1 2016-03-17T00:03:19  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
  2 2016-03-17T00:06:49  *** GreenIsMyPepper has quit IRC
  3 2016-03-17T00:08:47  *** GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2016-03-17T00:20:20  *** Cory has quit IRC
  5 2016-03-17T00:21:48  *** belcher has quit IRC
  6 2016-03-17T00:22:53  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
  7 2016-03-17T00:23:47  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2016-03-17T00:24:09  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2016-03-17T00:29:47  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 10 2016-03-17T00:35:12  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2016-03-17T00:55:51  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
 12 2016-03-17T00:56:13  *** jyap has quit IRC
 13 2016-03-17T00:56:49  *** jyap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2016-03-17T00:56:49  *** jyap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2016-03-17T01:20:59  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 16 2016-03-17T01:45:43  *** droark has quit IRC
 17 2016-03-17T01:50:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 18 2016-03-17T01:51:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 19 2016-03-17T01:58:52  *** jgarzik__ has quit IRC
 20 2016-03-17T02:10:09  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2016-03-17T02:15:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2016-03-17T02:19:39  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 23 2016-03-17T02:19:39  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
 24 2016-03-17T02:19:40  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 25 2016-03-17T02:19:40  *** slackircbridge has quit IRC
 26 2016-03-17T02:19:41  *** fredrin has quit IRC
 27 2016-03-17T02:19:41  *** amiller has quit IRC
 28 2016-03-17T02:19:41  *** jannes has quit IRC
 29 2016-03-17T02:19:43  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
 30 2016-03-17T02:19:43  *** Guest27862 has quit IRC
 31 2016-03-17T02:19:43  *** CodeShark has quit IRC
 32 2016-03-17T02:19:44  *** NicolasDorier has quit IRC
 33 2016-03-17T02:19:44  *** anttea has quit IRC
 34 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 35 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 36 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 37 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** slackircbridge has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** fredrin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** amiller has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 40 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 41 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 42 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** Guest27862 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 44 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** NicolasDorier has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 45 2016-03-17T02:25:15  *** anttea has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 46 2016-03-17T02:25:18  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 47 2016-03-17T02:25:43  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
 48 2016-03-17T02:26:21  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2016-03-17T02:41:17  *** belcher has quit IRC
 50 2016-03-17T02:51:00  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
 51 2016-03-17T03:00:37  *** wumpus has quit IRC
 52 2016-03-17T03:02:50  *** wumpus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 53 2016-03-17T03:06:03  *** achow101 has quit IRC
 54 2016-03-17T03:24:39  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 55 2016-03-17T03:35:31  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 56 2016-03-17T03:38:14  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
 57 2016-03-17T03:55:15  *** mrkent has quit IRC
 58 2016-03-17T03:55:36  *** mrkent has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 59 2016-03-17T04:00:03  *** mrkent has quit IRC
 60 2016-03-17T04:18:46  *** mol11111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2016-03-17T04:19:54  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 62 2016-03-17T04:21:11  *** moli has quit IRC
 63 2016-03-17T05:28:01  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 64 2016-03-17T05:28:54  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 65 2016-03-17T05:32:34  *** evoskuil has quit IRC
 66 2016-03-17T05:34:54  *** evoskuil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 67 2016-03-17T05:57:28  *** gevs has quit IRC
 68 2016-03-17T05:58:56  *** fengling has quit IRC
 69 2016-03-17T06:00:18  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
 70 2016-03-17T06:00:18  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 71 2016-03-17T06:00:54  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2016-03-17T06:01:32  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 73 2016-03-17T06:01:47  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 74 2016-03-17T06:02:55  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2016-03-17T06:09:29  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 76 2016-03-17T06:23:28  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 77 2016-03-17T06:31:20  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2016-03-17T06:32:42  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 79 2016-03-17T06:41:37  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 80 2016-03-17T07:18:01  *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
 81 2016-03-17T07:18:59  *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 82 2016-03-17T07:26:22  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 83 2016-03-17T07:30:24  *** Thireus has quit IRC
 84 2016-03-17T07:34:17  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 85 2016-03-17T07:40:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 86 2016-03-17T07:41:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2016-03-17T07:44:32  *** Don_John has quit IRC
 88 2016-03-17T07:51:08  <wumpus> Luke-Jr: can you take a look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7656 (base58 encoding speed up), seems relevant with your libbase58
 89 2016-03-17T07:54:35  * Luke-Jr looks
 90 2016-03-17T07:55:48  <GitHub87> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #6850: Improve AddToWallet performance when rescanning (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6850
 91 2016-03-17T08:06:04  <go1111111> is anyone working on the blockchain verification flag, as Greg describes at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011853.html ? I have some interest in working on it (slowly, as it'd be my first non-test PR)
 92 2016-03-17T08:09:29  *** Thireus has quit IRC
 93 2016-03-17T08:18:45  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 94 2016-03-17T08:23:51  *** mrkent has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2016-03-17T08:33:12  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2016-03-17T08:37:18  *** larrysalibra has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 97 2016-03-17T08:42:42  *** d_t has quit IRC
 98 2016-03-17T08:43:17  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2016-03-17T08:44:01  *** zooko has quit IRC
100 2016-03-17T09:00:11  <paveljanik> Qt5.6 will be fun - no *.pc files there, no Qt5Core.pc etc.
101 2016-03-17T09:03:14  *** larrysalibra has quit IRC
102 2016-03-17T09:07:54  <jonasschnelli> paveljanik: but finally HiDPI support for Linux/Win
103 2016-03-17T09:14:04  *** B4ckJ4ck007 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2016-03-17T09:14:18  <paveljanik> I'll try to workaround it somehow
105 2016-03-17T09:15:44  *** cjcj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2016-03-17T09:35:17  *** mrkent has quit IRC
107 2016-03-17T09:44:31  <paveljanik> jonasschnelli, it will be fun 8) https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-50073
108 2016-03-17T09:45:01  <jonasschnelli> Indeed!
109 2016-03-17T09:57:14  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2016-03-17T10:27:55  <GitHub73> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7702: [qa] Add tests verifychain, lockunspent, getbalance, listsinceblock (master...Mf1603-qaCleanup2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7702
111 2016-03-17T10:32:11  *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112 2016-03-17T10:33:01  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2016-03-17T10:34:18  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2016-03-17T10:35:45  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
115 2016-03-17T10:49:41  *** gevs has quit IRC
116 2016-03-17T11:13:54  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
117 2016-03-17T11:15:21  *** gevs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2016-03-17T11:40:59  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
119 2016-03-17T11:55:29  *** testnet010 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2016-03-17T11:55:32  <GitHub167> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #7703: tor: Change auth order to only use HASHEDPASSWORD if -torpassword (master...2016_03_auth_order) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7703
121 2016-03-17T11:56:12  <testnet010> hello all I was hoping someone could help me
122 2016-03-17T11:56:27  <testnet010> I am trying to mine bitcoins on testnet solo using cgminer
123 2016-03-17T11:57:27  <testnet010> I am getting the following error:  Failed to resolve (?wrong URL) testnet.solo.ckpool.org:3333
124 2016-03-17T12:08:32  <sipa> ask in #cgminer
125 2016-03-17T12:34:18  <GitHub20> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/14d6324a248d...01f42676236b
126 2016-03-17T12:34:19  <GitHub20> bitcoin/master 7659438 Suhas Daftuar: CTxMemPool::removeForBlock now uses RemoveStaged
127 2016-03-17T12:34:20  <GitHub20> bitcoin/master 5de2baa Suhas Daftuar: Rename CTxMemPool::remove -> removeRecursive...
128 2016-03-17T12:34:20  <GitHub20> bitcoin/master 76a7632 Suhas Daftuar: Remove work limit in UpdateForDescendants()...
