:27  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 71 2016-02-24T07:31:27  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: the two i listed above /are/ merge commits
 72 2016-02-24T07:31:36  <BlueMatt> well, are commits which were merged without a merge commits
 73 2016-02-24T07:31:44  <BlueMatt> aside from those two, all other commits on the 0.12 branch are signed
 74 2016-02-24T07:34:16  *** PRab has quit IRC
 75 2016-02-24T07:38:15  <btcdrak> all other _merge_ commits you mean.
 76 2016-02-24T07:39:46  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2016-02-24T07:44:08  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2016-02-24T07:48:37  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 79 2016-02-24T07:48:57  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
 80 2016-02-24T07:49:52  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9ef7c5 (unsigned) was merged by wumpus in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7153
 81 2016-02-24T07:50:29  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
 82 2016-02-24T07:50:46  <BlueMatt> btcdrak: yes, all other merge commits
 83 2016-02-24T07:50:55  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: dunno, go test contrib/verify-commits
 84 2016-02-24T07:51:28  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: i tried to run,... but got not output.
 85 2016-02-24T07:51:34  <jonasschnelli> no output
 86 2016-02-24T07:51:39  <jonasschnelli> hmm...
 87 2016-02-24T07:51:40  <BlueMatt> huh?
 88 2016-02-24T07:51:47  <BlueMatt> how is that possible?
 89 2016-02-24T07:52:14  <jonasschnelli> Wait.. now i get some commits listed...
 90 2016-02-24T07:52:20  <jonasschnelli> are these all unsigned commits?
 91 2016-02-24T07:55:52  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2016-02-24T07:57:04  *** PRab has quit IRC
 93 2016-02-24T07:58:34  *** AtashiCon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2016-02-24T07:59:06  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: thats what i get when executing verify-commits.sh (http://pastebin.com/raw/fz8rTCf6)
 95 2016-02-24T07:59:16  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
 96 2016-02-24T08:00:06  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2016-02-24T08:02:02  *** AtashiCon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2016-02-24T08:09:33  <baldur> the debug log is throwing some errors for me? 2016-02-07 08:49:50 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: rejecting replacement 070e4b88f6b188a37f862c9a7c9a1aff7285fcaefe329b8f55522106fd0bc0de; new feerate 0.00040349 BTC/kB <= old feerate 0.00046111 BTC/kB
 99 2016-02-24T08:10:10  <btcdrak> replacements must have a higher fee
100 2016-02-24T08:11:55  <baldur> 2016-02-19 00:19:28 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPoolWorker: CheckInputs: 945624be07514b307d27a37df67d4c7e2e67c9f76bdce64532cdcca8c74248d3, non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Non-canonical signature: S value is unnecessarily high) (code 64)
101 2016-02-24T08:12:48  <btcdrak> baldur: this is correct. but you should ask these questions in #bitcoin
102 2016-02-24T08:13:08  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2016-02-24T08:13:17  <baldur> sorry, sure will do, just relatively new to see so many error messages in the debug log
104 2016-02-24T08:14:00  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: everything before "No parent of 82bcf405f6db1d55b684a1f63a4aabad376cdad7 was signed with a trusted key!" is just informational - it lists every change to contrib/verify-commits first
105 2016-02-24T08:14:03  <btcdrak> I wonder if these should not be prefixed as "ERROR" rather "REJECTED"
106 2016-02-24T08:14:19  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: after that, it tells you that 82bcf405f6db1d55b684a1f63a4aabad376cdad7 was properly signed, but neither of its parents were
107 2016-02-24T08:15:45  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: do we still support qt4?
108 2016-02-24T08:16:15  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: yes. But we don't fix UI issues... kind of legacy support.
109 2016-02-24T08:16:27  <jonasschnelli> We strongly recommend Qt5.
110 2016-02-24T08:16:41  <jonasschnelli> Qt4 will probably be dropped soon
111 2016-02-24T08:16:56  <wumpus> "soon" as in a few major versions haha
112 2016-02-24T08:17:06  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: hmm...ubuntu doesnt like it
113 2016-02-24T08:17:14  <wumpus> but yes, qt4 is legacy, don't use it for new builds
114 2016-02-24T08:17:16  <BlueMatt> checking for QT... no
115 2016-02-24T08:17:16  <BlueMatt> checking for QT... no
116 2016-02-24T08:17:16  <BlueMatt> configure: WARNING: Qt dependencies not found; bitcoin-qt frontend will not be built
117 2016-02-24T08:17:22  <BlueMatt> except nothing wrt qt has changed
118 2016-02-24T08:18:09  <jonasschnelli> Hmm... it should detect qt4... did you try --with.gui=qt4
119 2016-02-24T08:18:24  <wumpus> but unlike the change from, say, Python2 to Python3, Qt4 to Qt5 wasn't controversial at all, so there is an EOL
120 2016-02-24T08:18:40  <BlueMatt> ugh, its remote build...pita to just test something
121 2016-02-24T08:18:42  <BlueMatt> wait 45 minutes...
