1 2016-08-16T00:10:30  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  2 2016-08-16T00:22:45  *** murch has quit IRC
  3 2016-08-16T00:45:52  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  4 2016-08-16T01:02:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
  5 2016-08-16T01:03:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  6 2016-08-16T01:10:44  *** jujumax has quit IRC
  7 2016-08-16T01:15:28  *** Samdney has left #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2016-08-16T01:20:20  *** JZA has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2016-08-16T01:41:02  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 10 2016-08-16T01:42:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 11 2016-08-16T01:55:21  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 12 2016-08-16T01:56:27  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 13 2016-08-16T01:59:47  *** jujumax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2016-08-16T02:49:23  *** harrymm has quit IRC
 15 2016-08-16T02:53:28  *** jujumax has quit IRC
 16 2016-08-16T02:56:06  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 17 2016-08-16T02:57:12  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2016-08-16T03:02:14  *** JZA has quit IRC
 19 2016-08-16T03:02:23  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2016-08-16T03:07:17  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 21 2016-08-16T03:08:22  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 22 2016-08-16T03:10:41  *** harrymm has quit IRC
 23 2016-08-16T03:14:31  *** jujumax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2016-08-16T03:24:48  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 25 2016-08-16T03:27:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 26 2016-08-16T03:28:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 27 2016-08-16T03:50:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 28 2016-08-16T03:50:31  *** davec has quit IRC
 29 2016-08-16T03:51:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 30 2016-08-16T03:54:35  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 31 2016-08-16T04:01:37  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 32 2016-08-16T04:02:42  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 33 2016-08-16T04:18:52  *** opz has quit IRC
 34 2016-08-16T04:20:12  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 35 2016-08-16T04:20:17  *** jujumax has quit IRC
 36 2016-08-16T04:21:17  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 37 2016-08-16T04:23:22  *** ChanderG has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 38 2016-08-16T04:32:08  *** ChanderG has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 39 2016-08-16T05:37:54  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
 40 2016-08-16T05:50:33  *** jannes has quit IRC
 41 2016-08-16T06:02:49  *** kadoban has quit IRC
 42 2016-08-16T06:06:11  <GitHub162> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6e5e5abba6f8...bbd9740f534f
 43 2016-08-16T06:06:11  <GitHub162> bitcoin/master 3897668 CryptoVote: Adds issue template. [skip ci]
 44 2016-08-16T06:06:12  <GitHub162> bitcoin/master bbd9740 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8058: [Doc] Add issue template...
 45 2016-08-16T06:06:16  <GitHub125> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8058: [Doc] Add issue template (master...docPRT) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8058
 46 2016-08-16T06:26:59  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 47 2016-08-16T06:27:00  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 48 2016-08-16T06:39:07  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 49 2016-08-16T06:47:18  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 50 2016-08-16T06:56:59  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 51 2016-08-16T06:58:35  *** moli has quit IRC
 52 2016-08-16T06:59:03  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 53 2016-08-16T07:20:16  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2016-08-16T07:30:26  *** rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 55 2016-08-16T07:33:10  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 56 2016-08-16T07:33:12  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 57 2016-08-16T08:05:22  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 58 2016-08-16T08:10:45  <gmaxwell> I'm surprised no large miners are on 0.13rc yet.
 59 2016-08-16T08:11:05  <gmaxwell> (I know none aren't because I watched dozens of blocks go by today without picking up some pretty high fee CPFP transactions)
 60 2016-08-16T08:23:16  *** mn3monic_ has quit IRC
 61 2016-08-16T08:29:48  *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 62 2016-08-16T08:32:46  *** moli has quit IRC
 63 2016-08-16T08:34:47  *** molz has quit IRC
 64 2016-08-16T08:47:22  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 65 2016-08-16T08:48:27  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 66 2016-08-16T08:57:15  <Lightsword> gmaxwell, should I update to it in production?
 67 2016-08-16T08:59:41  <gmaxwell> I think you should. As far as we know it's mature and stable. I've been mining on it since before the RCs and haven't seen any issues.  Obviously normal risks of new software apply, so you might want to keep a closer eye on it than normal.
 68 2016-08-16T09:00:42  <Lightsword> gmaxwell, are there any config differences that changes since 0.13 that I should set?
