1 2017-01-04T00:31:51  *** Giszmo1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  2 2017-01-04T00:32:16  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
  3 2017-01-04T00:34:29  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  4 2017-01-04T00:34:30  *** Giszmo1 has quit IRC
  5 2017-01-04T00:52:32  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
  6 2017-01-04T00:54:18  *** fanquake has quit IRC
  7 2017-01-04T00:56:43  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  8 2017-01-04T01:08:11  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  9 2017-01-04T01:47:26  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 10 2017-01-04T01:54:00  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 11 2017-01-04T01:59:18  *** abpa has quit IRC
 12 2017-01-04T02:23:30  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 13 2017-01-04T02:52:55  <morcos> BlueMatt: The remaining sdaftuar comment is in regards to the fact that you could announce two compact blocks via NewPoWValidBlock in quick succession even after the change to only announce potential new tips
 14 2017-01-04T02:55:33  <morcos> If those are tied at the same height, then one of them will not have ever become our tip and sp wpm
 15 2017-01-04T02:56:33  <morcos> oops..  and so won't be BLOCK_VALID_SCRIPTS or in our best chain and we'll stall any node asking for it
 16 2017-01-04T03:00:02  <morcos> but yes the change to BLOCK_VALID_TRANSACTIONS is in the later line where we set "send".  and the recently added code in getdata to fix my bug from 9447 can go away.
 17 2017-01-04T03:03:43  <gmaxwell> I've kinda wonered if we shouldn't just remember the NewPoWblock announcements that we've done e.g. {peer, hash} in a limitedmap, and then if we get in a request that is in that map, just blindly reply with the data on disk.
 18 2017-01-04T03:03:50  <gmaxwell> Similar to how the relay pool works.
 19 2017-01-04T03:05:10  <gmaxwell> (in that the relay pool means we'll give you a transaction we offered to you, even if we've since discarded it)
 20 2017-01-04T03:07:33  <morcos> gmaxwell: that's what i was thinking at first too, but i think sdaftuar's solution might just be more elegant
 21 2017-01-04T03:09:00  <morcos> as long as you lock cs_main if the requested hash doesn't match the cached block, that'll mean any announced block will be written to disk, and be available to be read..
 22 2017-01-04T03:10:05  <morcos> since these will be rare, i don' tthink there is a performance issue with reading them back from disk, the only existing problem is we weren't serving them b/c we weren't seeing them as BLOCK_VALID_SCRIPTS b/c they'd never been connected
 23 2017-01-04T03:10:24  <morcos> oh shoot... i keep forgetting... you can't serve them in that case
 24 2017-01-04T03:10:36  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
 25 2017-01-04T03:10:40  <morcos> well if we're going to be pedantic about following the protocol we've got a problem
 26 2017-01-04T03:11:00  <morcos> b/c we're announcing blocks before we even now if we're going to test them for validity, so what do we do if we never test them
 27 2017-01-04T03:11:35  <morcos> also perhaps we never though through the case of what to do if we announce a block that turns out to be invalid... surely stalling the requester isn't the right course of action
 28 2017-01-04T03:17:33  <gmaxwell> (actually the deseralizzation is pretty slow, as an aside)
 29 2017-01-04T03:18:07  <gmaxwell> your concern is because we didn't really properly consider relaying unvalidated blocks, but we just glommed it on because it would have unfortunate to specify BIP152 another way.
 30 2017-01-04T03:18:33  <morcos> i hope thats a statement and not a question
 31 2017-01-04T03:18:50  <gmaxwell> We should specify a network message that says "I think block XYZ is invalid, if I told you about it before, forget about it, I'm not going to respond to requests about it."
 32 2017-01-04T03:19:03  <gmaxwell> statement.
 33 2017-01-04T03:19:15  <gmaxwell> A negative-inv if you will.
 34 2017-01-04T03:19:48  <morcos> yeah..   but we need to do something for now..
 35 2017-01-04T03:20:06  <gmaxwell> though perhaps like the relay pool we ought to be willing to serve up data for any block we've pre-relayed, even if we never verified it and don't intend to.
 36 2017-01-04T03:20:39  <gmaxwell> which we could do with a relay pool like strategy. even avoid putting them on disk... (who cares about a few megabytes of blocks in ram?)
 37 2017-01-04T03:21:51  <morcos> yes but avoiding disk is an unnecessary optimization... we're talking about a rare race condition here (and we've already writtent them to disk before we've even decided whether to validate or not)
 38 2017-01-04T03:23:57  <gmaxwell> okay, from your comments above I was thinking there was some path where we didn't save to disk.