129 2016-03-17T12:34:28  <GitHub26> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7594: Mempool: Add tracking of ancestor packages (master...ancestor-tracking) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7594
130 2016-03-17T12:37:39  <GitHub103> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #7665: Contrib: Introduce script to tag compiled binaries for convenience (py) (master...0.12.99-contrib-tag) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7665
131 2016-03-17T12:38:49  <GitHub60> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #6816: BIP9: versionbits (master...versionbits) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6816
132 2016-03-17T12:40:12  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2016-03-17T12:57:54  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
134 2016-03-17T13:06:32  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2016-03-17T13:46:57  *** plopi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2016-03-17T13:48:36  <plopi> hi, can I use bitcoind in a nodejs server (for a game) without downloading the entire blockchain? thanks
137 2016-03-17T14:05:30  <wumpus> you'll need to download the entire blockchain, you don't have to store it though if you use pruning
138 2016-03-17T14:10:43  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
139 2016-03-17T14:24:39  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2016-03-17T14:42:59  <Chris_Stewart_5> Is there any way to play with bitcoin core in an interpreter like environment?
141 2016-03-17T14:43:38  <kanzure> if you mean testing, then use regtest mode and bitcoin-cli
142 2016-03-17T14:44:57  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2016-03-17T14:45:51  <Chris_Stewart_5> No more like seeing how things are serialized, i.e. a python like interpreter. I don't want to spend 5 minutes waiting for bitcoind to compile just to see how certain things are serialized
144 2016-03-17T14:46:09  <Chris_Stewart_5> but I'm guessing that is just a limitation of c++
145 2016-03-17T14:48:08  <wumpus> python-bitcoinlib is your friend
146 2016-03-17T15:03:39  *** drumf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2016-03-17T15:08:43  <morcos> wumpus: sipa: there may be two problems here with the new conflict / abandontransaction code.
148 2016-03-17T15:09:32  <morcos> we haven't finished trackign it all down, but our guess is that when your wallet tx is conflicted via parents that were double spent, that there is no way rescans can identify that your wallet tx should now be conflicted
149 2016-03-17T15:10:30  <morcos> that is, if the parents weren't wallet txs, and the parents are now gone, b/c they were double spent, the chain is broken and there is no way to trace the double spend down to your wallet tx
150 2016-03-17T15:11:11  <instagibbs> Chris_Stewart_5, perhaps not as well-tested, but online: https://blockchainprogramming.azurewebsites.net/checkscript
151 2016-03-17T15:11:40  <morcos> separately i believe that abandontransaction doesn't work for not counting new funds you've received, it only works for no longer counting spends.
152 2016-03-17T15:12:21  <morcos> i need to look back and see why it was made that way, it sounds vaguely familiar to me that i might have known that
153 2016-03-17T15:15:42  <wumpus> I think abandontransaction should work for any transaction that is not confirmed and not in the mempool
154 2016-03-17T15:16:05  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
155 2016-03-17T15:16:32  <wumpus> looks like there's a lot of edge cases otherwise, in the checks to see if it's actually a double spend or conflict
156 2016-03-17T15:17:33  <morcos> wumpus: it's possible.  the purpose of it was so that you didn't keep tying up your inputs.  remember, many people didn't even want it for 0.12.  so i think you might be right, but it takes more careful thinking about the issue of what it means to abandon another transaction.  for instance you don't know if the guy who sent it to you is getting it mined another way.
157 2016-03-17T15:18:35  <morcos> the fundamental problem is we've now got these txs that are severed from any connection to the blockchain by missing parents, so we can't detect them as conflicted.  surely the right answer isn't to manually abandon each one
158 2016-03-17T15:19:01  <morcos> but honestly, i'm not sure how to fix it.  it seems a pretty big problem.
159 2016-03-17T15:19:30  <wumpus> "for instance you don't know if the guy who sent it to you is getting it mined another way" right, you can be sure
160 2016-03-17T15:19:52  <wumpus> can't*
161 2016-03-17T15:20:40  <wumpus> but it may not be realistic to protect against that in the command
162 2016-03-17T15:21:27  <wumpus> the user needs to be aware not to use it in such cases
163 2016-03-17T15:21:59  <morcos> sdaftuar is suggesting that maybe the right answer is to never count in your balance unconfirmed txs that aren't in your mempool
164 2016-03-17T15:22:22  <GitHub142> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/01f42676236b...f034bced269c
165 2016-03-17T15:22:23  <GitHub142> bitcoin/master fa48bb3 MarcoFalke: [qt] Remove 0-fee from send dialog
166 2016-03-17T15:22:23  <GitHub142> bitcoin/master fae8467 MarcoFalke: [qt] Remove unneeded "fSendFreeTransactions" check
167 2016-03-17T15:22:24  <GitHub142> bitcoin/master f034bce Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7686: [qt] Remove 0-fee from send dialog...
168 2016-03-17T15:22:24  <sipa> ^ i was about to suggest that
169 2016-03-17T15:22:32  <GitHub102> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7686: [qt] Remove 0-fee from send dialog (master...Mf1603-qt-0-fee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7686
170 2016-03-17T15:23:08  <morcos> so for outputs received, it works the same as it did before the change to conflicts.   for inputs spent, it works as it does in 0.12.  they are still spent unless you abandon them
171 2016-03-17T15:23:37  <morcos> that seems relatively reasonable to me
172 2016-03-17T15:23:57  <wumpus> I think that makes sense
173 2016-03-17T15:26:27  *** Aleph0 has quit IRC
174 2016-03-17T15:27:13  <morcos> wumpus: here was the list of unfinished business from abandontransaction
175 2016-03-17T15:27:15  *** Aleph0 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
176 2016-03-17T15:27:17  <morcos> Return abandoned status in listtransactions
177 2016-03-17T15:27:18  <morcos> Return abandoned status in GUI
178 2016-03-17T15:27:18  <morcos> Fix any issues with how abandoned txs should sort
179 2016-03-17T15:27:20  <morcos> Add a way to abandon transactions from GUI
180 2016-03-17T15:28:06  <morcos> In fixing the conflict detection, should we go ahead and add the status in listtransactions?  (how many of these changes do you want to make for a point release)
181 2016-03-17T15:28:52  <morcos> Also I was hoping to discuss schedule of the impending soft fork today, are we ok waiting until that to release this change...
182 2016-03-17T15:29:58  <morcos> And so I'm not going to make any other changes to the functionality abandontransaction, ie. it shouldnt' do anything other than it already does (no longer marking inputs as spent)
183 2016-03-17T15:30:01  <wumpus> well for 0.13 we want all of them, I'd say backport the non-GUI ones to 0.12
184 2016-03-17T15:30:21  <morcos> is the sorting a GUI only thing?
185 2016-03-17T15:30:29  <morcos> i'm  not sure i'm the right guy to make those change
186 2016-03-17T15:30:31  <morcos> s
187 2016-03-17T15:30:43  <morcos> i mean i can hack around in the GUI if you want...
188 2016-03-17T15:31:08  <wumpus> the bare minimum for 0.12.1 is that people such as Cocodude can troubleshoot their issue and get rid of those transactions succesfully
189 2016-03-17T15:31:25  <morcos> sipa: are you going to do that?
190 2016-03-17T15:31:45  <morcos> i can add the abandoned status to listtransactions
191 2016-03-17T15:31:53  <wumpus> and a flag to be able to check whether a transactions was abandoned would be great, to be able to verify abandontransaction did its work
192 2016-03-17T15:31:59  <sipa> morcos: i can, but i was hoping to get some work on segwit done
193 2016-03-17T15:32:14  <morcos> ha ha...   pulling out the trump card?
194 2016-03-17T15:32:35  <sipa> ?
195 2016-03-17T15:32:46  <morcos> i can't argue against that
196 2016-03-17T15:33:10  <sipa> ah, i forgot that trump means something else than a politiciam
197 2016-03-17T15:33:22  <sdaftuar> hah
198 2016-03-17T15:33:46  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2016-03-17T15:33:49  <morcos> ok i'll make the changes to not count as received money if its 0 confirms and not in mempool, and i'll add the abandon status to listtransactions
200 2016-03-17T15:33:59  <sipa> great
201 2016-03-17T15:35:08  <morcos> i'll also add this to the rpc test, that was a tricky one
202 2016-03-17T15:35:26  *** xabbix__ has quit IRC
203 2016-03-17T15:36:37  *** xabbix__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2016-03-17T15:37:43  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
205 2016-03-17T15:37:52  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
206 2016-03-17T15:49:18  <jonasschnelli> morcos: I can add the abandon function in the GUI
207 2016-03-17T15:49:49  <jonasschnelli> A right-click-context menu to abandon should be relatively trivial I guess.