 69 2016-08-16T09:01:47  <gmaxwell> Some changes in the how block size limits are configured, mentioned in the release notes. I'm not recalling anything else that would be applicable to you, but I'll go through the release notes right now.
 70 2016-08-16T09:06:14  <sipa> Lightsword: actually, comments on the release notes are pretty welcome
 71 2016-08-16T09:06:31  <sipa> it's often hard to judge what is obvious and what is confusing to someone who hasn't followed all the changes in detail
 72 2016-08-16T09:19:41  <GitHub169> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8519: [0.13] A few small improvements to the 0.13 release notes (0.13...relnotes-0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8519
 73 2016-08-16T09:19:48  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 74 2016-08-16T09:20:43  <GitHub58> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #8520: build: Remove check for `openssl/ec.h` (master...2016_08_remove_openssl_ech_check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8520
 75 2016-08-16T09:23:18  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 76 2016-08-16T09:26:00  <GitHub37> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bbd9740f534f...2c2d471e18f0
 77 2016-08-16T09:26:00  <GitHub37> bitcoin/master edb6cf1 instagibbs: remove no-longer-used InitError logic
 78 2016-08-16T09:26:01  <GitHub37> bitcoin/master 2c2d471 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8516: [trivial] remove no-longer-used InitError logic...
 79 2016-08-16T09:26:15  <GitHub26> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8516: [trivial] remove no-longer-used InitError logic (master...deadiniterr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8516
 80 2016-08-16T09:31:30  <Lightsword> sipa, one thing that might be handy is to have a list of all miner relevant config optimizations somewhere
 81 2016-08-16T09:34:24  <Lightsword> gmaxwell, anything I might be missing here? https://gist.github.com/jameshilliard/ba6116f873066e794120e34f49ee5e63
 82 2016-08-16T09:35:19  <sipa> bytespersigop=1 exposes you to an attack with high-sigops transactions
 83 2016-08-16T09:35:43  <sipa> (but if that's ok for you, you can obviously set it, it doesn't hurt anyone else)
 84 2016-08-16T09:36:23  <Lightsword> sipa, ugh…I have that because sendrawtransaction doesn’t have an option like this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7533
 85 2016-08-16T09:36:31  <sipa> in 0.13 the meaning of bytespersigop changed; it doesn't cause rejection of transactions that exceed the bytes/sigop ratio; it merely requires a higher fee for them
 86 2016-08-16T09:36:49  <Lightsword> oh
 87 2016-08-16T09:38:23  <Lightsword> so I should be able to remove that and still send higher sigops transactions now?
 88 2016-08-16T09:38:41  <sipa> yes; they'll just be treated as if they were larger
 89 2016-08-16T09:39:15  <sipa> say a 200 byte transaction with 20 sigops... for fee and miner selection purposes it will be treated as if it was 400 bytes large
 90 2016-08-16T09:39:28  <sipa> (the default is -bytespersigop=20)
 91 2016-08-16T09:40:00  <sipa> may i ask why you need to send such transactions?
 92 2016-08-16T09:40:35  <Lightsword> some transactions with OP_RETURN’s it seemed were throwing sigops errors when I tried sending them
 93 2016-08-16T09:41:20  <Lightsword> they weren’t transactions I created, but was asked to mine for some company
 94 2016-08-16T09:41:21  <sipa> OP_RETURN shouldn't affect that... rather the opposite
 95 2016-08-16T09:41:31  <sipa> they increase the size without increasing sigops
 96 2016-08-16T09:41:50  <sipa> anyway, ok
 97 2016-08-16T09:42:30  <Lightsword> sipa, here’s an example https://blockchain.info/tx/5a3f68d824b75d2f659c545acbc395dc152b589264d301a40dd1d29858ed3c6a
 98 2016-08-16T09:42:49  <sipa> ah, raw multisig
 99 2016-08-16T09:43:14  <sipa> yes, that was the reason for changing the behaviour of -bytespersigop, because it accidentally killed some raw multisig transactions
100 2016-08-16T09:43:44  <Lightsword> ok, so I’ll remove that then
101 2016-08-16T09:44:35  <sipa> -enforcenodebloom was removed, it's always on now
102 2016-08-16T09:44:57  <Lightsword> ok, removed that as well
103 2016-08-16T09:55:05  *** AureliusM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2016-08-16T09:56:51  *** Ginnarr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