 39 2017-01-04T03:24:42  <gmaxwell> We don't generally want to allow arbritary peers to fetch blocks on disk that aren't in our best chain. (leads to fingerprinting attacks). Which was why I made the peer,hash suggestion above.
 40 2017-01-04T03:26:17  <morcos> gmaxwell: we already have other various protections that aren't always that it's in our best chain, in this case, we require non-best-chain blocks to be less than 30 days old
 41 2017-01-04T03:26:40  <morcos> but we also require BLOCK_VALID_SCRIPTS, if we just loosen that we're ok  (for the case of untested blocks)
 42 2017-01-04T03:27:28  <morcos> i still think we potentially have a problem about what to do with blocks that turn out to be invalid
 43 2017-01-04T03:27:51  <morcos> back in a bit
 44 2017-01-04T03:36:29  <gmaxwell> I think for now we should serve them if we've advertised them... but should make a protocol extension so we can refuse to.
 45 2017-01-04T03:37:05  <gmaxwell> (we do ourselves no favors to help the network converge on things we think are invalid)
 46 2017-01-04T03:43:51  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 47 2017-01-04T03:53:47  *** fanquake has quit IRC
 48 2017-01-04T03:58:09  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 49 2017-01-04T03:59:58  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 50 2017-01-04T04:05:42  *** chris200_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 51 2017-01-04T04:08:53  *** chris2000 has quit IRC
 52 2017-01-04T04:21:01  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
 53 2017-01-04T04:24:33  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 54 2017-01-04T05:08:01  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 55 2017-01-04T05:09:33  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 56 2017-01-04T05:36:25  *** grbs has quit IRC
 57 2017-01-04T05:49:46  *** grbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 58 2017-01-04T06:01:58  *** grbs has quit IRC
 59 2017-01-04T06:14:30  *** grbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2017-01-04T06:25:10  *** brg444 has quit IRC
 61 2017-01-04T06:33:08  <gmaxwell> why do we know have a birthday/rescan height for importaddress?
 62 2017-01-04T06:33:39  <gmaxwell> I had thought this was going to get fixed with a range setting for the rescan rpc, but I see we closed that with 'you should import with birthdays' but there is no way to do that for a watching address import.
 63 2017-01-04T06:36:22  <gmaxwell> oh I see importmulti has a timestamp. cool.
 64 2017-01-04T06:38:00  <gmaxwell> midnightmagic: wrt the question someone was asking in #bitcoin about how do you handle an import backlog for a node that was offline: You use importmulti with the approrpiate birthdates, and it will handle any required rescan.
 65 2017-01-04T06:39:11  *** grbs has quit IRC
 66 2017-01-04T06:39:40  <gmaxwell> perhaps the importaddress RPC help text should recommend you use importmulti instead.
 67 2017-01-04T06:52:44  *** grbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 68 2017-01-04T07:00:04  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 69 2017-01-04T07:00:50  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 70 2017-01-04T07:21:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2a524b8e8fe6...649cf5fe894b
 71 2017-01-04T07:21:32  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fab6c5f MarcoFalke: [qt] Do not translate `~`
 72 2017-01-04T07:21:33  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 649cf5f Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9462: [qt] Do not translate tilde character...
 73 2017-01-04T07:21:52  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9462: [qt] Do not translate tilde character (master...Mf1701-qtTransTilde) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9462
 74 2017-01-04T07:48:33  *** kadoban has quit IRC
 75 2017-01-04T08:05:56  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 76 2017-01-04T08:06:34  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2017-01-04T08:11:00  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 78 2017-01-04T08:11:54  <gmaxwell> gah we still sign inside the transaction creation inner loop?! I thought we fixed that a long time ago. :-/
 79 2017-01-04T08:12:03  <gmaxwell> insanity.
 80 2017-01-04T08:13:59  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 81 2017-01-04T08:26:19  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 82 2017-01-04T08:26:59  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
 83 2017-01-04T08:26:59  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2017-01-04T08:29:29  *** arowser has quit IRC
 85 2017-01-04T08:29:45  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2017-01-04T08:29:48  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
 87 2017-01-04T08:31:33  *** fengling has quit IRC
 88 2017-01-04T08:37:07  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2017-01-04T08:37:13  *** Squidicc has quit IRC
 90 2017-01-04T08:38:18  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: you don't if you are using fundrawtx
 91 2017-01-04T08:38:32  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2017-01-04T08:38:46  <jonasschnelli> well, you use the dummy signer
 93 2017-01-04T08:41:49  <Jouke> pruning node do forward blocks nowadays right?
