12016-02-24T00:00:21  *** haakonn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  22016-02-24T00:00:28  *** skyraider_ has quit IRC
  32016-02-24T00:59:07  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  42016-02-24T01:01:13  *** sdaftuar_ has quit IRC
  52016-02-24T01:01:13  *** sdaftuar_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  62016-02-24T01:05:29  *** jamesob has quit IRC
  72016-02-24T01:28:27  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  82016-02-24T01:33:41  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  92016-02-24T01:38:25  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
 102016-02-24T01:40:27  *** libertalis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 112016-02-24T02:03:20  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 122016-02-24T02:03:55  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 132016-02-24T02:05:12  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142016-02-24T02:10:48  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 152016-02-24T02:11:27  *** belcher has quit IRC
 162016-02-24T02:17:17  *** Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 172016-02-24T02:21:39  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: oops, i meant its parent - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9ef7c5 is unsigned
 182016-02-24T02:21:42  <BlueMatt> (on the 0.12 branch)
 192016-02-24T02:22:22  <BlueMatt> ugh, wumpus you fucked up 44fef99e too
 202016-02-24T02:22:38  <BlueMatt> so the 0.12 branch doesnt validate because both of y'all have unsigned non-merge-commit rebased backports
 212016-02-24T02:29:08  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
 222016-02-24T02:29:19  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 232016-02-24T02:29:42  *** Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 242016-02-24T02:30:00  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 252016-02-24T02:36:43  *** jamesob has quit IRC
 262016-02-24T02:45:45  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272016-02-24T02:45:48  <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, to be clear you're talking about the deterministic builds, not about consensus code
 282016-02-24T02:45:52  <phantomcircuit> (this confused someone)
 292016-02-24T02:46:02  <BlueMatt> huh?
 302016-02-24T02:46:04  <BlueMatt> no?
 312016-02-24T02:46:11  <BlueMatt> I'm talking about commit signing
 322016-02-24T02:46:33  <gmaxwell> *facepalm* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1375183.0
 332016-02-24T02:46:43  <BlueMatt> we sign git merges, and all is good on master, but we have two commits in the 0.12 branch that are unsigned
 342016-02-24T02:46:51  <BlueMatt> (they are just copies of signed commits, but are themselves unsigned)
 352016-02-24T02:47:16  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: wut
 362016-02-24T02:49:02  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
 372016-02-24T02:49:39  *** Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 382016-02-24T02:52:36  <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
 392016-02-24T02:54:16  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
 402016-02-24T02:59:22  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 412016-02-24T03:00:08  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 422016-02-24T03:01:00  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432016-02-24T03:06:27  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
 442016-02-24T03:07:31  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 452016-02-24T03:08:01  *** Luke-Jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 462016-02-24T03:25:58  *** p15 has quit IRC
 472016-02-24T03:35:12  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 482016-02-24T03:39:58  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
 492016-02-24T03:48:09  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502016-02-24T03:55:15  *** brg444 has quit IRC
 512016-02-24T03:56:53  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 522016-02-24T04:25:23  *** zooko has quit IRC
 532016-02-24T04:31:08  *** AaronvanW_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 542016-02-24T04:31:42  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 552016-02-24T04:32:37  *** Tasoshi has quit IRC
 562016-02-24T05:00:05  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 572016-02-24T05:00:40  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 582016-02-24T05:36:40  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 592016-02-24T05:46:59  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
 602016-02-24T06:13:15  *** Don_John has quit IRC
 612016-02-24T06:30:42  <GitHub78> [bitcoin] AliceWonderMiscreations opened pull request #7585: Update rpcconsole.cpp (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7585
 622016-02-24T06:42:57  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 632016-02-24T06:43:06  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 642016-02-24T06:43:58  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 652016-02-24T06:53:49  <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.
 662016-02-24T06:54:26  <jonasschnelli> As example: 44fef99e666e85caa7616765412d7becf97ab673 and fab83476acf4a1eaeb5d6c3fe6195b9ff80b193c are also unsigned (aprox same timeregion)
 672016-02-24T07:00:00  *** mesmer has quit IRC
 682016-02-24T07:10:34  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 692016-02-24T07:18:07  *** PRab has quit IRC
 702016-02-24T07:25:27  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 712016-02-24T07:31:27  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: the two i listed above /are/ merge commits
 722016-02-24T07:31:36  <BlueMatt> well, are commits which were merged without a merge commits
 732016-02-24T07:31:44  <BlueMatt> aside from those two, all other commits on the 0.12 branch are signed
 742016-02-24T07:34:16  *** PRab has quit IRC
 752016-02-24T07:38:15  <btcdrak> all other _merge_ commits you mean.