122 2016-02-24T08:18:47  <jonasschnelli> :)
123 2016-02-24T08:19:13  <wumpus> but yes, qt4 detection seems to be broken, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7189
124 2016-02-24T08:19:32  <wumpus> not intentional, but you'll have to force it with --with-gui=qt4
125 2016-02-24T08:19:44  <BlueMatt> ok
126 2016-02-24T08:19:57  <wumpus> still not sure why, hope cfields will take a look at it some time :)
127 2016-02-24T08:20:21  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: after executing `verify-commits.sh`, I get the changes in contrib/verify-commits, and then (after pressing q) a list of commits. Do I need to provide a src directory when executing: verify-commits.sh?
128 2016-02-24T08:20:32  <jonasschnelli> verify-commits.sh only reports two commits in my case
129 2016-02-24T08:20:42  <jonasschnelli> 075faaebf2e534265ff8aca015eaf03a8a156f32 and 2f601d215da1683ae99ab9973219044c32fa2093
130 2016-02-24T08:21:16  <BlueMatt> huh?
131 2016-02-24T08:25:55  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
132 2016-02-24T08:28:10  *** jamesob has quit IRC
133 2016-02-24T08:45:45  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
134 2016-02-24T08:51:53  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
135 2016-02-24T08:53:38  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2016-02-24T08:59:15  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
137 2016-02-24T09:31:25  *** alpalp has quit IRC
138 2016-02-24T09:32:57  <GitHub53> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #7586: [Qt] fix for building against LibreSSL (master...2016/02/fix_openssl_libressl) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7586
139 2016-02-24T09:35:48  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2016-02-24T09:35:48  *** Thireus has quit IRC
141 2016-02-24T09:38:41  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2016-02-24T09:38:41  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2016-02-24T09:43:41  <GitHub125> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7585: Update rpcconsole.cpp (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7585
144 2016-02-24T10:19:29  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
145 2016-02-24T10:19:38  *** luke-jr_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2016-02-24T10:20:08  *** gevs has quit IRC
147 2016-02-24T10:21:22  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2016-02-24T10:21:22  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2016-02-24T10:21:45  <GitHub164> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7581: Corrections of 0.12 release notes (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7581
150 2016-02-24T10:34:00  <GitHub84> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a08c41dfc232...8b958ab15b8c
151 2016-02-24T10:34:01  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master 92bcca3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: rpc: Input-from-stdin mode for bitcoin-cli...
152 2016-02-24T10:34:02  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master f22f14c Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: mention bitcoin-cli -stdin in release notes
153 2016-02-24T10:34:02  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master 8b958ab Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7550: rpc: Input-from-stdin mode for bitcoin-cli...
154 2016-02-24T10:34:10  <GitHub28> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7550: rpc: Input-from-stdin mode for bitcoin-cli (master...2016_02_cli_stdin2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7550
155 2016-02-24T10:38:53  <GitHub51> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8b958ab15b8c...317462123f8e
156 2016-02-24T10:38:54  <GitHub51> bitcoin/master 6e4dfa1 Cédric Félizard: [doc] Fix typos
157 2016-02-24T10:38:54  <GitHub51> bitcoin/master 3174621 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7583: [doc] Fix typos...