 94 2017-01-04T08:41:56  <gmaxwell> yes.
 95 2017-01-04T08:42:52  <Jouke> A rescan on my problem node didn't work, so I removed the block and chainstate dir and let it sync from fresh.
 96 2017-01-04T08:43:34  <gmaxwell> rescan? why were you rescanning?
 97 2017-01-04T08:44:18  <Jouke> I had that problem before which you helped me with a couple of days ago.
 98 2017-01-04T08:44:47  <Jouke> It couldn't read a block from disk when I issued a getblock rpc call
 99 2017-01-04T08:44:52  <gmaxwell> did you rescan or reindex?
100 2017-01-04T08:45:06  <gmaxwell> rescan will do nothing, so if that didn't work it's unsurprising.
101 2017-01-04T08:45:14  <Jouke> Euh, reindex indeed
102 2017-01-04T08:45:36  <Jouke> I did a reindex
103 2017-01-04T08:45:45  <gmaxwell> whew. Interesting!
104 2017-01-04T08:46:38  <Jouke> But since it was connected only to a pruning node, I had it temporarily connect to an other node of mine through an ssh tunnel.
105 2017-01-04T08:46:55  <gmaxwell> yes, can't fetch the history through the pruned node.
106 2017-01-04T08:47:54  <Jouke> That connection went down this evening (I'm in europe), and it synced to block 445248
107 2017-01-04T08:48:33  <Jouke> But the pruning node it connects to should have the rest of the blocks as prune=80000
108 2017-01-04T08:48:46  <gmaxwell> if you were expecting it to fetch blocks that weren't at the tip but were within the pruning window, that also won't work: the pruned node has no way to tell the peer what blocks it has.
109 2017-01-04T08:49:55  <gmaxwell> your fetching node will not try to sync off it. But when the pruned node has a new block it will relay it along (and if there is a reorg required, the client node will still fetch whatever blocks are required to accomplish the reorg).
110 2017-01-04T08:50:28  <Jouke> Hmm, ok.
111 2017-01-04T08:50:55  <Jouke> So my expectations were wrong. Thanks again for explaining!
112 2017-01-04T08:51:26  *** gielbier has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2017-01-04T08:57:16  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #9465: [Wallet] Do not perform ECDSA in the fee calculation inner loop. (master...no_signing_in_inner_loop) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9465
114 2017-01-04T09:04:11  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2017-01-04T09:04:34  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
116 2017-01-04T09:08:40  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
117 2017-01-04T09:10:06  <gmaxwell> wumpus: I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought it was already the case.
118 2017-01-04T09:10:30  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #9467: [Trivial] [Doc] Install Protobuf v3 on OS X (master...osx-protobuf-doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9467
119 2017-01-04T09:10:43  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2017-01-04T09:10:46  <gmaxwell> only noticed it wasn't when I went to decrement the fee when we found we needed less than we expected and found I couldn't because the transaction was already signed.
121 2017-01-04T09:10:47  <wumpus> gmaxwell: I thought that was exactly why the dummy signer was introduced, but apparently not
122 2017-01-04T09:11:23  <gmaxwell> I ... think there was a miscommunication when it was proposed that a dummy signer be used there. :P
123 2017-01-04T09:12:11  <gmaxwell> As in someone thought that it was only needed for the fundrawtransaction case. :P
124 2017-01-04T09:12:12  <wumpus> probably
125 2017-01-04T09:12:25  <wumpus> ohh, so that's why it was introduced. Yes I remember now
126 2017-01-04T09:12:30  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
127 2017-01-04T09:12:52  <wumpus> anyhow using it for normal transaction generation makes a lot of sense
128 2017-01-04T09:13:16  <gmaxwell> should be a lot faster in some cases.
129 2017-01-04T09:13:30  <gmaxwell> but also lets us do more sensible things with fees.
130 2017-01-04T09:14:00  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2017-01-04T09:23:23  <jonasschnelli> We could remove the "real" signing from CreateTransaction and factor out SignTransaction (from signrawtx) and use everywhere Create/Fund/Sign.
132 2017-01-04T09:23:40  <jonasschnelli> (everywhere internally)
133 2017-01-04T09:23:49  <jonasschnelli> Qt / sendtoaddr / sendmany
134 2017-01-04T09:24:56  <jonasschnelli> Ah. Just saw. #9465
135 2017-01-04T09:24:57  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2017-01-04T09:24:58  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9465 | [Wallet] Do not perform ECDSA signing in the fee calculation inner loop. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9465 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
137 2017-01-04T09:31:49  *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
138 2017-01-04T09:32:31  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
139 2017-01-04T09:40:01  <fanquake> Is libevent 2.1.7 actually a release candidate, or just new beta version? Maybe a chance for a new release in the next few months.