 762016-02-24T07:39:46  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772016-02-24T07:44:08  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 782016-02-24T07:48:37  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 792016-02-24T07:48:57  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
 802016-02-24T07:49:52  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9ef7c5 (unsigned) was merged by wumpus in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7153
 812016-02-24T07:50:29  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
 822016-02-24T07:50:46  <BlueMatt> btcdrak: yes, all other merge commits
 832016-02-24T07:50:55  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: dunno, go test contrib/verify-commits
 842016-02-24T07:51:28  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: i tried to run,... but got not output.
 852016-02-24T07:51:34  <jonasschnelli> no output
 862016-02-24T07:51:39  <jonasschnelli> hmm...
 872016-02-24T07:51:40  <BlueMatt> huh?
 882016-02-24T07:51:47  <BlueMatt> how is that possible?
 892016-02-24T07:52:14  <jonasschnelli> Wait.. now i get some commits listed...
 902016-02-24T07:52:20  <jonasschnelli> are these all unsigned commits?
 912016-02-24T07:55:52  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 922016-02-24T07:57:04  *** PRab has quit IRC
 932016-02-24T07:58:34  *** AtashiCon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942016-02-24T07:59:06  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: thats what i get when executing verify-commits.sh (http://pastebin.com/raw/fz8rTCf6)
 952016-02-24T07:59:16  *** AtashiCon has quit IRC
 962016-02-24T08:00:06  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 972016-02-24T08:02:02  *** AtashiCon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 982016-02-24T08:09:33  <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
 992016-02-24T08:10:10  <btcdrak> replacements must have a higher fee
1002016-02-24T08:11:55  <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)
1012016-02-24T08:12:48  <btcdrak> baldur: this is correct. but you should ask these questions in #bitcoin
1022016-02-24T08:13:08  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032016-02-24T08:13:17  <baldur> sorry, sure will do, just relatively new to see so many error messages in the debug log
1042016-02-24T08:14:00  <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
1052016-02-24T08:14:03  <btcdrak> I wonder if these should not be prefixed as "ERROR" rather "REJECTED"
1062016-02-24T08:14:19  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: after that, it tells you that 82bcf405f6db1d55b684a1f63a4aabad376cdad7 was properly signed, but neither of its parents were
1072016-02-24T08:15:45  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: do we still support qt4?
1082016-02-24T08:16:15  <jonasschnelli> BlueMatt: yes. But we don't fix UI issues... kind of legacy support.
1092016-02-24T08:16:27  <jonasschnelli> We strongly recommend Qt5.
1102016-02-24T08:16:41  <jonasschnelli> Qt4 will probably be dropped soon
1112016-02-24T08:16:56  <wumpus> "soon" as in a few major versions haha
1122016-02-24T08:17:06  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: hmm...ubuntu doesnt like it
1132016-02-24T08:17:14  <wumpus> but yes, qt4 is legacy, don't use it for new builds
1142016-02-24T08:17:16  <BlueMatt> checking for QT... no
1152016-02-24T08:17:16  <BlueMatt> checking for QT... no
1162016-02-24T08:17:16  <BlueMatt> configure: WARNING: Qt dependencies not found; bitcoin-qt frontend will not be built
1172016-02-24T08:17:22  <BlueMatt> except nothing wrt qt has changed
1182016-02-24T08:18:09  <jonasschnelli> Hmm... it should detect qt4... did you try --with.gui=qt4
1192016-02-24T08:18:24  <wumpus> but unlike the change from, say, Python2 to Python3, Qt4 to Qt5 wasn't controversial at all, so there is an EOL
1202016-02-24T08:18:40  <BlueMatt> ugh, its remote build...pita to just test something
1212016-02-24T08:18:42  <BlueMatt> wait 45 minutes...
1222016-02-24T08:18:47  <jonasschnelli> :)
1232016-02-24T08:19:13  <wumpus> but yes, qt4 detection seems to be broken, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7189
1242016-02-24T08:19:32  <wumpus> not intentional, but you'll have to force it with --with-gui=qt4
1252016-02-24T08:19:44  <BlueMatt> ok
1262016-02-24T08:19:57  <wumpus> still not sure why, hope cfields will take a look at it some time :)
1272016-02-24T08:20:21  <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?