208 2016-03-17T15:50:04  <jonasschnelli> The RBF stuff is way more complex. :)
209 2016-03-17T15:50:21  <wumpus> awesome
210 2016-03-17T15:50:45  <wumpus> I think we should open an issue to track the remaining abandontransaction work
211 2016-03-17T15:50:55  <wumpus> I'll open it
212 2016-03-17T15:51:04  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: okay. Thanks.
213 2016-03-17T15:51:17  *** BitcoinErrorLog has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
214 2016-03-17T15:51:22  <jonasschnelli> What else is left next to the GUI and the today identified bug?
215 2016-03-17T15:52:00  <BitcoinErrorLog> what's up with this coinbase? http://blockr.io/block/info/403061
216 2016-03-17T15:54:52  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: just copied the list from #7312 and added #7690 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7704
217 2016-03-17T15:55:16  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: perfect!
218 2016-03-17T15:55:57  <wumpus> BitcoinErrorLog: what's wrong with it?
219 2016-03-17T15:55:58  <sipa> BitcoinErrorLog: what is weird about it?
220 2016-03-17T15:58:14  <BitcoinErrorLog> ton of zeroes in the scriptsig, unusual sequence, i'm not sure, just getting others pointing it out
221 2016-03-17T15:58:46  <BitcoinErrorLog> 25.59141121 BTC output
222 2016-03-17T15:59:34  <morcos> wumpus: just to be clear, i'm not changing abandontransactoin for the last item in your list.
223 2016-03-17T15:59:58  <wumpus> morcos: ok
224 2016-03-17T16:00:11  <morcos> i'm changing the calculation of the available balance logic to treat depth==0 and !InMempool() coins as not available
225 2016-03-17T16:00:29  <morcos> are teh only two places I need to do that AvailableCoins and GetAvailableCredit ?
226 2016-03-17T16:00:33  <sipa> morcos: also for listunspent/coin selection?
227 2016-03-17T16:00:55  <morcos> sipa: those use availablecoins right?
228 2016-03-17T16:00:57  <sipa> seems so, if you change AvailableCoins
229 2016-03-17T16:01:02  <wumpus> ok, makes sense, but in that case that leaves the transaction in the list and unabandon-able?
230 2016-03-17T16:01:25  <wumpus> it just won't count for the balance, which is good of course
231 2016-03-17T16:02:26  <paveljanik> BitcoinErrorLog, 25+fees.
232 2016-03-17T16:02:42  <wumpus> or maybe in IsTrusted?
233 2016-03-17T16:02:56  <morcos> wumpus: well for instance if you have a tx that has 1 input from you and 1 output to you
234 2016-03-17T16:03:20  <morcos> if it is no longer in your mempool, then the output will automatically stop counting in your unconfirmed balance
235 2016-03-17T16:03:26  <wumpus> IIRC in many places, like in the UI, IsTrusted is used for "counts towards balance"
236 2016-03-17T16:03:33  <morcos> but you'd have to abandon transaction to get it to stop tying up the input
237 2016-03-17T16:04:01  <morcos> wumpus: i don't think thats correct.  IsTrusted is for the spendable balance.
238 2016-03-17T16:04:04  <jonasschnelli> Should we graphical "mark" abandoned transaction in the GUI? Orange icon or so?
239 2016-03-17T16:04:15  <wumpus> oh,right
240 2016-03-17T16:04:40  <wumpus> yes I'm confused, istrusted is about spendable, this isn't even spendable balance
241 2016-03-17T16:04:55  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: SGTM
242 2016-03-17T16:05:00  <BitcoinErrorLog> paveljanik: so nothing weird about the rest? that's what i get for reading anything kristov atlas says...
243 2016-03-17T16:07:17  <GitHub199> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #7705: [amount] Add tests and make GetFee() monotonic (master...Mf1603-amountFix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7705
244 2016-03-17T16:07:25  <paveljanik> BitcoinErrorLog, do you have anything specific?
245 2016-03-17T16:08:41  <BitcoinErrorLog> no, sry
246 2016-03-17T16:08:53  <MarcoFalke> So is travis declared dead today?
247 2016-03-17T16:10:08  <BitcoinErrorLog> paveljanik: atlas was raising an alarm about it, but has since deleted the tweet, i had shared the link with others who thought maybe something was weird, but think maybe just feedback loop of derp
248 2016-03-17T16:10:27  <wumpus> MarcoFalke: is it stuck?
249 2016-03-17T16:10:31  <MarcoFalke> Oh, travis is just missing some commit
250 2016-03-17T16:10:39  <MarcoFalke> need to try twice
251 2016-03-17T16:10:48  <MarcoFalke> and force push
252 2016-03-17T16:11:17  <morcos> hmm, unfortunately the balance stuff is already broken in other ways
253 2016-03-17T16:11:35  *** BitcoinErrorLog has quit IRC
254 2016-03-17T16:11:48  <morcos> well, maybe not , i guess it depends on what you expect to happen with non-Final txs
255 2016-03-17T16:13:00  <wumpus> sent non-final transactions should probably deduct from the balance, but received ones shouldn't count until they're final?
256 2016-03-17T16:13:21  <wumpus> I think that's what I'd expect
257 2016-03-17T16:13:30  *** Thireus has quit IRC
258 2016-03-17T16:13:39  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
259 2016-03-17T16:13:55  <paveljanik> hmm, its coinbare is shown as opt-in RBF at blocktrail 8)
260 2016-03-17T16:14:19  <morcos> wumpus: ugh its broken.  i think the intention is for received non-final things to count in your unconfirmed balance
261 2016-03-17T16:14:19  <sipa> paveljanik: haha
262 2016-03-17T16:14:24  <morcos> ok that makes sense
263 2016-03-17T16:14:28  <paveljanik> https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/f27c9c5d13b62674e367a52f931da9bfa3dc747ea7e51fecdf89f33debc11d89
264 2016-03-17T16:14:40  <morcos> but if its non-final, it counts in your balance REGARDLESS of whether its conflicted or not
265 2016-03-17T16:15:40  <morcos> i think i have to fix that too, so i'll just try to clean it up, but it'll take several of us thinking about whether it is now doing the right thing.
266 2016-03-17T16:16:21  <wumpus> one issue at a time morcos :)
267 2016-03-17T16:16:30  *** BashCo has quit IRC
268 2016-03-17T16:16:52  <morcos> wumpus: well but how can i fix it if its broken in a different way on the same line
269 2016-03-17T16:17:12  <morcos> i mean i agree its going to be less trivial to review, but that line is just garbage as written and its the line i need to change.
270 2016-03-17T16:17:28  <morcos> in GetUnconfirmedBalance
271 2016-03-17T16:17:47  <wumpus> right, agreed, a lot of that balance code is a mess
272 2016-03-17T16:18:07  <wumpus> paveljanik: hah
273 2016-03-17T16:18:24  <morcos> anywya, got to run to meeting, will do a bit later
274 2016-03-17T16:18:33  <wumpus> later
275 2016-03-17T16:32:32  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
276 2016-03-17T16:36:27  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
277 2016-03-17T16:37:39  *** B4ckJ4ck007 has quit IRC
278 2016-03-17T16:38:53  <jonasschnelli> morcos: what's the easiest way of creating a wtx that is not confirmed and not in the mempool (to allow abandoning)?
279 2016-03-17T16:39:41  <jonasschnelli> a flush mempool command would be nice for regtest
280 2016-03-17T16:40:52  *** mol11111 is now known as moli
281 2016-03-17T16:42:08  <jonasschnelli> -walletbroadcast=0 might be useful for a such test-case
282 2016-03-17T16:42:58  <sdaftuar> jonasschnelli: i don't know about easiest, but one way that comes to mind for a regtest test would be to create a tx that sends funds to an anyone-can spend output
283 2016-03-17T16:43:23  <sdaftuar> then create a transaction that spends that anyone-can-spend output and sends to one of your wallet addresses
284 2016-03-17T16:43:27  <sdaftuar> then restart the node
285 2016-03-17T16:43:28  <jonasschnelli> sdaftuar: Yes. Should work. -walletbroadcast=0 (create tx, abandon) works also fine.