158 2016-02-24T10:38:58  <GitHub65> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7583: [doc] Fix typos (master...fix-typo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7583
159 2016-02-24T10:45:08  <GitHub112> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7559: [build-aux] Correct AC_PACKAGE_NAME brackets in bitcoin m4 scripts (master...correct-m4-brackets) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7559
160 2016-02-24T10:56:42  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2016-02-24T11:01:01  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
162 2016-02-24T11:12:56  <GitHub199> [bitcoin] AliceWonderMiscreations opened pull request #7588: Sample RPM spec file for Bitcoin 0.12.0 (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7588
163 2016-02-24T11:25:06  *** luke-jr_ has quit IRC
164 2016-02-24T11:25:41  *** luke-jr_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2016-02-24T11:54:25  *** Thireus1 has quit IRC
166 2016-02-24T11:54:36  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2016-02-24T12:15:31  <GitHub162> [bitcoin] jonathancross opened pull request #7589: Improving wording related to required Boost library requirement (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7589
168 2016-02-24T12:45:04  *** evoskuil has quit IRC
169 2016-02-24T12:50:55  *** p15x has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2016-02-24T12:53:10  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
171 2016-02-24T12:58:01  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2016-02-24T12:58:46  *** laurentmt1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
173 2016-02-24T13:01:28  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
174 2016-02-24T13:01:28  *** laurentmt1 is now known as laurentmt
175 2016-02-24T13:07:39  *** Thireus has quit IRC
176 2016-02-24T13:14:27  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
177 2016-02-24T13:18:59  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
178 2016-02-24T13:35:07  *** p15 has quit IRC
179 2016-02-24T13:35:31  *** p15x has quit IRC
180 2016-02-24T13:36:56  *** evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
181 2016-02-24T13:50:50  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182 2016-02-24T13:59:46  *** luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
183 2016-02-24T13:59:59  *** luke-jr_ has quit IRC
184 2016-02-24T14:07:54  *** luke-jr__ has quit IRC
185 2016-02-24T14:08:29  *** luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2016-02-24T14:09:34  *** Noice has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
187 2016-02-24T14:12:28  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
188 2016-02-24T14:19:55  *** zooko has quit IRC
189 2016-02-24T14:25:29  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
190 2016-02-24T14:37:21  <GitHub160> [bitcoin] jonathancross opened pull request #7590: Improving wording related to Boost library requirements [updated] (master...patch-3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7590
191 2016-02-24T14:37:35  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192 2016-02-24T14:38:19  *** Thireus has quit IRC
193 2016-02-24T14:39:22  <GitHub23> [bitcoin] jonathancross closed pull request #7589: Improving wording related to Boost library requirements (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7589
194 2016-02-24T14:40:13  *** Eliel has quit IRC
195 2016-02-24T14:40:51  *** Eliel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
196 2016-02-24T14:46:01  *** Eliel has quit IRC
197 2016-02-24T14:46:54  *** Eliel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
198 2016-02-24T14:58:06  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
199 2016-02-24T15:00:16  <gmaxwell> hm nothing in listtransactions seems to show when a sent tx is abandoned.
200 2016-02-24T15:00:58  <gmaxwell> other than that trusted is false.
201 2016-02-24T15:01:10  <sipa> define abandoned?
202 2016-02-24T15:01:39  <gmaxwell> having been throbbed by the abandontransaction rpc.
203 2016-02-24T15:02:05  <sipa> ah.
204 2016-02-24T15:11:08  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
205 2016-02-24T15:15:52  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
206 2016-02-24T15:33:30  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
207 2016-02-24T15:35:45  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
208 2016-02-24T15:37:09  *** Thireus1 has quit IRC
209 2016-02-24T15:39:50  *** skyraider_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
210 2016-02-24T15:45:32  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2016-02-24T15:46:00  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212 2016-02-24T15:51:04  *** skyraider_ has quit IRC
213 2016-02-24T15:58:04  *** luke-jr__ has quit IRC
214 2016-02-24T16:00:19  *** luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
215 2016-02-24T16:05:39  *** neha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
216 2016-02-24T16:12:30  *** wangchun has quit IRC
217 2016-02-24T16:14:10  *** BashCo has quit IRC
218 2016-02-24T16:14:26  *** wangchun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
219 2016-02-24T16:17:17  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
220 2016-02-24T16:25:35  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
221 2016-02-24T16:25:35  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222 2016-02-24T16:34:32  *** Cory has quit IRC
223 2016-02-24T16:38:59  *** Guest36311 is now known as amiller
224 2016-02-24T16:39:03  *** amiller has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
225 2016-02-24T16:42:33  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
226 2016-02-24T16:43:33  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
227 2016-02-24T16:44:39  *** Thireus has quit IRC
228 2016-02-24T16:50:01  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
229 2016-02-24T16:55:54  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
230 2016-02-24T16:57:57  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2016-02-24T17:01:47  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
232 2016-02-24T17:02:42  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
233 2016-02-24T17:05:46  *** luke-jr__ is now known as Luke-Jr
234 2016-02-24T17:09:25  *** Thireus has quit IRC
235 2016-02-24T17:12:34  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2016-02-24T17:14:06  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
237 2016-02-24T17:15:24  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2016-02-24T17:16:07  *** Thireus has quit IRC
239 2016-02-24T17:17:16  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
240 2016-02-24T17:17:55  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
241 2016-02-24T17:20:49  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
242 2016-02-24T17:22:15  *** Thireus2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
243 2016-02-24T17:22:48  *** Thireus1 has quit IRC
244 2016-02-24T17:25:42  *** Thireus has quit IRC
245 2016-02-24T17:27:56  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
246 2016-02-24T17:28:18  *** Thireus2 has quit IRC
247 2016-02-24T17:56:05  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
248 2016-02-24T17:56:45  <morcos> gmaxwell: that was all left for later improvements because it was a battle to get abandontransaction included at the last second anyway!