1282016-02-24T08:20:32  <jonasschnelli> verify-commits.sh only reports two commits in my case
1292016-02-24T08:20:42  <jonasschnelli> 075faaebf2e534265ff8aca015eaf03a8a156f32 and 2f601d215da1683ae99ab9973219044c32fa2093
1302016-02-24T08:21:16  <BlueMatt> huh?
1312016-02-24T08:25:55  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
1322016-02-24T08:28:10  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1332016-02-24T08:45:45  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342016-02-24T08:51:53  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
1352016-02-24T08:53:38  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362016-02-24T08:59:15  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
1372016-02-24T09:31:25  *** alpalp has quit IRC
1382016-02-24T09:32:57  <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
1392016-02-24T09:35:48  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402016-02-24T09:35:48  *** Thireus has quit IRC
1412016-02-24T09:38:41  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422016-02-24T09:38:41  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432016-02-24T09:43:41  <GitHub125> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7585: Update rpcconsole.cpp (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7585
1442016-02-24T10:19:29  *** Luke-Jr has quit IRC
1452016-02-24T10:19:38  *** luke-jr_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462016-02-24T10:20:08  *** gevs has quit IRC
1472016-02-24T10:21:22  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482016-02-24T10:21:22  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492016-02-24T10:21:45  <GitHub164> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7581: Corrections of 0.12 release notes (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7581
1502016-02-24T10:34:00  <GitHub84> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a08c41dfc232...8b958ab15b8c
1512016-02-24T10:34:01  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master 92bcca3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: rpc: Input-from-stdin mode for bitcoin-cli...
1522016-02-24T10:34:02  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master f22f14c Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: mention bitcoin-cli -stdin in release notes
1532016-02-24T10:34:02  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master 8b958ab Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7550: rpc: Input-from-stdin mode for bitcoin-cli...
1542016-02-24T10:34:10  <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
1552016-02-24T10:38:53  <GitHub51> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8b958ab15b8c...317462123f8e
1562016-02-24T10:38:54  <GitHub51> bitcoin/master 6e4dfa1 Cédric Félizard: [doc] Fix typos
1572016-02-24T10:38:54  <GitHub51> bitcoin/master 3174621 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7583: [doc] Fix typos...
1582016-02-24T10:38:58  <GitHub65> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7583: [doc] Fix typos (master...fix-typo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7583
1592016-02-24T10:45:08  <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
1602016-02-24T10:56:42  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612016-02-24T11:01:01  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
1622016-02-24T11:12:56  <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
1632016-02-24T11:25:06  *** luke-jr_ has quit IRC
1642016-02-24T11:25:41  *** luke-jr_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652016-02-24T11:54:25  *** Thireus1 has quit IRC
1662016-02-24T11:54:36  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672016-02-24T12:15:31  <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
1682016-02-24T12:45:04  *** evoskuil has quit IRC
1692016-02-24T12:50:55  *** p15x has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702016-02-24T12:53:10  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712016-02-24T12:58:01  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722016-02-24T12:58:46  *** laurentmt1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1732016-02-24T13:01:28  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1742016-02-24T13:01:28  *** laurentmt1 is now known as laurentmt
1752016-02-24T13:07:39  *** Thireus has quit IRC
1762016-02-24T13:14:27  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
1772016-02-24T13:18:59  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782016-02-24T13:35:07  *** p15 has quit IRC
1792016-02-24T13:35:31  *** p15x has quit IRC
1802016-02-24T13:36:56  *** evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812016-02-24T13:50:50  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1822016-02-24T13:59:46  *** luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832016-02-24T13:59:59  *** luke-jr_ has quit IRC
1842016-02-24T14:07:54  *** luke-jr__ has quit IRC
1852016-02-24T14:08:29  *** luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862016-02-24T14:09:34  *** Noice has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1872016-02-24T14:12:28  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882016-02-24T14:19:55  *** zooko has quit IRC
1892016-02-24T14:25:29  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902016-02-24T14:37:21  <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
1912016-02-24T14:37:35  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1922016-02-24T14:38:19  *** Thireus has quit IRC
1932016-02-24T14:39:22  <GitHub23> [bitcoin] jonathancross closed pull request #7589: Improving wording related to Boost library requirements (master...patch-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7589
1942016-02-24T14:40:13  *** Eliel has quit IRC
1952016-02-24T14:40:51  *** Eliel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1962016-02-24T14:46:01  *** Eliel has quit IRC
1972016-02-24T14:46:54  *** Eliel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1982016-02-24T14:58:06  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
1992016-02-24T15:00:16  <gmaxwell> hm nothing in listtransactions seems to show when a sent tx is abandoned.