286 2016-03-17T16:43:36  <wumpus> doesn't one of the RPC tests create one?
287 2016-03-17T16:43:57  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: Yes. But takes to long for some repetitive GUI debugging. :)
288 2016-03-17T16:44:11  <sdaftuar> oh yeah, abandonconflict.py must do this
289 2016-03-17T16:44:54  <sdaftuar> ah, in that test the node is just restarted with a higher min relay fee to prevent mempool acceptance
290 2016-03-17T16:45:00  <sdaftuar> that is easier!
291 2016-03-17T16:47:35  <sipa> does anyone know when the network alert sysyem was last used?
292 2016-03-17T16:49:24  <wumpus> sipa: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alert_system has all alerts ever
293 2016-03-17T16:49:47  <wumpus> April 11, 2014
294 2016-03-17T16:56:16  <gmaxwell> no, it doesn't have the last one.
295 2016-03-17T16:56:18  <gmaxwell> I sent one.
296 2016-03-17T16:56:34  <gmaxwell> re the chain split around the strictder deployment.
297 2016-03-17T16:56:51  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
298 2016-03-17T16:57:10  <GitHub169> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #7706: [WIP] Fix calculation of balances and available coins. (master...fixconflicts2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7706
299 2016-03-17T16:57:50  <jonasschnelli> Should we have a "un-abandon" feature in the GUI? Like a toggle?
300 2016-03-17T16:59:16  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
301 2016-03-17T17:03:34  *** aknix has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302 2016-03-17T17:07:33  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
303 2016-03-17T17:16:03  <wumpus> I don't think we should have an un-abandon function
304 2016-03-17T17:16:54  <wumpus> gmaxwell: please add it to the wiki then
305 2016-03-17T17:34:59  <gmaxwell> can't now.
306 2016-03-17T17:36:44  *** hybridsole has quit IRC
307 2016-03-17T17:38:23  <wumpus> no problem, but please do add it at some point
308 2016-03-17T17:39:12  <wumpus> people always assume that is the full list of alerts, for example I wasn't aware there was another one
309 2016-03-17T17:44:40  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
310 2016-03-17T17:45:12  *** plopi has quit IRC
311 2016-03-17T17:45:14  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312 2016-03-17T17:46:20  *** BashCo has quit IRC
313 2016-03-17T17:47:20  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
314 2016-03-17T17:51:11  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
315 2016-03-17T17:53:01  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
316 2016-03-17T17:54:40  *** BashCo has quit IRC
317 2016-03-17T17:58:00  *** MrHodl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
318 2016-03-17T17:58:52  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
319 2016-03-17T17:59:23  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
320 2016-03-17T17:59:33  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
321 2016-03-17T18:03:29  *** droark has quit IRC
322 2016-03-17T18:04:00  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
323 2016-03-17T18:04:30  <achow101> Meeting today??
324 2016-03-17T18:05:55  *** hsmiths has quit IRC
325 2016-03-17T18:07:13  <btcdrak> achow101 in 50 mins
326 2016-03-17T18:07:13  *** hsmiths has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
327 2016-03-17T18:07:37  <achow101> Oh, daylight savings time. Whoops
328 2016-03-17T18:10:50  *** skyraider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
329 2016-03-17T18:13:06  *** mrkent has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
330 2016-03-17T18:20:25  <morcos> jonasschnelli: if i did it correctly there isn't much need for an unabandon feature.  if it makes it back into your mempool (or into a block) it won't be treated as abandoned any more
331 2016-03-17T18:24:37  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332 2016-03-17T18:40:49  *** achow101 has quit IRC
333 2016-03-17T18:50:07  *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
334 2016-03-17T18:52:21  *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
335 2016-03-17T18:53:24  <paveljanik> I probably won't be able to join the beginning of the meeting again. Suggested topic: Qt 5.6 support. Bitcoin Core doesn't compile with it, because Qt 5.6 dropped almost all pkgconfig files, so configure fails.
336 2016-03-17T18:53:50  <jonasschnelli> morcos: you said: "if it makes it back into your mempool". How would a abandoned transaction "makes it back into your mempool"?
337 2016-03-17T18:54:12  <jonasschnelli> By re-create the identical transaction? By getting it "back" from a different peer?
338 2016-03-17T18:54:14  *** mrkent_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
339 2016-03-17T18:54:20  <morcos> jonasschnelli: most likely it would be relayed to you from somoene else.  or you could resubmit it
340 2016-03-17T18:54:31  <wumpus> I don't think it makes much sense to discuss qt 5.6 support on the meeting - it's an obvious yes
341 2016-03-17T18:54:46  <jonasschnelli> Okay. Got it.
342 2016-03-17T18:54:56  <paveljanik> wumpus, sure, but maybe someone volunteers for it ;-)
343 2016-03-17T18:55:11  <wumpus> what about you paveljanik? open source is mostly 'scratch your own itch'
344 2016-03-17T18:55:13  *** tubro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
345 2016-03-17T18:55:24  <jonasschnelli> paveljanik wumpus: Yes. The guy who did Qt5.5,.. maybe.
346 2016-03-17T18:55:42  <paveljanik> I'll try, but maybe someone else does faster than me.
347 2016-03-17T18:55:46  <paveljanik> Have to leave now...
348 2016-03-17T18:55:49  <wumpus> ok, later
349 2016-03-17T18:55:53  <jonasschnelli> cu
350 2016-03-17T18:56:24  *** mrkent has quit IRC
351 2016-03-17T18:58:03  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
352 2016-03-17T19:00:26  <morcos> suggested meeting topic: Scheduling the first BIP 9 sort fork for BIPs 68, 112, 113  (have to merge 7575 first, click the button wumpus)
353 2016-03-17T19:00:27  <wumpus> meeting time?
354 2016-03-17T19:00:32  <btcdrak> yes!
355 2016-03-17T19:00:37  <wumpus> #startmeeting
356 2016-03-17T19:00:37  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 17 19:00:37 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
357 2016-03-17T19:00:37  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
358 2016-03-17T19:00:47  <sipa> ohai
359 2016-03-17T19:01:17  <wumpus> ok, that will be first morcos, anyone else with topic suggestions?
360 2016-03-17T19:01:50  *** Core_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
361 2016-03-17T19:02:12  <wumpus> we had an action item last time to review the backports for r BIP68 and 112
362 2016-03-17T19:02:36  <wumpus> #topic c: Scheduling the first BIP 9 sort fork for BIPs 68, 112, 113
363 2016-03-17T19:02:44  <morcos> that wasn't the whole topic
364 2016-03-17T19:02:57  <sdaftuar> i think merging is an action item, not a topic :)
365 2016-03-17T19:03:19  <btcdrak> how happy is everyone with 7575?
366 2016-03-17T19:03:25  * sipa happy
367 2016-03-17T19:03:28  <sdaftuar> +1
368 2016-03-17T19:03:29  <wumpus> well if you want to discuss 7575 that's fine with me too
369 2016-03-17T19:03:32  * btcdrak happy
370 2016-03-17T19:04:00  <morcos> wumpus: well its the blocker on the schedule
371 2016-03-17T19:04:04  <wumpus> #action merge #7575
372 2016-03-17T19:04:06  <morcos> i'm happy with it as well
373 2016-03-17T19:04:47  <morcos> ok so then we just need to adequately review the backports, and we can discuss release?
374 2016-03-17T19:04:57  <morcos> what is the start date?  is april 1st too soon?
375 2016-03-17T19:05:00  <wumpus> I see it got a lot of new acks last day
376 2016-03-17T19:05:24  <sipa> thanks to all of sdaftuar's tests :)
377 2016-03-17T19:05:31  <morcos> i had suggested that the backports be put all together in 1 PR, but i'm not sure thats actually what you guys would prefer.  although i think thats the safest way to test them.