105 2016-08-16T10:05:42  <GitHub99> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #8521: qa: Remove duplicate `hash160` implementation (master...2016_08_hash160_dupe) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8521
106 2016-08-16T10:19:00  *** mn3monic_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2016-08-16T10:23:14  <GitHub136> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b52c67c4b188...4374f0ee35f8
108 2016-08-16T10:23:14  <GitHub97> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8519: [0.13] A few small improvements to the 0.13 release notes (0.13...relnotes-0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8519
109 2016-08-16T10:23:15  <GitHub136> bitcoin/0.13 7f84015 Pieter Wuille: Inline mempool RPCs and feefilter into misc sections
110 2016-08-16T10:23:15  <GitHub136> bitcoin/0.13 fe20b83 Pieter Wuille: Remove refactors from list of changes
111 2016-08-16T10:23:16  <GitHub136> bitcoin/0.13 2f58589 Pieter Wuille: Mention dump/import support for HD wallets
112 2016-08-16T10:26:55  <wumpus> it may help releasing 0.13.0, it makes sense for no one to mine (in a big operation) with an rc
113 2016-08-16T10:27:22  <sipa> wumpus: parse failure
114 2016-08-16T10:27:44  <wumpus> well I wouldn't use a rc to mine either
115 2016-08-16T10:28:00  <wumpus> and just wait for the release
116 2016-08-16T10:28:37  <sipa> well, me personally would like to see people from all parts of the ecosystem - including mingers - test the rc, to find potential problems with it
117 2016-08-16T10:29:02  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
118 2016-08-16T10:29:03  <sipa> on the other hand, i can't really state "the rc is safe to mine with!", as that would imply it should be a release already
119 2016-08-16T10:29:21  <sipa> s/mingers/miners/
120 2016-08-16T10:29:29  <wumpus> maybe they tested on small scale
121 2016-08-16T10:30:44  <wumpus> "that would imply it should be a release already" maybe it should
122 2016-08-16T10:31:06  <sipa> a few days won't matter
123 2016-08-16T10:31:22  <wumpus> any reason to not tag rc3 as final right now?
124 2016-08-16T10:32:17  <sipa> i know of no problems
125 2016-08-16T10:32:18  <wumpus> it had almost no changes compared to rc2, so I don't think it needs as long testing as rc2
126 2016-08-16T10:33:10  <sipa> #8490 ?
127 2016-08-16T10:34:04  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2016-08-16T10:34:08  <wumpus> needs rebase
129 2016-08-16T10:44:44  *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2016-08-16T10:47:44  <gmaxwell> Since, afaict, virtually no one in this space has reasonable qualification testing, if people don't mine on RCs we might as well not have them as far as mining is concerned.
131 2016-08-16T10:48:42  <sipa> #8518 worries me, but shouldn't affect mainnet in 0.13.0
132 2016-08-16T10:55:53  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2016-08-16T10:56:43  <gmaxwell> sipa: since there were segwit peers in his log that weren't disconnected, I don't see any reason to believe that it isn't just as it describes-- peers that were stalling the transfer.
134 2016-08-16T10:58:30  <sipa> ah
135 2016-08-16T10:58:42  <sipa> but it seems he is not making progress
136 2016-08-16T10:59:35  <sipa> i think it's due to having multiple potential chains on top of his current state
137 2016-08-16T11:03:02  *** crudel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
138 2016-08-16T11:07:33  <MarcoFalke> gmaxwell: the peers will come in and go after 2 seconds. I have the Debug window open and it looks like a fifo queue of peers.
139 2016-08-16T11:08:29  <MarcoFalke> Somewhat odd that no one reported similar problems, though.
140 2016-08-16T11:24:15  *** BashCo has quit IRC
141 2016-08-16T11:24:54  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2016-08-16T11:26:36  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2016-08-16T11:26:37  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2016-08-16T11:28:36  <MarcoFalke> Deleted peers.dat twice. On the first try it synced fine. On the second try I was back at the stalling problem.
145 2016-08-16T11:29:19  *** Ginnarr has quit IRC
146 2016-08-16T11:30:12  <MarcoFalke> Could it be that we are populating the fetch window with headers and then expect the 0.13 peer to deliver a block in 2 seconds?