2002016-02-24T15:00:58  <gmaxwell> other than that trusted is false.
2012016-02-24T15:01:10  <sipa> define abandoned?
2022016-02-24T15:01:39  <gmaxwell> having been throbbed by the abandontransaction rpc.
2032016-02-24T15:02:05  <sipa> ah.
2042016-02-24T15:11:08  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052016-02-24T15:15:52  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
2062016-02-24T15:33:30  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072016-02-24T15:35:45  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
2082016-02-24T15:37:09  *** Thireus1 has quit IRC
2092016-02-24T15:39:50  *** skyraider_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102016-02-24T15:45:32  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112016-02-24T15:46:00  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122016-02-24T15:51:04  *** skyraider_ has quit IRC
2132016-02-24T15:58:04  *** luke-jr__ has quit IRC
2142016-02-24T16:00:19  *** luke-jr__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152016-02-24T16:05:39  *** neha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162016-02-24T16:12:30  *** wangchun has quit IRC
2172016-02-24T16:14:10  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2182016-02-24T16:14:26  *** wangchun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192016-02-24T16:17:17  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
2202016-02-24T16:25:35  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212016-02-24T16:25:35  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2222016-02-24T16:34:32  *** Cory has quit IRC
2232016-02-24T16:38:59  *** Guest36311 is now known as amiller
2242016-02-24T16:39:03  *** amiller has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252016-02-24T16:42:33  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2262016-02-24T16:43:33  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
2272016-02-24T16:44:39  *** Thireus has quit IRC
2282016-02-24T16:50:01  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2292016-02-24T16:55:54  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302016-02-24T16:57:57  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312016-02-24T17:01:47  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
2322016-02-24T17:02:42  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332016-02-24T17:05:46  *** luke-jr__ is now known as Luke-Jr
2342016-02-24T17:09:25  *** Thireus has quit IRC
2352016-02-24T17:12:34  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362016-02-24T17:14:06  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372016-02-24T17:15:24  *** Thireus1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382016-02-24T17:16:07  *** Thireus has quit IRC
2392016-02-24T17:17:16  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
2402016-02-24T17:17:55  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2412016-02-24T17:20:49  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2422016-02-24T17:22:15  *** Thireus2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432016-02-24T17:22:48  *** Thireus1 has quit IRC
2442016-02-24T17:25:42  *** Thireus has quit IRC
2452016-02-24T17:27:56  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462016-02-24T17:28:18  *** Thireus2 has quit IRC
2472016-02-24T17:56:05  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2482016-02-24T17:56:45  <morcos> gmaxwell: that was all left for later improvements because it was a battle to get abandontransaction included at the last second anyway!
2492016-02-24T17:59:47  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
2502016-02-24T17:59:49  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
2512016-02-24T18:02:27  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
2522016-02-24T18:02:45  *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2532016-02-24T18:14:10  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542016-02-24T18:18:55  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2552016-02-24T18:21:57  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
2562016-02-24T18:21:59  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
2572016-02-24T18:25:04  *** dermoth has quit IRC
2582016-02-24T18:26:37  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
2592016-02-24T18:29:59  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602016-02-24T18:31:08  *** AaronvanW_ has quit IRC
2612016-02-24T18:32:35  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
2622016-02-24T18:36:43  *** fkhan has quit IRC
2632016-02-24T18:37:19  <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
2642016-02-24T18:41:07  *** zooko` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652016-02-24T18:41:56  *** zooko has quit IRC
2662016-02-24T18:41:57  *** zooko` has quit IRC
2672016-02-24T18:52:44  *** fkhan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682016-02-24T18:55:10  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692016-02-24T19:04:29  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2702016-02-24T19:04:42  <morcos> warren et al: i'm going to continue my musings on system effects of the limited mempool
2712016-02-24T19:05:47  <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.
2722016-02-24T19:05:58  <morcos> (and again there may be no problem)
2732016-02-24T19:07:16  <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
2742016-02-24T19:08:09  <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
2752016-02-24T19:08:16  <morcos> (or most of them)
2762016-02-24T19:08:28  <morcos> and there is traffic flow like that on the network that reaches you somehow
2772016-02-24T19:09:28  <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
2782016-02-24T19:09:43  <morcos> of course they might receive it from someone else and thus have it recentrejects...