140 2017-01-04T09:40:47  <fanquake> wumpus would you be opposed to moving depends to the latest libevent beta (which it is pre 0.14) for the 0.14 release?
141 2017-01-04T09:41:51  <fanquake> Just looking through dependancies now. Qt is another one to consider. 5.7 has had a point release, so should be more stable.
142 2017-01-04T09:42:29  <cfields> fanquake: speaking of, I know I owe you a bunch of review/acks on depends PRs. Been rushing to get net stuff finished up. I'll find some time this week to go through those.
143 2017-01-04T09:43:51  <fanquake> cfields no worries. I've just fixed-up the Zero-MQ one. Was going to open a more general depends related one tonight/tomorrow. Are you working on anything there that might conflict?
144 2017-01-04T09:45:12  <cfields> fanquake: no, only qt would conflict. I have a halfway-rewritten .mk to take advantage of some of the new build features for 5.7. But iirc we can bump without that and save it for 5.8 if needed.
145 2017-01-04T09:46:11  <cfields> er, that should say halfway-done rewrite
146 2017-01-04T09:47:36  <fanquake> cfields cool. I'll get these changes finished up and PR. Are we at all confident of dropping Boost for 0.14.0? Otherwise is a 1.61.0 -> 1.63.0 bump worth it in the interim?
147 2017-01-04T09:48:37  <cfields> fanquake: yea, not going to make it for 0.14. The changes are no fun to review, so it tends to go slowly
148 2017-01-04T09:51:45  <fanquake> cfields fair enough, it's a long slog. You're doing great work though. :)
149 2017-01-04T09:52:46  *** windsok has quit IRC
150 2017-01-04T09:53:08  <cfields> heh, thanks
151 2017-01-04T10:06:29  *** berndj has quit IRC
152 2017-01-04T10:19:19  *** windsok has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2017-01-04T10:21:51  <wumpus> fanquake: no, I'd propose the same
154 2017-01-04T10:22:09  <wumpus> fanquake: the libevent beta is *lots* better than the last stable, lots of fixes and new features
155 2017-01-04T10:23:04  <fanquake> wumpus: Great, i'll work on some changes for that as well.
156 2017-01-04T10:25:48  <wumpus> IIRC also means a windows-specific patch is no longer necesary
157 2017-01-04T10:26:25  <fanquake> Yes, I think there is the possibility to drop some workarounds as well.
158 2017-01-04T10:26:35  <fanquake> Yea #8867
159 2017-01-04T10:26:37  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8867 | Move to Libevent 2.1.x · Issue #8867 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
160 2017-01-04T10:53:23  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
161 2017-01-04T11:03:43  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162 2017-01-04T11:09:47  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/649cf5fe894b...c0ddd32bf629
163 2017-01-04T11:09:47  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 27765b6 isle2983: Increment MIT Licence copyright header year on files modified in 2016...
164 2017-01-04T11:09:48  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c0ddd32 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9450: Increment MIT licence copyright header year on files modified in 2016...
165 2017-01-04T11:10:04  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9450: Increment MIT licence copyright header year on files modified in 2016 (master...PR-increment-year) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9450
166 2017-01-04T11:12:58  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2017-01-04T11:12:59  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
168 2017-01-04T11:12:59  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
169 2017-01-04T11:21:34  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2017-01-04T11:22:05  *** jannes has quit IRC
171 2017-01-04T11:22:17  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 8 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c0ddd32bf629...d9ae1cefa081
172 2017-01-04T11:22:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7325b15 Cory Fields: net: a few small cleanups before replacing boost threads...
173 2017-01-04T11:22:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 799df91 Cory Fields: net: add CThreadInterrupt and InterruptibleSleep
174 2017-01-04T11:22:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0985052 Cory Fields: net: make net interruptible...