249 2016-02-24T17:59:47  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
250 2016-02-24T17:59:49  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
251 2016-02-24T18:02:27  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
252 2016-02-24T18:02:45  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
253 2016-02-24T18:14:10  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
254 2016-02-24T18:18:55  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
255 2016-02-24T18:21:57  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
256 2016-02-24T18:21:59  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
257 2016-02-24T18:25:04  *** dermoth has quit IRC
258 2016-02-24T18:26:37  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
259 2016-02-24T18:29:59  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
260 2016-02-24T18:31:08  *** AaronvanW_ has quit IRC
261 2016-02-24T18:32:35  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
262 2016-02-24T18:36:43  *** fkhan has quit IRC
263 2016-02-24T18:37:19  <GitHub99> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #7592: mempool: Reduce ERROR logging for mempool rejects (master...2016_02_mempool_error_spam) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7592
264 2016-02-24T18:41:07  *** zooko` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
265 2016-02-24T18:41:56  *** zooko has quit IRC
266 2016-02-24T18:41:57  *** zooko` has quit IRC
267 2016-02-24T18:52:44  *** fkhan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
268 2016-02-24T18:55:10  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
269 2016-02-24T19:04:29  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
270 2016-02-24T19:04:42  <morcos> warren et al: i'm going to continue my musings on system effects of the limited mempool
271 2016-02-24T19:05:47  <morcos> so i was thinking what you were about randomization of expiration delays or something..  but perhaps being in sync isn't the problem.  perhaps being out of sync might be a problem.
272 2016-02-24T19:05:58  <morcos> (and again there may be no problem)
273 2016-02-24T19:07:16  <morcos> i've been trying to debug a particular issue where a node connected to 7 peers uploaded 250MB of tx data in one hour
274 2016-02-24T19:08:09  <morcos> haven't quite gathered why this burst would happen at one particular time, but it occurred to me that if your peers are all mempool limited
275 2016-02-24T19:08:16  <morcos> (or most of them)
276 2016-02-24T19:08:28  <morcos> and there is traffic flow like that on the network that reaches you somehow
277 2016-02-24T19:09:28  <morcos> you'll end up having to upload it N times for each of your N peers since they are rejecting it all, they will never inv it back to you
278 2016-02-24T19:09:43  <morcos> of course they might receive it from someone else and thus have it recentrejects...
279 2016-02-24T19:10:06  <morcos> so i don't know.. but 250MB in one hour is sligthly disturbing to me especially with so few peers
280 2016-02-24T19:22:15  *** chris2000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
281 2016-02-24T19:29:40  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282 2016-02-24T19:31:05  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
283 2016-02-24T19:36:34  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
284 2016-02-24T19:48:05  *** jon3ss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
285 2016-02-24T19:53:10  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
286 2016-02-24T20:01:16  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
287 2016-02-24T20:20:48  *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
288 2016-02-24T20:33:20  <Luke-Jr> morcos: after more thought, it seems to me priority should be added back to mempool
289 2016-02-24T20:37:57  <morcos> Luke-Jr: You know that Suhas and I TRIED to do that and met a lot of resistance
290 2016-02-24T20:38:12  <Luke-Jr> morcos: resistance from whom?
291 2016-02-24T20:38:20  <morcos> sdaftuar_ even coded it up
292 2016-02-24T20:38:29  <morcos> It was discussed on the PR and in IRC
293 2016-02-24T20:38:43  <morcos> At this point I think that ship has sailed
294 2016-02-24T20:39:07  <morcos> By priority being added to the mempool you really mean free transactions even if the mempool is full right?
295 2016-02-24T20:39:21  <Luke-Jr> more or less
296 2016-02-24T20:39:39  <Luke-Jr> I had gotten the impression you guys abandoned it, not that it was resisted
297 2016-02-24T20:39:51  <morcos> We abandoned it because it was resisted
298 2016-02-24T20:40:15  <morcos> I was torn personally about whether keeping priority was worth it or not
299 2016-02-24T20:40:24  <morcos> But it seemed if we were keeping it for now
300 2016-02-24T20:40:29  <morcos> we should have it work mostly consistently
301 2016-02-24T20:40:39  <morcos> Thats why the two of us went to the trouble to make it work right
302 2016-02-24T20:40:47  <morcos> But it seemed like an uphill battle
303 2016-02-24T20:41:02  <morcos> And that in my mind pushed the weight of the evidence in favor of well lets just clean it out then
304 2016-02-24T20:41:10  <morcos> I hate this half supported state that it exists in
305 2016-02-24T20:41:59  <Luke-Jr> well, the current state isn't too bad, but the reason I think it makes sense to add back to mempool is that there is *no* economically-rational decision there at all
306 2016-02-24T20:42:02  <gmaxwell> I thik full support would require effectively keeping two mempool limits, a priority oriented limit and a fee oriented limit.  The extra index would be no big deal, but the rest?