147 2016-08-16T11:31:42  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2016-08-16T11:32:11  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2016-08-16T11:32:11  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2016-08-16T11:40:27  *** cryptapus_ is now known as cryptapus
151 2016-08-16T11:59:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
152 2016-08-16T12:07:11  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
153 2016-08-16T12:33:09  <sipa> NicolasDorier: 8295 used locks and a cachedhashesmap, no?
154 2016-08-16T12:33:51  <NicolasDorier> yes, my mistake
155 2016-08-16T12:34:00  <NicolasDorier> I checked your PR after, edited my comment
156 2016-08-16T12:35:00  <sipa> ah, i see
157 2016-08-16T12:36:01  <NicolasDorier> sipa: 8464 seems fine as well may make things easier as well for libconsensus stuff later
158 2016-08-16T12:36:28  <NicolasDorier> uh no
159 2016-08-16T12:36:36  <NicolasDorier> this one  https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/noprecomputecachedhashes
160 2016-08-16T12:37:32  <NicolasDorier> it is smaller diff as well
161 2016-08-16T12:38:52  <NicolasDorier> I'm fine for merging my PR, but also fine if you make a new PR and squash those two commits together, I think your implementation is simpler, more efficient and will make my life easier for libconsensus later.
162 2016-08-16T12:44:14  <NicolasDorier> sipa: yep, just reviewed it, now I would prefer you make a new PR which supersede mine with  https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/noprecomputecachedhashes, you can squash the two commits as well.
163 2016-08-16T12:47:50  <NicolasDorier> However I don't understand why  std::vector<std::unique_ptr<CachedHashes>> is needed and can't be  just std::vector<CachedHashes>. The CachedHashes have the same life time as the vector
164 2016-08-16T12:48:12  <sipa> NicolasDorier: resizing a vector changes the addresses
165 2016-08-16T12:48:39  <sipa> by using an unique_ptr for each element, the cavhedhashes don't move
166 2016-08-16T12:48:54  <sipa> ah
167 2016-08-16T12:49:10  <sipa> we could just resize the vector to have block.vtx.size() entries
168 2016-08-16T12:50:34  <NicolasDorier> sipa: well, in this case there is a bug in my PR ? I am using a map<uint256, CachedHashes>
169 2016-08-16T12:50:45  <NicolasDorier> ah no
170 2016-08-16T12:50:49  <NicolasDorier> I'm copying stuff
171 2016-08-16T12:51:06  <sipa> indeed, and you do the lookup every time again
172 2016-08-16T12:51:11  <sipa> i do it ahead of time
173 2016-08-16T12:51:29  <sipa> each CScriptCheck gets a pointer to the CachedHashes it uses
174 2016-08-16T12:51:57  <sipa> also, adding elements to a map does not invalidate pointers
175 2016-08-16T12:52:15  <NicolasDorier> it does not relocate the elements as the vector ?
176 2016-08-16T12:52:22  <sipa> indeed
177 2016-08-16T12:53:52  <NicolasDorier> I slightly prefer a resize followed by std::vector<CachedHashes> instead of using a unique_ptr. Anyway, whatever you choose let me know when you do the PR. Squash my commit, I don't really care, easier to review.
178 2016-08-16T12:54:30  <sipa> yes, i agree; reserve + no unique_ptr is better
179 2016-08-16T12:55:48  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2016-08-16T12:57:55  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
181 2016-08-16T12:59:05  <NicolasDorier> sipa: Just a reminder, you were mentionning that you were OK with a HashCacheMap because it would be useful for later. I did not really followed why (something with signature aggregation if I remember), that's just reminder.
182 2016-08-16T12:59:56  <sipa> NicolasDorier: yes, that's why i'm not strongly in favor of my own solution :)
183 2016-08-16T13:00:05  <sipa> we'll need something like this anyway
184 2016-08-16T13:00:11  <NicolasDorier> mmh
185 2016-08-16T13:00:35  <sipa> doesn't mean we can't use this now
186 2016-08-16T13:00:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
187 2016-08-16T13:01:40  <NicolasDorier> well, whichever is fine for me.  I still don't see far enough to see how the HashCacheMap will be useful, as how the signature aggregation will be implemented is still blurry in my mind. Both of them are fine to me, if you do a PR, will test and ACK as well.