2792016-02-24T19:10:06  <morcos> so i don't know.. but 250MB in one hour is sligthly disturbing to me especially with so few peers
2802016-02-24T19:22:15  *** chris2000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2812016-02-24T19:29:40  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2822016-02-24T19:31:05  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832016-02-24T19:36:34  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
2842016-02-24T19:48:05  *** jon3ss has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852016-02-24T19:53:10  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2862016-02-24T20:01:16  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
2872016-02-24T20:20:48  *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882016-02-24T20:33:20  <Luke-Jr> morcos: after more thought, it seems to me priority should be added back to mempool
2892016-02-24T20:37:57  <morcos> Luke-Jr: You know that Suhas and I TRIED to do that and met a lot of resistance
2902016-02-24T20:38:12  <Luke-Jr> morcos: resistance from whom?
2912016-02-24T20:38:20  <morcos> sdaftuar_ even coded it up
2922016-02-24T20:38:29  <morcos> It was discussed on the PR and in IRC
2932016-02-24T20:38:43  <morcos> At this point I think that ship has sailed
2942016-02-24T20:39:07  <morcos> By priority being added to the mempool you really mean free transactions even if the mempool is full right?
2952016-02-24T20:39:21  <Luke-Jr> more or less
2962016-02-24T20:39:39  <Luke-Jr> I had gotten the impression you guys abandoned it, not that it was resisted
2972016-02-24T20:39:51  <morcos> We abandoned it because it was resisted
2982016-02-24T20:40:15  <morcos> I was torn personally about whether keeping priority was worth it or not
2992016-02-24T20:40:24  <morcos> But it seemed if we were keeping it for now
3002016-02-24T20:40:29  <morcos> we should have it work mostly consistently
3012016-02-24T20:40:39  <morcos> Thats why the two of us went to the trouble to make it work right
3022016-02-24T20:40:47  <morcos> But it seemed like an uphill battle
3032016-02-24T20:41:02  <morcos> And that in my mind pushed the weight of the evidence in favor of well lets just clean it out then
3042016-02-24T20:41:10  <morcos> I hate this half supported state that it exists in
3052016-02-24T20:41:59  <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
3062016-02-24T20:42:02  <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?
3072016-02-24T20:42:19  <morcos> gmaxwell: that was all coded up
3082016-02-24T20:42:29  <morcos> there was a PR for it
3092016-02-24T20:42:50  <morcos> perhaps not the most elegant implementation, but it was efficient and worked right (well modulo the fact hat it never got much testing)
3102016-02-24T20:43:00  <morcos> i think sturles might even be using it
3112016-02-24T20:43:07  <gmaxwell> I don't think this addresses the potential issue morcos is talking about above though.
3122016-02-24T20:43:32  <morcos> but i don't understand the comment about no economically rational decision?
3132016-02-24T20:43:43  <Luke-Jr> morcos: relay nodes don't get the fees anyway
3142016-02-24T20:44:02  <Luke-Jr> their *only* interest in relaying transactions, is the well-functioning of the network
3152016-02-24T20:44:10  <morcos> yes but why relay things that miners aren't going to care about?  you should relay things that miners are going to mine
3162016-02-24T20:44:10  <Luke-Jr> and priority makes far more sense there than feerate
3172016-02-24T20:44:21  <Luke-Jr> why relay anything at all?
3182016-02-24T20:44:47  <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
3192016-02-24T20:44:53  <gmaxwell> ^
3202016-02-24T20:45:29  <gmaxwell> Having multiple mechenisms has a lot going for it, but priority over feerate? no.
3212016-02-24T20:46:12  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I'm saying priority is a better metric, not that it should be exclusively used
3222016-02-24T20:46:27  <Luke-Jr> morcos: miners can only mine what is relayed
3232016-02-24T20:46:31  *** Don_John has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3242016-02-24T20:46:36  <morcos> Also a priority limit doesn't work like a fee limit in the case of eviction.
3252016-02-24T20:46:53  <Luke-Jr> morcos: ?
3262016-02-24T20:46:55  <morcos> It appears to me that to protect against DOS with priority txs you HAVE to have the rate limiter
3272016-02-24T20:46:59  <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.