307 2016-02-24T20:42:19  <morcos> gmaxwell: that was all coded up
308 2016-02-24T20:42:29  <morcos> there was a PR for it
309 2016-02-24T20:42:50  <morcos> perhaps not the most elegant implementation, but it was efficient and worked right (well modulo the fact hat it never got much testing)
310 2016-02-24T20:43:00  <morcos> i think sturles might even be using it
311 2016-02-24T20:43:07  <gmaxwell> I don't think this addresses the potential issue morcos is talking about above though.
312 2016-02-24T20:43:32  <morcos> but i don't understand the comment about no economically rational decision?
313 2016-02-24T20:43:43  <Luke-Jr> morcos: relay nodes don't get the fees anyway
314 2016-02-24T20:44:02  <Luke-Jr> their *only* interest in relaying transactions, is the well-functioning of the network
315 2016-02-24T20:44:10  <morcos> yes but why relay things that miners aren't going to care about?  you should relay things that miners are going to mine
316 2016-02-24T20:44:10  <Luke-Jr> and priority makes far more sense there than feerate
317 2016-02-24T20:44:21  <Luke-Jr> why relay anything at all?
318 2016-02-24T20:44:47  <morcos> i don't see why there is an inherent benefit into relaying old rich peoples coins as opposed to relaying txs that will get mined
319 2016-02-24T20:44:53  <gmaxwell> ^
320 2016-02-24T20:45:29  <gmaxwell> Having multiple mechenisms has a lot going for it, but priority over feerate? no.
321 2016-02-24T20:46:12  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I'm saying priority is a better metric, not that it should be exclusively used
322 2016-02-24T20:46:27  <Luke-Jr> morcos: miners can only mine what is relayed
323 2016-02-24T20:46:31  *** Don_John has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
324 2016-02-24T20:46:36  <morcos> Also a priority limit doesn't work like a fee limit in the case of eviction.
325 2016-02-24T20:46:53  <Luke-Jr> morcos: ?
326 2016-02-24T20:46:55  <morcos> It appears to me that to protect against DOS with priority txs you HAVE to have the rate limiter
327 2016-02-24T20:46:59  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: thats magical thinking, if there is ever a problem of miners not getting relayed whatever they want, they'll simply spin up a few nodes (perhaps even sybil attack) and the issue is gone.
328 2016-02-24T20:47:27  <petertodd> gmaxwell: and the code to do that already exists in my full-rbf fork
329 2016-02-24T20:47:42  <gmaxwell> Aside: is it a known issue that bitcoin-cli will get disconnected during a rescan for importprivkey?
330 2016-02-24T20:47:44  <btcdrak> There was a lot of resistance regarding priority, see previous meetings where it was discussed also https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2015/11/05/, https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2015/11/12/ and https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2015/11/19/
331 2016-02-24T20:47:44  <morcos> Luke-Jr: Also the idea that there is a min fee to get relayed, but then things can be prioritized differently is not a bad model
332 2016-02-24T20:48:23  <Luke-Jr> morcos: I agree, it's not bad. But there's not much rationale to removing priority in mempool IMO
333 2016-02-24T20:49:48  <paveljanik> gmaxwell, "yes" - see -rpcclienttimeout
334 2016-02-24T20:50:15  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: as a wallet/user priority makes it harder in theory to get predictable behavior out of the system for everyone.  Instead of "pay more for faster service" you get "uh, how old are your coins? how much space/profit are miners giving up for priority recently?"
335 2016-02-24T20:51:05  <petertodd> gmaxwell: just wait'll people extend coinjoin w/ pay-for-priority...
336 2016-02-24T20:51:08  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: ironically, as things work out, priority is for low priority transactions
337 2016-02-24T20:52:29  <morcos> We tend to try to do too much.  Priority isn't bad per se.  But it is a lot of code that becomes difficult to maintain especially complicating thinking about attack scenarios with mempool limits or bandwidth DoS.
338 2016-02-24T20:52:45  <morcos> And we don't really imagine it serves that much of benefit to justify all that.
339 2016-02-24T20:53:18  <morcos> Let's concentrate our efforts on more important things.
340 2016-02-24T20:53:49  <Luke-Jr> the evidence suggests priority is important
341 2016-02-24T20:54:00  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: indeed, but it still makes the behavior less predictable for other users. "I'm paying more than all those txn, why am I not getting in."
342 2016-02-24T20:54:09  <Luke-Jr> (perhaps less so for the mempool, but it seems logical to support there)
343 2016-02-24T20:54:30  <morcos> Probably would have taken me half as long to do the huge speedup to block assembly if i wasn't trying to keep priority working.  That time could have been better spent doing other things.  We probably could have had ancestor package mining for 0.12
344 2016-02-24T20:54:41  <petertodd> also, tx fees are becoming quite important to miners - e.g. average block right now has about 1% revenue in fees, which is a very significant % of your profit margin if you're a pool - that'll double soon at the halving, and probably even more than that due to tx pressure
345 2016-02-24T20:54:56  <morcos> I'm confused.  What evidence suggests its important?  (priority)
346 2016-02-24T20:55:08  <Luke-Jr> morcos: 5% of transactions being mined via priority
347 2016-02-24T20:55:20  <morcos> Luke-Jr: My calculations were 1%
348 2016-02-24T20:55:26  <morcos> And that doesn't mean its important
349 2016-02-24T20:55:40  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: even 5% is nothing in the grand scheme of things - what wallets take priority into account?