378 2016-03-17T19:05:43  <morcos> (well 1 pr for 0.11 and 1 for 0.12)
379 2016-03-17T19:05:52  <jonasschnelli> +1
380 2016-03-17T19:05:58  <sipa> the moment miners uograde to a release with 7575 in it, the warning.logic will trigger on old nodes
381 2016-03-17T19:06:01  <btcdrak> Assuming 7575 is merged, the softfork deployment code is in #7648. morcos and I have backported the mempool stuff
382 2016-03-17T19:06:04  <wumpus> morcos: I think it makes sense - you can always separate out commits
383 2016-03-17T19:06:21  <sipa> even if it only has softforks with a start time in the guture
384 2016-03-17T19:06:25  <sipa> future
385 2016-03-17T19:06:42  <sipa> so we shouldn't put it too far in the future
386 2016-03-17T19:06:52  <morcos> btcdrak: so will you create a pull that backports it all together for 0.12 (including 7575) and i'll do for 0.11
387 2016-03-17T19:06:55  <btcdrak> wumpus: the mempool backports are all done, they only need verification that the cherry-picks are correct
388 2016-03-17T19:07:07  <wumpus> okay, good
389 2016-03-17T19:07:08  <btcdrak> morcos: ok
390 2016-03-17T19:07:58  <btcdrak> who has reviewed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7648?
391 2016-03-17T19:08:40  <wumpus> no one yet, I think
392 2016-03-17T19:08:42  <btcdrak> this is built on #7575 and has additional RPC tests that exercise the BIP9 softfork process and the BIP enforcements for 68,112 and 113
393 2016-03-17T19:08:44  <morcos> i think we should announce the start date and bit number on the -dev list as soon as we've agreed on it, so that Classic and other implementations can implement it as well
394 2016-03-17T19:09:22  <jonasschnelli> btcdrak: It probably better reviewable after 7575 is merged
395 2016-03-17T19:09:39  <gmaxwell> +1
396 2016-03-17T19:09:39  <wumpus> #action review #7648 after #7575 is merged
397 2016-03-17T19:09:39  <sdaftuar> the final version of the versionbits BIP should similarly be announced i think?
398 2016-03-17T19:09:39  <btcdrak> I'll rebase 7648 after 7575 is merged
399 2016-03-17T19:10:03  <jonasschnelli> I think we don't need to announce the merge,.. but the release/deployment.
400 2016-03-17T19:10:07  <morcos> back in 3 mins
401 2016-03-17T19:11:28  <wumpus> yes the start date and bit number certainly needs to be announced
402 2016-03-17T19:11:48  <btcdrak> wumpus: and we need to plan the release date to be able to set the start date.
403 2016-03-17T19:12:35  <btcdrak> wumpus: morcos and I will have the backport PRs ready to go for 0.12 and 0.11. We've done most of the work already.
404 2016-03-17T19:12:49  <wumpus> great!
405 2016-03-17T19:13:08  <wumpus> release date is not entirely predictable, we do want a RC cycle
406 2016-03-17T19:13:16  <btcdrak> really, the only holdup is review of #7648. Once that's merged final, the backports are as good as done. They'd only need to be verified for correctness.
407 2016-03-17T19:13:24  <sipa> maybe set the date to may 1st?
408 2016-03-17T19:13:27  <morcos> I'd suggest moving the start date to April 15th
409 2016-03-17T19:13:28  <morcos> oh
410 2016-03-17T19:13:29  <morcos> ok
411 2016-03-17T19:13:38  <wumpus> may 1st sounds good to me
412 2016-03-17T19:14:12  <btcdrak> is that the start date for BIP9?
413 2016-03-17T19:14:17  <wumpus> better to leave some time for issues, which will always arise
414 2016-03-17T19:14:33  <morcos> so BIP 9 itself is up to date in the BIP repo, I guess that's what matters most for other implementations, not our code readiness
415 2016-03-17T19:14:46  <sdaftuar> others may not be aware of that though
416 2016-03-17T19:14:57  <sdaftuar> as it's been in flux until recently
417 2016-03-17T19:15:24  <morcos> I'm happy to send the follow up to my original email with these announcements.  Perhaps we should update BIP's 68,112,113 with the soft fork info
418 2016-03-17T19:15:34  <sipa> we want to announce out intention to go ahead with a deployment based on bip9, for 68/112/113, with a given start date
419 2016-03-17T19:15:34  <btcdrak> morcos: BIP9 text is uptodate with the implementation
420 2016-03-17T19:15:52  <sdaftuar> good point about updating BIP68/112/113
421 2016-03-17T19:16:02  <wumpus> yes
422 2016-03-17T19:16:03  <btcdrak> OK I'll do that
423 2016-03-17T19:16:25  <btcdrak> so is the BIP9 start date May 1st?
424 2016-03-17T19:16:47  <morcos> btcdrak: that language is confusing.  the date for the first BIP9 soft fork is May 1st
425 2016-03-17T19:16:49  <sdaftuar> May 1st is the startdate for the CSV deployment
426 2016-03-17T19:16:53  <morcos> yep
427 2016-03-17T19:16:56  <sdaftuar> (or whatever we're calling it)
428 2016-03-17T19:17:20  <sipa> once we have code running anywhere in production with a given start date, that date cannot be postponed anymore
429 2016-03-17T19:17:27  <sipa> or there is a fork risk
430 2016-03-17T19:17:31  <morcos> CSV deployment makes sense to me, it captures most of it, perhaps it would be helpful to add a comment next to the deployment, which BIPS it implements
431 2016-03-17T19:17:37  <sipa> moving the start time back is possible
432 2016-03-17T19:17:45  <btcdrak> yeah, it's already called CSV deployment in the code.
433 2016-03-17T19:18:39  <wumpus> ok, so aim is may 1st
434 2016-03-17T19:18:41  <btcdrak> ok so action point is update BIP68/112/113 deployment section
435 2016-03-17T19:18:58  <wumpus> let's make sure to review everything necessary as soon as possible so that it can be merged as soon as possible and we can do the release as soon as possible
436 2016-03-17T19:18:58  <morcos> I think it makes sense to include that we Bitcoin Core will have a release well in advance of the start date implementing the fork
437 2016-03-17T19:19:11  *** mrkent has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
438 2016-03-17T19:19:36  <btcdrak> regarding choosing the bit, I guess bit 0 makes sense.
439 2016-03-17T19:19:53  <sdaftuar> just please don't choose bit 28
440 2016-03-17T19:20:03  *** mrkent_ has quit IRC
441 2016-03-17T19:20:09  <wumpus> or 13 :)
442 2016-03-17T19:20:19  <btcdrak> The Chinese like 8
443 2016-03-17T19:20:20  <btcdrak> ha
444 2016-03-17T19:20:44  <wumpus> but yes it makes sense just to allocate 0
445 2016-03-17T19:21:09  <wumpus> easier to keep track if they're simply dealt out in order
446 2016-03-17T19:21:22  <morcos> what is the block number classic uses?
447 2016-03-17T19:21:38  *** testnet010 has quit IRC
448 2016-03-17T19:21:57  <btcdrak> BIP109 uses one of the top 3 ::sigh::
449 2016-03-17T19:22:19  <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/blob/develop/src/primitives/block.h#L13
450 2016-03-17T19:22:32  <btcdrak> top bit 010, so it's not actually part of the BIP9 spec
451 2016-03-17T19:23:23  <morcos> btcdrak: huh, it looks like they use 001 and then use bit 28 to signal their hard fork
452 2016-03-17T19:23:37  <btcdrak> yup
453 2016-03-17T19:23:41  <sdaftuar> TESTDUMMY!
454 2016-03-17T19:23:42  <sdaftuar> er
455 2016-03-17T19:23:49  <jonasschnelli> ;-)
456 2016-03-17T19:23:51  <sdaftuar> so that works out fine then?
457 2016-03-17T19:23:51  <btcdrak> bwahahaha
458 2016-03-17T19:23:55  <wumpus> hehehe
459 2016-03-17T19:23:55  <btcdrak> yes
460 2016-03-17T19:23:58  <morcos> sdaftuar: thats what i'm hoping you'll answer
461 2016-03-17T19:24:20  <morcos> it should, i think
462 2016-03-17T19:24:24  <sdaftuar> i think so too
463 2016-03-17T19:25:09  <btcdrak> TESTDUMMY is a past deployment, in 2008 so no problem.