3282016-02-24T20:47:27  <petertodd> gmaxwell: and the code to do that already exists in my full-rbf fork
3292016-02-24T20:47:42  <gmaxwell> Aside: is it a known issue that bitcoin-cli will get disconnected during a rescan for importprivkey?
3302016-02-24T20:47:44  <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/
3312016-02-24T20:47:44  <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
3322016-02-24T20:48:23  <Luke-Jr> morcos: I agree, it's not bad. But there's not much rationale to removing priority in mempool IMO
3332016-02-24T20:49:48  <paveljanik> gmaxwell, "yes" - see -rpcclienttimeout
3342016-02-24T20:50:15  <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?"
3352016-02-24T20:51:05  <petertodd> gmaxwell: just wait'll people extend coinjoin w/ pay-for-priority...
3362016-02-24T20:51:08  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: ironically, as things work out, priority is for low priority transactions
3372016-02-24T20:52:29  <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.
3382016-02-24T20:52:45  <morcos> And we don't really imagine it serves that much of benefit to justify all that.
3392016-02-24T20:53:18  <morcos> Let's concentrate our efforts on more important things.
3402016-02-24T20:53:49  <Luke-Jr> the evidence suggests priority is important
3412016-02-24T20:54:00  <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."
3422016-02-24T20:54:09  <Luke-Jr> (perhaps less so for the mempool, but it seems logical to support there)
3432016-02-24T20:54:30  <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
3442016-02-24T20:54:41  <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
3452016-02-24T20:54:56  <morcos> I'm confused.  What evidence suggests its important?  (priority)
3462016-02-24T20:55:08  <Luke-Jr> morcos: 5% of transactions being mined via priority
3472016-02-24T20:55:20  <morcos> Luke-Jr: My calculations were 1%
3482016-02-24T20:55:26  <morcos> And that doesn't mean its important
3492016-02-24T20:55:40  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: even 5% is nothing in the grand scheme of things - what wallets take priority into account?
3502016-02-24T20:55:42  <Luke-Jr> also inability to de-stick stuff
3512016-02-24T20:55:46  <morcos> What's to say that anything would have been harmed if those 1% had to pay a small fee
3522016-02-24T20:55:58  <Luke-Jr> morcos: there is no way to do that yet
3532016-02-24T20:56:03  <Luke-Jr> RBF is not complete
3542016-02-24T20:56:12  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: what would make it 'complete'?
3552016-02-24T20:56:13  <Luke-Jr> those 1% would simply be stuck indefinitely
3562016-02-24T20:56:23  <Luke-Jr> petertodd: the ability for people to actually bump fees
3572016-02-24T20:56:27  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: even without rbf there is expiration now.
3582016-02-24T20:56:35  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: as in, wallet support?
3592016-02-24T20:56:39  <Luke-Jr> petertodd: yes
3602016-02-24T20:56:45  <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
3612016-02-24T20:56:59  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: that's coming, and will probably be ready by the time priority actually gets removed from Core
3622016-02-24T20:57:05  <morcos> Luke-Jr: those 1% wouldn't have been placed without fee if we didn't have priority
3632016-02-24T20:57:11  <Luke-Jr> morcos: I gave up trying to implement CPFP on top of 0.12
3642016-02-24T20:57:35  <Luke-Jr> morcos: yes, which means they'd be stuck 'forever'
3652016-02-24T20:57:37  <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
3662016-02-24T20:58:06  <morcos> if your fee is less than 1014 satoshis per kB you'll get caught up in the spam
3672016-02-24T20:58:10  <morcos> otherwise you're in
3682016-02-24T20:58:32  <Luke-Jr> and if you don't, you're out… with no recourse.
3692016-02-24T20:58:32  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: please stop saying forever.
3702016-02-24T20:58:39  <gmaxwell> it's just not true.
3712016-02-24T20:58:40  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3722016-02-24T20:58:52  <sipa> morcos: how hard is CPFP/ancestor package mining to implement now?
3732016-02-24T20:58:54  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: it's true given the current state of things, with priority removed.
3742016-02-24T20:59:01  <morcos> sipa: its done
3752016-02-24T20:59:01  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: they expire.
3762016-02-24T20:59:05  <morcos> just being tested and cleaned up
3772016-02-24T20:59:08  <Luke-Jr> morcos: is it?
3782016-02-24T20:59:09  <morcos> sdaftuar_ wrote it
3792016-02-24T20:59:23  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: not in a way that users can take advantage of
3802016-02-24T20:59:26  <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?