350 2016-02-24T20:55:42  <Luke-Jr> also inability to de-stick stuff
351 2016-02-24T20:55:46  <morcos> What's to say that anything would have been harmed if those 1% had to pay a small fee
352 2016-02-24T20:55:58  <Luke-Jr> morcos: there is no way to do that yet
353 2016-02-24T20:56:03  <Luke-Jr> RBF is not complete
354 2016-02-24T20:56:12  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: what would make it 'complete'?
355 2016-02-24T20:56:13  <Luke-Jr> those 1% would simply be stuck indefinitely
356 2016-02-24T20:56:23  <Luke-Jr> petertodd: the ability for people to actually bump fees
357 2016-02-24T20:56:27  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: even without rbf there is expiration now.
358 2016-02-24T20:56:35  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: as in, wallet support?
359 2016-02-24T20:56:39  <Luke-Jr> petertodd: yes
360 2016-02-24T20:56:45  <morcos> Yes, so lets concentrate our time on fixing that!  And again ancestor package mining (formerly known as CPFP) can be used to unstick stuff
361 2016-02-24T20:56:59  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: that's coming, and will probably be ready by the time priority actually gets removed from Core
362 2016-02-24T20:57:05  <morcos> Luke-Jr: those 1% wouldn't have been placed without fee if we didn't have priority
363 2016-02-24T20:57:11  <Luke-Jr> morcos: I gave up trying to implement CPFP on top of 0.12
364 2016-02-24T20:57:35  <Luke-Jr> morcos: yes, which means they'd be stuck 'forever'
365 2016-02-24T20:57:37  <morcos> If you put literally ANY fee > than the minimum on your transaction, it has a very high probability of making it in a block within a week
366 2016-02-24T20:58:06  <morcos> if your fee is less than 1014 satoshis per kB you'll get caught up in the spam
367 2016-02-24T20:58:10  <morcos> otherwise you're in
368 2016-02-24T20:58:32  <Luke-Jr> and if you don't, you're out… with no recourse.
369 2016-02-24T20:58:32  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: please stop saying forever.
370 2016-02-24T20:58:39  <gmaxwell> it's just not true.
371 2016-02-24T20:58:40  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372 2016-02-24T20:58:52  <sipa> morcos: how hard is CPFP/ancestor package mining to implement now?
373 2016-02-24T20:58:54  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it's true given the current state of things, with priority removed.
374 2016-02-24T20:59:01  <morcos> sipa: its done
375 2016-02-24T20:59:01  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: they expire.
376 2016-02-24T20:59:05  <morcos> just being tested and cleaned up
377 2016-02-24T20:59:08  <Luke-Jr> morcos: is it?
378 2016-02-24T20:59:09  <morcos> sdaftuar_ wrote it
379 2016-02-24T20:59:23  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: not in a way that users can take advantage of
380 2016-02-24T20:59:26  <petertodd> what users actually are relying on txs that take a day or two to confirm anyway? where's the feedback from users saying they actually do this?
381 2016-02-24T20:59:29  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: also a signficant amount of transactions would take months to meet the minimum priority criteria anyways, it's not magic pixie dust.
382 2016-02-24T20:59:45  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: anything not micro-tx would be <1 week
383 2016-02-24T21:00:17  <Luke-Jr> morcos: CPFP is inherently stateful.
384 2016-02-24T21:00:19  <petertodd> if anything, having txs that take a week to get mined, but do get eventually mined, seems *more* misleading and dangerous than those txs not getting mined
385 2016-02-24T21:00:23  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: 0.01 BTC, which is a couple bucks, from just created in a 1kb transaction... takes a long time.
386 2016-02-24T21:00:41  <gmaxwell> petertodd: the fact that it's poorly handled by wallets is not good.