464 2016-03-17T19:25:13  <wumpus> ok, let's try to be sure about that before committing to one
465 2016-03-17T19:25:37  <morcos> jonasschnelli: so we'd like to get that listunspent abandon flag in for 0.12.1 too (but not the gui changes)...
466 2016-03-17T19:25:42  <btcdrak> wumpus: it's fine. TESTDUMMY timeout is December 31, 2008
467 2016-03-17T19:25:48  <jonasschnelli> morcos: opening PR in 30secs.
468 2016-03-17T19:25:50  <morcos> topic: anything else needed for 0.12.1 ?
469 2016-03-17T19:26:08  <jonasschnelli> What about the GUI warning capabilities for 0.12.1?
470 2016-03-17T19:26:15  <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7579
471 2016-03-17T19:26:18  <wumpus> if it's going to be a softfork release, there shouldn't be much else in 0.12.1
472 2016-03-17T19:26:28  <btcdrak> yeah let's keep it small
473 2016-03-17T19:26:31  <jonasschnelli> I'm not entierly happy with 7579,... but could be a small step.
474 2016-03-17T19:26:47  <btcdrak> postpone 7579
475 2016-03-17T19:26:57  <wumpus> 2008? well, let's get into our deloreans
476 2016-03-17T19:27:11  *** hybridsole has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
477 2016-03-17T19:27:11  <jtimon> sorry, late, reading, super happy with bip9
478 2016-03-17T19:27:36  <morcos> jonasschnelli: oh, i'm glad you pointed me to that PR, i didn't know about it, and was separately going to rework warnings.   we should fix them for rpc and gui at the same time.  so yeah not for 0.12.1
479 2016-03-17T19:27:57  <jonasschnelli> 7579 aims for a simple change that is BP compatibile.
480 2016-03-17T19:28:01  <wumpus> let's leave that to 0.12.2
481 2016-03-17T19:28:07  <jonasschnelli> It does not prevent the whole rework.
482 2016-03-17T19:28:11  <wumpus> focus on the softfork
483 2016-03-17T19:28:16  <jonasschnelli> +1
484 2016-03-17T19:28:20  <btcdrak> wumpus: +1
485 2016-03-17T19:28:40  <wumpus> anything that is also required will unpredictably affect the release date
486 2016-03-17T19:28:42  <jonasschnelli> The internal warning system was always bad. So no hurry. :)
487 2016-03-17T19:28:47  <wumpus> yea...
488 2016-03-17T19:29:17  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: I do like 7579 btw
489 2016-03-17T19:29:34  <morcos> wumpus: right, so lets review 7706 and jonasschnelli's pull that is now 2 mins overdue as well, b/c i think we need those
490 2016-03-17T19:31:06  <wumpus> which one?
491 2016-03-17T19:31:21  <morcos> (the flag for abandontransaction in listunspent)
492 2016-03-17T19:31:29  <btcdrak> we probably need a new #topic, we've strayed off the original topic
493 2016-03-17T19:31:41  <morcos> well its all related to getting 0.12.1 released
494 2016-03-17T19:31:47  <wumpus> oh that makes sense, probably a few line change with no impoact outside listunspent
495 2016-03-17T19:31:56  <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7707 (not 7706!)
496 2016-03-17T19:31:58  <GitHub84> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #7707: [RPC][QT] UI support for abandoned transactions (master...2016/03/abandon_ui) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7707
497 2016-03-17T19:32:07  <morcos> jonasschnelli: yeah, mine is 7706, we need both
498 2016-03-17T19:32:08  <btcdrak> morcos: but the topic was "Scheduling the first BIP 9 sort fork for BIPs 68, 112, 113"
499 2016-03-17T19:32:20  <sipa> i think we should get dgenr8's partition detection improvement reviewed for 0.12.1
500 2016-03-17T19:32:28  <jonasschnelli> morcos: Ah. Right.
501 2016-03-17T19:32:45  <wumpus> ok, now everyone wants their favorite thing in 0.12.1
502 2016-03-17T19:32:46  <jonasschnelli> sipa: PR URL?
503 2016-03-17T19:32:46  <morcos> sipa: oh, i like that idea.  thats the most effective way to fix the poor situation with the warnings
504 2016-03-17T19:32:47  <wumpus> I was trying to avoid this
505 2016-03-17T19:32:52  <wumpus> and focus on the softfork
506 2016-03-17T19:33:11  <morcos> wumpus: well lets see if the list we come up wiht in the next 5 mins is reasonable
507 2016-03-17T19:33:21  <morcos> we don't have to keep adding stuff for the next week
508 2016-03-17T19:33:58  <btcdrak> improving the partition warnings would be a great help, because it's currently a _disaster_
509 2016-03-17T19:34:00  <jonasschnelli> dgenr8 partition check PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7568/files
510 2016-03-17T19:34:14  <wumpus> minimum risk would be to release 0.12.0 + only softfork backports
511 2016-03-17T19:34:48  <wumpus> but I agree if there are critical bugfixes they should be in too
512 2016-03-17T19:34:57  <jonasschnelli> I agree. 0.13 Release is 2016-07-01
513 2016-03-17T19:35:04  <wumpus> yes
514 2016-03-17T19:35:06  <morcos> wumpus: i think the conflict detection issue is potentially large. i'm kind of surprised we haven't seen more complaints about it.  i guess people might not rely on unconfirmed balance too much
515 2016-03-17T19:35:06  <jonasschnelli> (so not so far away)
516 2016-03-17T19:35:08  <sipa> if we don't fix the partition warnings, we should disable them. maintaining the system longer in the current state will just make people ignore them
517 2016-03-17T19:35:21  <btcdrak> sipa: +1
518 2016-03-17T19:35:33  <wumpus> I agree sipa and morcos
519 2016-03-17T19:35:37  <morcos> sipa: have you reviewed the partition PR
520 2016-03-17T19:35:38  <wumpus> so let's fix those
521 2016-03-17T19:35:39  <wumpus> no more
522 2016-03-17T19:36:47  <wumpus> but the softfork is still priority #1
523 2016-03-17T19:37:16  *** Core_ has quit IRC
524 2016-03-17T19:37:46  <sipa> ok
525 2016-03-17T19:38:28  <wumpus> #action for 0.12.1, apart from softfork: fix partition warnings (review #7568), conflict detection issue (#7706)
526 2016-03-17T19:39:06  <sipa> morcos: only the concept; i'll review the code too
527 2016-03-17T19:39:45  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: we probably want a RPC-only #7707 for 0.12.1
528 2016-03-17T19:40:01  <morcos> yep, its one line of code.  : )
529 2016-03-17T19:40:06  <wumpus> heh
530 2016-03-17T19:40:09  <jonasschnelli> wumpus: Agree. You could cherry pick or tell me if i should open a RPC-only PR against 0.12
531 2016-03-17T19:40:37  <wumpus> jonasschnelli: oh it's one line, I'll manage :)
532 2016-03-17T19:40:46  <jonasschnelli> +1
533 2016-03-17T19:41:10  <jonasschnelli> Is a independent commit: 42e945d79fd54ab11ad48978910b42d10c1c7cf8
534 2016-03-17T19:41:24  <morcos> i marked 7706 as WIP, but i just want to flesh out the tests.  but wouldn't mind somoene else to think about whether its doing the right thing
535 2016-03-17T19:41:25  <wumpus> #action for 0.12.1, #7707 (: 42e945d79fd54ab11ad48978910b42d10c1c7cf8 only)
536 2016-03-17T19:41:55  <jtimon> wumpus: ACK on just using bits in order
537 2016-03-17T19:44:13  <wumpus> that concludes the topic, I think
538 2016-03-17T19:44:20  <jonasschnelli> topic prop.: state of SW
539 2016-03-17T19:44:35  <wumpus> #topic state of SW
540 2016-03-17T19:45:00  * jonasschnelli thinks is rude to look at sipa now...
541 2016-03-17T19:45:01  <sipa> i'm working on the post-fork upgrade problem in the current segnet code
542 2016-03-17T19:45:19  <jtimon> morcos: the right bit to signal hardforks is the one that helps old nodes declare the first hardfork block invalid. see outdated https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7566/commits/990dda87b258c1e8d4d35b1fcbae4106303664f0
543 2016-03-17T19:45:21  <sipa> next thing after that is rebase on top of versionbitd and do a new segnet
544 2016-03-17T19:45:49  <morcos> sipa: new segnet or testnet?