188 2016-08-16T13:02:54  <sipa> not HashCachedMap itself; but some mutable data structure that individual script checks can modify
189 2016-08-16T13:03:56  <NicolasDorier> if so I think it is better to do it later with another class specially for that like a "TransactionContext" or something like that
190 2016-08-16T13:04:31  <NicolasDorier> not a big deal to code when it will be needed
191 2016-08-16T13:08:52  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
192 2016-08-16T13:15:23  <GitHub76> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8524: Precompute sighashes (master...noprecomputecachedhashes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8524
193 2016-08-16T13:16:54  <sipa> NicolasDorier: i left you as author since you still wrote most of the code
194 2016-08-16T13:26:30  *** eratkat has quit IRC
195 2016-08-16T13:33:29  <NicolasDorier> as you want, but well, except the big_transaction tests nothing will be really left in reality :D
196 2016-08-16T13:33:56  <sipa> the tests are important :)
197 2016-08-16T13:38:36  <sipa> NicolasDorier: split the commit into 2
198 2016-08-16T13:38:38  <sipa> better now?
199 2016-08-16T13:39:07  <NicolasDorier> why splitting ?
200 2016-08-16T13:39:24  <NicolasDorier> ah you mean make a separate commit for the test only ?
201 2016-08-16T13:39:54  <NicolasDorier> as you want, I don't really mind
202 2016-08-16T13:48:09  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2016-08-16T13:57:23  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2016-08-16T14:02:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
205 2016-08-16T14:12:55  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2016-08-16T14:16:40  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
207 2016-08-16T14:32:26  *** jujumax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
208 2016-08-16T14:37:11  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
209 2016-08-16T14:48:56  <sipa> it seems that the only versions on the network that would relay invalid witness txn are 0.10.x
210 2016-08-16T14:49:14  <sipa> <=0.9 would not, due to nonstandard script
211 2016-08-16T14:49:23  <sipa> >=0.11 would not, due to CLEANSTACK rule
212 2016-08-16T14:50:08  <sipa> given that, could we just not bother with the double validation for witness txn, and special rules about not DoS scoring invalid witness txn for non-witness peers?
213 2016-08-16T14:51:47  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
214 2016-08-16T14:56:20  *** JZA has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
215 2016-08-16T14:58:46  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
216 2016-08-16T15:03:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
217 2016-08-16T15:21:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2016-08-16T15:32:52  *** rubensayshi has quit IRC
219 2016-08-16T15:42:54  <GitHub8> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8525: Do not store witness txn in rejection cache (master...nowitnessreject) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8525
220 2016-08-16T15:47:16  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
221 2016-08-16T15:51:49  <GitHub50> [bitcoin] jl2012 opened pull request #8526: Make non-minimal OP_IF/NOTIF argument non-standard for P2WSH (master...minimalif) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8526
222 2016-08-16T15:57:36  *** harrymm has quit IRC
223 2016-08-16T16:00:17  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
224 2016-08-16T16:03:00  <GitHub26> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8527: Take minRelayTxFee into account in FEEFILTER messages (master...clampfeefilter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8527
225 2016-08-16T16:05:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
226 2016-08-16T16:06:10  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
227 2016-08-16T16:15:16  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2016-08-16T16:19:27  *** BashCo has quit IRC
229 2016-08-16T16:19:58  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
230 2016-08-16T16:22:55  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2016-08-16T16:23:12  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232 2016-08-16T16:27:47  *** BashCo has quit IRC
233 2016-08-16T16:28:10  *** zooko has quit IRC
234 2016-08-16T17:01:50  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
235 2016-08-16T17:04:32  <kanzure> jonasschnelli: re: peer authentication bip, https://github.com/jonasschnelli/bips/pull/1
236 2016-08-16T17:06:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
237 2016-08-16T17:15:22  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
238 2016-08-16T17:16:12  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
239 2016-08-16T17:22:01  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
240 2016-08-16T17:23:32  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
241 2016-08-16T17:25:53  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: Is the hash type included in the DER signature 'total size' of the signature?