3812016-02-24T20:59:29  <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.
3822016-02-24T20:59:45  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: anything not micro-tx would be <1 week
3832016-02-24T21:00:17  <Luke-Jr> morcos: CPFP is inherently stateful.
3842016-02-24T21:00:19  <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
3852016-02-24T21:00:23  <gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: 0.01 BTC, which is a couple bucks, from just created in a 1kb transaction... takes a long time.
3862016-02-24T21:00:41  <gmaxwell> petertodd: the fact that it's poorly handled by wallets is not good.
3872016-02-24T21:01:18  <Luke-Jr> morcos: for example, if the parent gets mined on its own, the child shouldn't include its data in its feerate/priority
3882016-02-24T21:01:24  <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
3892016-02-24T21:01:38  <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
3902016-02-24T21:01:40  *** cj has quit IRC
3912016-02-24T21:02:09  <Luke-Jr> morcos: I mean as we add transactions to the template, the cached data becomes invalid
3922016-02-24T21:02:15  <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
3932016-02-24T21:02:28  <morcos> its a copy of the data that is updated
3942016-02-24T21:03:22  <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
3952016-02-24T21:03:35  <Luke-Jr> right
3962016-02-24T21:03:38  *** cj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3972016-02-24T21:04:37  *** zooko has quit IRC
3982016-02-24T21:05:15  <morcos> anyway, lets not revisit adding priority to the mempool.  please.
3992016-02-24T21:05:47  <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
4002016-02-24T21:05:57  <Luke-Jr> ok, for now
4012016-02-24T21:06:20  <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
4022016-02-24T21:06:33  <Luke-Jr> no new CPFP PR to review yet, I guess?
4032016-02-24T21:06:38  <morcos> i never pr'ed it b/c well just seemed like code for codes sake
4042016-02-24T21:06:47  <morcos> but sdaftuar used it, so now i will pr that
4052016-02-24T21:06:51  <morcos> not yet, but soon
4062016-02-24T21:07:05  <morcos> don't worry, i'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity for feedback
4072016-02-24T21:07:06  <morcos> :)
4082016-02-24T21:07:24  <Luke-Jr> well, I'd like to throw it in Knots sooner rather than 0.13 ;)
4092016-02-24T21:07:51  <sipa> what is Knots?
4102016-02-24T21:08:04  <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
4112016-02-24T21:08:05  <Luke-Jr> sipa: LJR
4122016-02-24T21:08:25  <petertodd> btw, looks like someone is using optin-rbf for fee bumping, possibly in production: https://blockchain.info/tx/4339a6a49f209b5260203a15b23621d37f8ed605e85525db4eac7e5be2fc04c9
4132016-02-24T21:08:28  <Luke-Jr> sipa: but less personal-to-me
4142016-02-24T21:11:15  <sipa> ic
4152016-02-24T21:11:21  <morcos> petertodd: speaking of opt-in rbf
4162016-02-24T21:11:31  <morcos> i haven't been paying too close attention
4172016-02-24T21:11:45  <morcos> but i see a lot of comments out there about how people can just identify it
4182016-02-24T21:11:58  <morcos> i wonder how obvious it is to everyone though that its inherited
4192016-02-24T21:12:15  <morcos> sure doing 0-conf with unconfirmed parents is fraught with risk
4202016-02-24T21:12:31  <petertodd> morcos: probably not that obvious, but those people will get defrauded in 10x different ways anyway
4212016-02-24T21:12:43  <morcos> but i think maybe we should make the extra effort to be sure everyone is aware of how it works
4222016-02-24T21:12:48  *** jon3ss has quit IRC
4232016-02-24T21:12:52  <morcos> its a bit non-intuitive
4242016-02-24T21:13:27  <morcos> like a warning disclaimer or something
4252016-02-24T21:13:28  <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
4262016-02-24T21:14:40  <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
4272016-02-24T21:14:53  <morcos> communication solves many problems
4282016-02-24T21:15:34  <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
4292016-02-24T21:15:51  <petertodd> morcos: the audience of people who will be writing code to deal with this is relatively small
4302016-02-24T21:15:57  <morcos> oh, nice... ok
4312016-02-24T21:16:16  <petertodd> it's right in the BIP for it too: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki#summary
4322016-02-24T21:17:38  <Luke-Jr> eh, showing it at all is "wrong" IMO :p
4332016-02-24T21:17:50  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: agreed, but we've lost that battle :)
4342016-02-24T21:17:56  <Luke-Jr> not really
4352016-02-24T21:18:06  <sipa> Luke-Jr: well, the alternative is not showing unconfirmed transactions at all :)
4362016-02-24T21:18:11  <sipa> not just not showing replacable ones