545 2016-03-17T19:45:59  <jonasschnelli> samesame?
546 2016-03-17T19:46:14  <sipa> new segnet
547 2016-03-17T19:46:29  <sipa> though we can independently test on testnet too, of course
548 2016-03-17T19:47:20  <jonasschnelli> Are we aiming SW for 0.13.1?
549 2016-03-17T19:47:52  <sipa> i'm aiming for SW in 0.11.something, 0.12.something, 0
550 2016-03-17T19:47:55  <sipa> 0.13
551 2016-03-17T19:48:14  <sipa> it's a softfork, we'll need to backport
552 2016-03-17T19:48:20  <morcos> btcdrak: btw, you should make the start date for CSV deployment earlier on testnet.  we didn't talk about that.  but any reason not to make the start date march 1st?
553 2016-03-17T19:48:34  <jonasschnelli> sipa: Agree. Just on the "timeline".
554 2016-03-17T19:48:45  <sipa> jonasschnelli: "soon"
555 2016-03-17T19:48:57  <jonasschnelli> I love that "soon". :)
556 2016-03-17T19:50:10  <jonasschnelli> I'm just asking because some Core Devs did agree a timeline for SW on a a miners/devs/etc. meeting.
557 2016-03-17T19:50:19  <jonasschnelli> *agree on a timeline
558 2016-03-17T19:50:31  <btcdrak> morcos: ok
559 2016-03-17T19:51:04  <sipa> jonasschnelli: i don't care what some people think; a timeline is something you can't promise
560 2016-03-17T19:51:12  <sipa> but we can do our best
561 2016-03-17T19:51:18  <wumpus> good to watch that timeline but most important is that we don't deploy before it's ready, quality shouldn't suffer under time pressure
562 2016-03-17T19:51:19  <jonasschnelli> sipa: fully agree.
563 2016-03-17T19:51:36  <btcdrak> sipa: that's fine, so long as we communicate how things are going, that's good enough.
564 2016-03-17T19:51:42  <wumpus> worst outcome would be to be scared into delivering something that breaks
565 2016-03-17T19:51:48  <jonasschnelli> btcdrak: yes. We just need to communicate.
566 2016-03-17T19:51:50  <sipa> yes
567 2016-03-17T19:52:21  <jonasschnelli> Lets just say "soon". :)
568 2016-03-17T19:52:39  <sipa> i'm glad bip9 seems final
569 2016-03-17T19:52:45  <wumpus> me too
570 2016-03-17T19:52:59  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Finally.
571 2016-03-17T19:53:07  <btcdrak> sipa: party at your house. we'll bring the beers.
572 2016-03-17T19:53:13  <wumpus> I think that concludes the meeting?
573 2016-03-17T19:53:44  <jonasschnelli> btcdrak finally de-anonymizes at the party.
574 2016-03-17T19:53:48  <wumpus> #endmeeting
575 2016-03-17T19:53:48  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Mar 17 19:53:48 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
576 2016-03-17T19:53:48  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-17-19.00.html
577 2016-03-17T19:53:48  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-17-19.00.txt
578 2016-03-17T19:53:48  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-17-19.00.log.html
579 2016-03-17T19:53:59  <btcdrak> haha
580 2016-03-17T19:54:06  <sipa> jonasschnelli: that's why you bring a drink mixer
581 2016-03-17T19:54:17  <jonasschnelli> hahaha...
582 2016-03-17T19:54:20  <wumpus> hehehe
583 2016-03-17T19:54:27  <sipa> ok, afk
584 2016-03-17T19:54:30  <jonasschnelli> cu
585 2016-03-17T19:54:31  <morcos> now that the meeting is over, can i just ask about these non-final txs again...  i just want to avoid a mistake like with paytxfee
586 2016-03-17T19:54:36  <wumpus> later
587 2016-03-17T19:54:46  <morcos> where we didn't realize how some poeple are using things might get messed up
588 2016-03-17T19:55:00  <morcos> it seems hard to me to imagine many people have non-final txs in your wallet
589 2016-03-17T19:55:08  <wumpus> safest is always to leave the behavior the same :) but if you change it, just document it properly ,and it's no problem
590 2016-03-17T19:55:21  <wumpus> the criticism was that it waswn't mentioned in the release notes
591 2016-03-17T19:55:24  <wumpus> not that it changed at all
592 2016-03-17T19:55:33  <morcos> ok, but its ok with you if it changes in 0.12.1 then
593 2016-03-17T19:55:40  <morcos> i just don't know of any other good way to fix this
594 2016-03-17T19:55:46  <wumpus> eh, that certainly shouldn't change between minor releases
595 2016-03-17T19:55:51  <wumpus> do that for 0.13
596 2016-03-17T19:55:58  <morcos> but you can't fix the problem then
597 2016-03-17T19:55:59  <wumpus> for 0.12.1 we want tofix the issue and nothing more
598 2016-03-17T19:56:09  <wumpus> without affecting non-final txes
599 2016-03-17T19:56:21  <morcos> how can you distinguish between a non-final tx that you want to include in your balance and one that you don't
600 2016-03-17T19:56:29  <morcos> if it's conflicted you dont
601 2016-03-17T19:56:40  <wumpus> yeah... :/
602 2016-03-17T19:56:46  <morcos> but you have no way of knowing whether its actually conflicted or not
603 2016-03-17T19:57:01  <wumpus> anyhow I've had a long day, I'm going afk too, can't really concentrate well anymore
604 2016-03-17T19:57:10  <btcdrak> morcos: do I need to mention testnet starttime/timeout in the BIPs?
605 2016-03-17T19:57:13  <morcos> ok, well i'm going to change it for minor release then
606 2016-03-17T19:57:26  <morcos> btcdrak: yes i would
607 2016-03-17T19:57:29  <morcos> and bit
608 2016-03-17T19:57:40  <morcos> isn't there a section for depolyment
609 2016-03-17T19:57:41  <btcdrak> "This BIP is to be deployed by "versionbits" BIP9 using bit 0 with a '''starttime''' of midnight 1st May 2016 UTC (Unix timestamp 1462060800) and '''timeout''' of 1 year at midnight 1st May 2016 UTC (Unix timestamp 1483228800)."
610 2016-03-17T19:57:50  <btcdrak> there is
611 2016-03-17T19:58:11  <morcos> uh, well your second year shouldn't be 2016
612 2016-03-17T19:58:17  <btcdrak> ha
613 2016-03-17T19:58:17  <morcos> but also don't you want to make the time out longer?
614 2016-03-17T19:58:30  <morcos> i thought we were typically doing 3 year time outs?
615 2016-03-17T19:58:31  <btcdrak> a year is fine.
616 2016-03-17T19:58:34  <btcdrak> no
617 2016-03-17T19:58:39  <btcdrak> the recommendation is 1 year
618 2016-03-17T19:58:45  <morcos> in the BIP?
619 2016-03-17T19:58:47  <btcdrak> yes
620 2016-03-17T19:58:48  <sdaftuar> $ date --date='@1483228800'
621 2016-03-17T19:58:48  <sdaftuar> Sat Dec 31 19:00:00 EST 2016
622 2016-03-17T19:59:59  *** schmidty has quit IRC
623 2016-03-17T20:00:03  <morcos> i'm surprised the recommendation is one year, but ok, that sounds fine to me
624 2016-03-17T20:01:09  <btcdrak> sdaftuar: good catch, I made a typo
625 2016-03-17T20:02:09  <btcdrak> morcos: so a similar text for testnet then.
626 2016-03-17T20:02:35  *** schmidty has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
627 2016-03-17T20:03:10  <morcos> yeah, no one else said anything about the mar 1st testnet, but that makes sense to me, not sure what the expiration should be, maybe may 1st ?