387 2016-02-24T21:01:18  <Luke-Jr> morcos: for example, if the parent gets mined on its own, the child shouldn't include its data in its feerate/priority
388 2016-02-24T21:01:24  <petertodd> gmaxwell: indeed, but such wallets need to get fixed - having those txs simply being dropped is probably less likely to lead to losses in many cases where the user thinks the tx failed and won't go through
389 2016-02-24T21:01:38  <morcos> Luke-Jr: you mean block assembly is stateful or maintaining state in the mempool.  both are true.  mempool state is already done with descendants, its easy to do with ancestors too.  the one downside is that there is a slight hit to block propagation, hopefully unmeasurable though
390 2016-02-24T21:01:40  *** cj has quit IRC
391 2016-02-24T21:02:09  <Luke-Jr> morcos: I mean as we add transactions to the template, the cached data becomes invalid
392 2016-02-24T21:02:15  <morcos> Luke-Jr: yes in block assembly that state has to be updated, but so far the bench marks show it being actually ever so slightly faster, but basicaly about 7ms to assemble a block
393 2016-02-24T21:02:28  <morcos> its a copy of the data that is updated
394 2016-02-24T21:03:22  <morcos> its faster b/c in block assembly you no longer have to check for orphans.  when you add a package, there are no orphan txs
395 2016-02-24T21:03:35  <Luke-Jr> right
396 2016-02-24T21:03:38  *** cj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
397 2016-02-24T21:04:37  *** zooko has quit IRC
398 2016-02-24T21:05:15  <morcos> anyway, lets not revisit adding priority to the mempool.  please.
399 2016-02-24T21:05:47  <morcos> i think it would be reasonable to keep the modified calculation of priority as something miners can prioritize based on if we want to
400 2016-02-24T21:05:57  <Luke-Jr> ok, for now
401 2016-02-24T21:06:20  <morcos> i refactor CreateNewBlock substantially when I realized we werent' about to get rid of priority code to completely separate priority block filling and feerate block filling
402 2016-02-24T21:06:33  <Luke-Jr> no new CPFP PR to review yet, I guess?
403 2016-02-24T21:06:38  <morcos> i never pr'ed it b/c well just seemed like code for codes sake
404 2016-02-24T21:06:47  <morcos> but sdaftuar used it, so now i will pr that
405 2016-02-24T21:06:51  <morcos> not yet, but soon
406 2016-02-24T21:07:05  <morcos> don't worry, i'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity for feedback
407 2016-02-24T21:07:06  <morcos> :)
408 2016-02-24T21:07:24  <Luke-Jr> well, I'd like to throw it in Knots sooner rather than 0.13 ;)
409 2016-02-24T21:07:51  <sipa> what is Knots?
410 2016-02-24T21:08:04  <morcos> sure, if for some reason it doesn't get pr'ed shortly, i bet sdaftuar would be happy to point you to a branch
411 2016-02-24T21:08:05  <Luke-Jr> sipa: LJR
412 2016-02-24T21:08:25  <petertodd> btw, looks like someone is using optin-rbf for fee bumping, possibly in production: https://blockchain.info/tx/4339a6a49f209b5260203a15b23621d37f8ed605e85525db4eac7e5be2fc04c9
413 2016-02-24T21:08:28  <Luke-Jr> sipa: but less personal-to-me
414 2016-02-24T21:11:15  <sipa> ic
415 2016-02-24T21:11:21  <morcos> petertodd: speaking of opt-in rbf
416 2016-02-24T21:11:31  <morcos> i haven't been paying too close attention
417 2016-02-24T21:11:45  <morcos> but i see a lot of comments out there about how people can just identify it
418 2016-02-24T21:11:58  <morcos> i wonder how obvious it is to everyone though that its inherited
419 2016-02-24T21:12:15  <morcos> sure doing 0-conf with unconfirmed parents is fraught with risk
420 2016-02-24T21:12:31  <petertodd> morcos: probably not that obvious, but those people will get defrauded in 10x different ways anyway
421 2016-02-24T21:12:43  <morcos> but i think maybe we should make the extra effort to be sure everyone is aware of how it works
422 2016-02-24T21:12:48  *** jon3ss has quit IRC
423 2016-02-24T21:12:52  <morcos> its a bit non-intuitive
424 2016-02-24T21:13:27  <morcos> like a warning disclaimer or something
425 2016-02-24T21:13:28  <petertodd> morcos: IMO the best way to do that is make easy to use tools that use it, and let people understand that for themselves
426 2016-02-24T21:14:40  <morcos> well i think we did PR poorly on the feature in the first place, i don't wnat to kind of get hit with that again b/c they feel like there was a hidden way aroudn the opt'ing in aspect
427 2016-02-24T21:14:53  <morcos> communication solves many problems
428 2016-02-24T21:15:34  <petertodd> morcos: well, mycelium just added support to show rbf txs, and they did it the "right" way, even showing other examples like low fee txs
429 2016-02-24T21:15:51  <petertodd> morcos: the audience of people who will be writing code to deal with this is relatively small
430 2016-02-24T21:15:57  <morcos> oh, nice... ok
431 2016-02-24T21:16:16  <petertodd> it's right in the BIP for it too: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki#summary
432 2016-02-24T21:17:38  <Luke-Jr> eh, showing it at all is "wrong" IMO :p
433 2016-02-24T21:17:50  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: agreed, but we've lost that battle :)
434 2016-02-24T21:17:56  <Luke-Jr> not really
435 2016-02-24T21:18:06  <sipa> Luke-Jr: well, the alternative is not showing unconfirmed transactions at all :)