242 2016-08-16T17:27:53  <arubi> Chris_Stewart_5, are you asking about the second byte after 0x30, or about IsValidSignatureEncoding() ?  if former, no, if latter, yes
243 2016-08-16T17:28:48  <sipa> what arubi said
244 2016-08-16T17:29:23  <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: That was exactly what i was asking about. Thanks :-)
245 2016-08-16T17:31:29  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: the sighash type is something bitcoin specific
246 2016-08-16T17:31:44  <sipa> so it's not part of the DER standard for encoding ECDSA signatures
247 2016-08-16T17:31:57  <sipa> and the length part is from DER
248 2016-08-16T17:32:15  <arubi> yw Chris_Stewart_5 :)
249 2016-08-16T17:33:53  <Chris_Stewart_5> Yeah -- I was conflating the two.
250 2016-08-16T17:35:54  *** jujumax has quit IRC
251 2016-08-16T17:36:04  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
252 2016-08-16T17:43:57  *** zooko has quit IRC
253 2016-08-16T17:44:33  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
254 2016-08-16T18:03:18  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
255 2016-08-16T18:03:54  *** whphhg_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
256 2016-08-16T18:07:32  *** whphhg has quit IRC
257 2016-08-16T18:08:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
258 2016-08-16T18:10:08  <Chris_Stewart_5> Is this the function that was used to check encoding pre BIP66?
259 2016-08-16T18:10:10  <Chris_Stewart_5> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L185
260 2016-08-16T18:11:30  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
261 2016-08-16T18:13:26  *** whphhg_ is now known as whphhg
262 2016-08-16T18:14:07  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
263 2016-08-16T18:14:49  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: also post BIP66
264 2016-08-16T18:22:40  *** JZA has quit IRC
265 2016-08-16T18:25:21  <instagibbs> sdaftuar, this comment refering to the reject filter? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py#L949
266 2016-08-16T18:28:48  <sipa> instagibbs: i assume it is about the askfor logic
267 2016-08-16T18:28:51  <sipa> which retries
268 2016-08-16T18:31:42  <instagibbs> an announcement the second time works just fine on my end
269 2016-08-16T18:37:43  *** aalex has quit IRC
270 2016-08-16T18:38:41  *** jujumax has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
271 2016-08-16T18:45:24  *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272 2016-08-16T18:58:04  *** harrymm has quit IRC
273 2016-08-16T19:04:52  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
274 2016-08-16T19:09:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
275 2016-08-16T19:11:24  <GitHub92> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #8528: Update p2p-segwit.py to reflect correct AskFor behavior (master...rejectsw) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8528
276 2016-08-16T19:17:50  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
277 2016-08-16T19:20:02  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
278 2016-08-16T19:42:00  <instagibbs> this is referring to the reject filter, right? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py#L294
279 2016-08-16T19:42:34  <instagibbs> I'm trying to make an example of the segwit DoS issue, and found a case that I think should be catching it but isn't
280 2016-08-16T19:42:44  <instagibbs> (to my reading anyways)
281 2016-08-16T19:53:50  *** JZA has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282 2016-08-16T20:05:46  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
283 2016-08-16T20:10:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
284 2016-08-16T20:51:57  *** Yogh has quit IRC
285 2016-08-16T20:53:35  *** Yogh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
286 2016-08-16T21:02:02  *** Megaf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
287 2016-08-16T21:07:25  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
288 2016-08-16T21:11:15  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
289 2016-08-16T21:11:15  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
290 2016-08-16T21:11:17  *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
291 2016-08-16T21:12:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
292 2016-08-16T21:21:42  *** harrymm has quit IRC
293 2016-08-16T21:37:44  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
294 2016-08-16T21:46:29  *** TomMc has quit IRC
295 2016-08-16T21:51:50  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
296 2016-08-16T21:54:47  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
297 2016-08-16T22:03:13  *** Megaf has quit IRC
298 2016-08-16T22:08:33  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
299 2016-08-16T22:13:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
300 2016-08-16T22:58:02  *** murch1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2016-08-16T22:59:25  *** murch has quit IRC
302 2016-08-16T23:10:07  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
303 2016-08-16T23:15:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
304 2016-08-16T23:16:36  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
305 2016-08-16T23:22:40  *** harrymm has quit IRC
306 2016-08-16T23:42:34  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
307 2016-08-16T23:53:23  *** jujumax has quit IRC
308 2016-08-16T23:54:12  *** JZA has quit IRC