628 2016-03-17T20:03:17  <morcos> of 2017
629 2016-03-17T20:03:43  <morcos> in case there is some delay, seems a bit silly to be screwed on testnet b/c we put the date too early
630 2016-03-17T20:08:13  <btcdrak> I'd be more tempted to say the testnet date should be 1st April to give a chance for review of  7648
631 2016-03-17T20:16:23  <jtimon> good meeting, more re bip9. Again, I'm super-happy with #7575. And I'm glad that CodeShark rusty and sipa don't seem to hate me after my heterdox review method for bip9, and I'm sorry for being to open too open to offer resistance for potentially/probably/likely stupid things. I feel I've been a pain in the ass with this. I really needed to maintain a parallel branch to whatever was going to be merged for me to review , but next
632 2016-03-17T20:16:24  <jtimon> time I can try much harder to filter my nits before I send them. Also, thanks to morcos for re-bringing the "what's wrong with sending early wrong/preemtive warnings to old nodes" issue, looking back that's the only point where I surrender "easily". Sorry again to all 3
633 2016-03-17T20:17:24  * btcdrak hands jtimon some BIP9 party beers
634 2016-03-17T20:18:13  <morcos> btcdrak: i don't feel strongly, but it doesn't seem like there is any reason to delay on testnet at all.  does anyone else have an opinion?
635 2016-03-17T20:18:44  <btcdrak> jtimon: https://i.imgur.com/NDBSWOL.jpg
636 2016-03-17T20:19:40  <jtimon> morcos: for bip68/bip112/bip113 ? testnet should definitely have an earlier starttime
637 2016-03-17T20:19:59  <jtimon> btcdrak: I only have amstel here, but cheers
638 2016-03-17T20:20:29  <morcos> jtimon: yeah i think we just need to pick start and end times for test net.   i was proposing march 1st for start time and may 1st 2017 (to match mainnet) for end time
639 2016-03-17T20:21:20  <btcdrak> morcos: this is what I came up with https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...btcdrak:cvsdeploy
640 2016-03-17T20:22:27  <jtimon> morcos: ack, but let's make sure we explain why not march 1st 2017 in the code comments, if you hadn't said "(to match mainnet)", I would have asked
641 2016-03-17T20:22:34  <morcos> btcdrak: i'd take out the "on mainnet" part of "is to be deployed on mainnet by versionbits"
642 2016-03-17T20:23:49  <morcos> btcdrak: i still sligthly vote for march 1st instead of april 1st, but its only a slight preference
643 2016-03-17T20:25:21  <jtimon> btw, unrelated, morcos gmaxwell how stupid does https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/0.12.99-feerate-test-bug look? would something like that qualify as a "test bug" in libsecp256k1 ?
644 2016-03-17T20:25:45  <jtimon> it passed unittests and python ./qa/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py -extended
645 2016-03-17T20:26:19  <morcos> jtimon: ha ha
646 2016-03-17T20:26:46  <jtimon> wumpus: I'm kind of curious, can I open a PR just to see what travis thinks about it?
647 2016-03-17T20:27:01  <jtimon> then close it, of course
648 2016-03-17T20:27:14  <morcos> jtimon: i'm not really sure to tell you the truth, i mean even if you made it more egregious, it would probably only fail like an IsDust check or something.
649 2016-03-17T20:27:43  <morcos> this is what i was sort of trying to say to wumpus the other day about FeeRates when he didn't want them to be doubles
650 2016-03-17T20:27:54  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
651 2016-03-17T20:28:00  <morcos> i don't think they matter too much for anything
652 2016-03-17T20:28:43  <btcdrak> morcos: done https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/359
653 2016-03-17T20:29:24  <morcos> btcdrak: heh, part of me was secretly hoping you would keep april so if anyone complains about the date you would be on the hook at not me.
654 2016-03-17T20:29:44  <btcdrak> ha, i realised april fool
655 2016-03-17T20:33:41  <btcdrak> sdaftuar: is bit 28 forever in use on regtest then?
656 2016-03-17T20:44:11  <jyap> btw, it's soon™
657 2016-03-17T20:44:32  <morcos> btcdrak: yeah, but thats the case with any bit used in any soft fork, so we were eventually going to have to figure out what to do about that once we had 29 soft forks
658 2016-03-17T20:44:39  <morcos> now we'll ahve to figure it out when we have 28
659 2016-03-17T20:54:03  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
660 2016-03-17T20:54:32  <btcdrak> morcos: we need to be able to tell regtest what time it is. then we can have multiple deployments on regtest.
661 2016-03-17T20:55:13  <morcos> btcdrak: yeah it'll be fixable in some way or another, but in the meantime, you probably want to make it easy to quickly activate any and all soft forks on regtest
662 2016-03-17T20:55:19  <morcos> so its best to leave their dates open
663 2016-03-17T21:00:17  *** Don_John has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
664 2016-03-17T21:11:44  *** tubro has quit IRC
665 2016-03-17T21:12:56  *** fengling has quit IRC
666 2016-03-17T21:16:36  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
667 2016-03-17T21:17:13  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
668 2016-03-17T21:19:03  <jtimon> so, I was just playing around after our conversation yesterday, I wasn't talking about rational numbers for CFeeRate (that would be maaku if he still maintains that position), I just intuitively and irrationally hate CFeeRate for some reason, I'm not sure I can articulate it reasonably yet, but CFeeRate is kind of coupling "presentation precission" with "stored precission" in a way that I deeply dislike, and this sentiment has
669 2016-03-17T21:19:03  <jtimon> nothing to do CFeeRate::ToString(). As I was telling, I thought code would probably be faster if the first question after my first explanation was "are you suggesting to make CFeeRate a rational number?". I could have responded with "it is always already a rational number, it just happens that it's a constant" but I really thought that without me actually understanding why was the goal in changing CFeeRate, that wouldn't lead to
670 2016-03-17T21:19:03  <jtimon> any productive discussion unless I had some code to make more point more clear. So I rapidly created all the free disruption I could, to see if any of it could be potentially useful to explain my point about CFeeRate being currently ugly/dangerous interface-wise. Then I was negatevely surprised for my code drafts to pass unitests so easily. At some pint I swear that I passed unitests with s/KB/WEBSCALE=TB*1000, but I was creating
671 2016-03-17T21:19:03  <jtimon>  too much unnecessary disruption to get to this result, so I had to reduce it to something more readable. After many apparently false positives (I knew the rpc tests couldn't possibly let pass some of the things I did), https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/0.12.99-feerate-test-bug it's basically what I have, but I still won't push my not-to-be-merged point about CFeeRate having "bad aji" which I'm still not sure I'm right about
672 2016-03-17T21:19:03  <jtimon> . seeing KB 3 times in the same line in my disruption commits also showed some potential for simplification, but not very promising. Sorry for the noise, I think I will convince myself there's nothing useful in jtimon/0.12.99-feerate soon.
673 2016-03-17T21:22:56  *** fengling has quit IRC
674 2016-03-17T21:38:46  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
675 2016-03-17T21:39:30  *** cjcj has quit IRC
676 2016-03-17T21:48:24  *** treehug88 has quit IRC
677 2016-03-17T21:51:59  *** fuc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
678 2016-03-17T21:52:16  *** MrHodl has quit IRC
679 2016-03-17T22:10:31  <morcos> wumpus: sipa: gmaxwell: See my latest comments on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7706 .  It's a bit of a boondoggle.
680 2016-03-17T22:11:12  <morcos> Can we discuss tomorrow on IRC?  I really think we have to get something done for 0.12.1, so we just need to agree on what it is we want to do.
681 2016-03-17T22:11:29  <morcos> I'm unavailable the rest of the evening, but will be online tomorrow.
682 2016-03-17T22:48:58  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
683 2016-03-17T23:05:12  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
684 2016-03-17T23:10:34  *** skyraider has quit IRC
685 2016-03-17T23:12:22  *** davec has quit IRC
686 2016-03-17T23:12:38  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
687 2016-03-17T23:22:15  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
688 2016-03-17T23:27:13  *** amiller has quit IRC
689 2016-03-17T23:30:12  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
690 2016-03-17T23:32:10  *** Guest73422 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
691 2016-03-17T23:41:07  *** Thireus has quit IRC
692 2016-03-17T23:45:30  *** Thireus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
693 2016-03-17T23:52:22  *** PRab has quit IRC