4372016-02-24T21:18:34  <petertodd> sipa: eh, showing unconfirmed isn't such a big deal, trying to do risk analysis on them though is kinda nuts
4382016-02-24T21:18:47  <sipa> petertodd: that's why you shouldn't show them :)
4392016-02-24T21:19:14  <petertodd> sipa: well, showing them as unconfirmed is a nice UI thing that I think is fine in the trusted case
4402016-02-24T21:19:16  <sipa> to be clear: i'm not actually arguing for not showing them at all
4412016-02-24T21:19:38  <sipa> petertodd: if they're trusted, a replacable one is also trusted
4422016-02-24T21:19:57  <petertodd> sipa: exactly! why all unconfirmed should probably be shown equally
4432016-02-24T21:20:31  <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
4442016-02-24T21:20:57  <petertodd> sipa: equally, the other approach is user education, which is achieved very well by giving users a 'cancel tx' button
4452016-02-24T21:21:27  <Luke-Jr> sipa: the alternative is showing unconfirmed transactions equally
4462016-02-24T21:23:24  <Luke-Jr> RBF doesn't change anything much really
4472016-02-24T21:23:37  <petertodd> Luke-Jr: indeed! https://petertodd.org/2016/are-wallets-ready-for-rbf :)
4482016-02-24T21:24:06  *** sdaftuar_ is now known as sdaftuar
4492016-02-24T21:25:17  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4502016-02-24T21:26:10  <paveljanik> Will there be any #400000 online party tomorrow?
4512016-02-24T21:26:53  *** abbath has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4522016-02-24T21:32:29  *** wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4532016-02-24T21:32:29  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
4542016-02-24T21:34:04  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4552016-02-24T21:35:50  *** abbath has quit IRC
4562016-02-24T21:36:44  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4572016-02-24T21:36:44  *** wallet421 has quit IRC
4582016-02-24T21:36:51  *** raedah has quit IRC
4592016-02-24T21:37:14  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
4602016-02-24T21:37:18  *** wallet421 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4612016-02-24T21:39:18  *** chris2000 has quit IRC
4622016-02-24T21:39:25  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4632016-02-24T21:41:49  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
4642016-02-24T21:44:22  *** raedah has quit IRC
4652016-02-24T21:45:33  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
4662016-02-24T21:45:33  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4672016-02-24T21:46:59  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4682016-02-24T21:49:47  <sturles> morcos: I still use the patch, and have "mempoolminpriority" and "priorityusage" in the output from getmempoolinfo. :-)
4692016-02-24T21:52:28  *** treehug88 has quit IRC
4702016-02-24T21:53:23  *** Bootvis has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4712016-02-24T22:08:18  <sdaftuar> sturles: hah, i forgot i added that to the rpc call
4722016-02-24T22:08:48  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
4732016-02-24T22:08:50  <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
4742016-02-24T22:09:21  <sdaftuar> Luke-Jr: ancestor package mining PR will build on that and morcos' refactor PR, so might take another day or two
4752016-02-24T22:23:54  *** raedah has quit IRC
4762016-02-24T22:24:48  *** mesmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4772016-02-24T22:30:35  <GitHub122> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #7594: Mempool: Add tracking of ancestor packages (master...ancestor-tracking) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7594
4782016-02-24T22:45:14  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4792016-02-24T22:50:25  <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.
4802016-02-24T22:57:10  *** schmidty has quit IRC
4812016-02-24T23:03:14  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4822016-02-24T23:03:44  <Luke-Jr> gmaxwell: I don't know that it has been discarded?
4832016-02-24T23:19:37  *** zooko has quit IRC
4842016-02-24T23:20:14  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4852016-02-24T23:20:27  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4862016-02-24T23:21:51  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
4872016-02-24T23:25:30  *** wallet421 has quit IRC
4882016-02-24T23:25:46  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4892016-02-24T23:28:52  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4902016-02-24T23:29:47  *** murch has quit IRC
4912016-02-24T23:38:27  *** danielsocials has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4922016-02-24T23:43:31  *** danielsocials has quit IRC
4932016-02-24T23:53:45  *** zooko has quit IRC