436 2016-02-24T21:18:11  <sipa> not just not showing replacable ones
437 2016-02-24T21:18:34  <petertodd> sipa: eh, showing unconfirmed isn't such a big deal, trying to do risk analysis on them though is kinda nuts
438 2016-02-24T21:18:47  <sipa> petertodd: that's why you shouldn't show them :)
439 2016-02-24T21:19:14  <petertodd> sipa: well, showing them as unconfirmed is a nice UI thing that I think is fine in the trusted case
440 2016-02-24T21:19:16  <sipa> to be clear: i'm not actually arguing for not showing them at all
441 2016-02-24T21:19:38  <sipa> petertodd: if they're trusted, a replacable one is also trusted
442 2016-02-24T21:19:57  <petertodd> sipa: exactly! why all unconfirmed should probably be shown equally
443 2016-02-24T21:20:31  <petertodd> sipa: warning that a tx may take awhile to confirm due to low fee may be ok in an advanced users mode... but nothing more fancy than that
444 2016-02-24T21:20:57  <petertodd> sipa: equally, the other approach is user education, which is achieved very well by giving users a 'cancel tx' button
445 2016-02-24T21:21:27  <Luke-Jr> sipa: the alternative is showing unconfirmed transactions equally
446 2016-02-24T21:23:24  <Luke-Jr> RBF doesn't change anything much really
447 2016-02-24T21:23:37  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: indeed! https://petertodd.org/2016/are-wallets-ready-for-rbf :)
448 2016-02-24T21:24:06  *** sdaftuar_ is now known as sdaftuar
449 2016-02-24T21:25:17  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
450 2016-02-24T21:26:10  <paveljanik> Will there be any #400000 online party tomorrow?
451 2016-02-24T21:26:53  *** abbath has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452 2016-02-24T21:32:29  *** wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
453 2016-02-24T21:32:29  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
454 2016-02-24T21:34:04  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
455 2016-02-24T21:35:50  *** abbath has quit IRC
456 2016-02-24T21:36:44  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
457 2016-02-24T21:36:44  *** wallet421 has quit IRC
458 2016-02-24T21:36:51  *** raedah has quit IRC
459 2016-02-24T21:37:14  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
460 2016-02-24T21:37:18  *** wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
461 2016-02-24T21:39:18  *** chris2000 has quit IRC
462 2016-02-24T21:39:25  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
463 2016-02-24T21:41:49  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
464 2016-02-24T21:44:22  *** raedah has quit IRC
465 2016-02-24T21:45:33  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
466 2016-02-24T21:45:33  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
467 2016-02-24T21:46:59  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
468 2016-02-24T21:49:47  <sturles> morcos: I still use the patch, and have "mempoolminpriority" and "priorityusage" in the output from getmempoolinfo. :-)
469 2016-02-24T21:52:28  *** treehug88 has quit IRC
470 2016-02-24T21:53:23  *** Bootvis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
471 2016-02-24T22:08:18  <sdaftuar> sturles: hah, i forgot i added that to the rpc call
472 2016-02-24T22:08:48  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
473 2016-02-24T22:08:50  <sdaftuar> Luke-Jr: ancestor package tracking PR coming shortly.  would be nice to have #7539 merged first but i'll just open a pr anyway
474 2016-02-24T22:09:21  <sdaftuar> Luke-Jr: ancestor package mining PR will build on that and morcos' refactor PR, so might take another day or two
475 2016-02-24T22:23:54  *** raedah has quit IRC
476 2016-02-24T22:24:48  *** mesmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
477 2016-02-24T22:30:35  <GitHub122> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #7594: Mempool: Add tracking of ancestor packages (master...ancestor-tracking) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7594
478 2016-02-24T22:45:14  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
479 2016-02-24T22:50:25  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: can you remind me the reason that we've discarded composite scores? e.g. using ancestorfeerate + log(priority)*C  or feerate>x?feerate:min(x,priority*C)   ?  I know I've asked this before.
480 2016-02-24T22:57:10  *** schmidty has quit IRC
481 2016-02-24T23:03:14  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482 2016-02-24T23:03:44  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I don't know that it has been discarded?
483 2016-02-24T23:19:37  *** zooko has quit IRC
484 2016-02-24T23:20:14  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
485 2016-02-24T23:20:27  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
486 2016-02-24T23:21:51  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
487 2016-02-24T23:25:30  *** wallet421 has quit IRC
488 2016-02-24T23:25:46  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
489 2016-02-24T23:28:52  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
490 2016-02-24T23:29:47  *** murch has quit IRC
491 2016-02-24T23:38:27  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492 2016-02-24T23:43:31  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
493 2016-02-24T23:53:45  *** zooko has quit IRC