175 2017-01-04T11:22:28  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9289: net: drop boost::thread_group (master...connman-threads) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9289
176 2017-01-04T11:23:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d9ae1cefa081...869781c51cc1
177 2017-01-04T11:23:32  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c44e4c4 Pieter Wuille: Make AcceptToMemoryPool take CTransactionRef
178 2017-01-04T11:23:32  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 62607d7 Pieter Wuille: Convert COrphanTx to keep a CTransactionRef
179 2017-01-04T11:23:33  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6713f0f Pieter Wuille: Make FillBlock consume txn_available to avoid shared_ptr copies
180 2017-01-04T11:23:42  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9283: A few more CTransactionRef optimizations (master...sharedblock2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9283
181 2017-01-04T11:34:21  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/869781c51cc1...1ce7ede2a9df
182 2017-01-04T11:34:22  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master eab8e1b Alex Morcos: fix a bug if the min fee is 0 for FeeFilterRounder
183 2017-01-04T11:34:22  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f8d43b8 Alex Morcos: Avoid rollingMinimumFeeRate never being able to decay below half
184 2017-01-04T11:34:23  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1ce7ede Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9288: Fix a bug if the min fee is 0 for FeeFilterRounder...
185 2017-01-04T11:34:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9288: Fix a bug if the min fee is 0 for FeeFilterRounder (master...fixFFRbug) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9288
186 2017-01-04T11:45:46  *** JackH has quit IRC
187 2017-01-04T11:48:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1ce7ede2a9df...d65a13b773f8
188 2017-01-04T11:48:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3f67972 accraze: updated listsinceblock rpc docs...
189 2017-01-04T11:48:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d65a13b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9396: Updated listsinceblock rpc documentation...
190 2017-01-04T11:48:35  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9396: Updated listsinceblock rpc documentation (master...docs-listsinceblock-rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9396
191 2017-01-04T12:01:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d65a13b773f8...c2ea1e6561ca
192 2017-01-04T12:01:33  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0513c70 Gregory Sanders: Make rpcauth help message clearer, add example in example .conf
193 2017-01-04T12:01:34  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c2ea1e6 MarcoFalke: Merge #9401: Make rpcauth help message clearer, add example in example .conf...
194 2017-01-04T12:01:46  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9401: Make rpcauth help message clearer, add example in example .conf (master...rpcauthnotes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9401
195 2017-01-04T12:14:52  *** harrymm has quit IRC
196 2017-01-04T12:46:49  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c2ea1e6561ca...5bc3b6cede8d
197 2017-01-04T12:46:49  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 35ee63c fanquake: [Doc] Install Protobuf v3 on OS X
198 2017-01-04T12:46:50  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5bc3b6c MarcoFalke: Merge #9467: [Trivial] [Doc] Install Protobuf v3 on OS X...
199 2017-01-04T12:47:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9467: [Trivial] [Doc] Install Protobuf v3 on OS X (master...osx-protobuf-doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9467
200 2017-01-04T13:00:06  *** windsok has quit IRC
201 2017-01-04T13:15:15  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #9468: [WIP][Depends] Dependancy updates for 0.14.0 (master...depends-update-014) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9468
202 2017-01-04T13:24:55  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
203 2017-01-04T13:28:30  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #9469: [WIP][depends] Qt 5.7.1 (master...depends-0-14-0-qt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9469
204 2017-01-04T13:32:17  *** windsok has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
205 2017-01-04T13:37:28  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #9470: qt: Set (count) placeholder in sendcoinsdialog to notranslate (master...2017_01_more_translate_fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9470
206 2017-01-04T13:42:27  * jonasschnelli is downloading github issue/PR-html 0-10000 to process html and calculate how many comments where made in 2016
207 2017-01-04T13:43:04  <fanquake> jonasschnelli What's your guess?
208 2017-01-04T13:43:11  <jonasschnelli> No idea. :)
209 2017-01-04T13:43:20  <jonasschnelli> I guess around 30 per day
210 2017-01-04T13:44:39  <jonasschnelli> I though about counting words per comment,... but due to code/log copy and paste, etc., this is not really representative
211 2017-01-04T13:45:40  <fanquake> I was going to say far less than that, maybe between 3000-5000 comments total. However now I think about it, some days I'd easily see > 30 emails from bitcoin/bitcoin heh
212 2017-01-04T13:46:01  <fanquake> Depends how many people you have blocked :p
213 2017-01-04T13:47:13  <MarcoFalke> Huh, you can block comments from specific people?
214 2017-01-04T13:48:01  <fanquake> I don't think so, just block the entire user. So you won't see any PRs/comments etc
215 2017-01-04T13:48:42  <MarcoFalke> hmm, interesting. Luckily we don't have returning spammers.
216 2017-01-04T13:50:14  <fanquake> One thing I had been considering was going back through some ancient issues/PRs, and "locking" the conversation. That would at least stop the random comments/replies on some.
217 2017-01-04T14:00:57  <fanquake> wumpus looks like we can drop both libevent patches
218 2017-01-04T14:08:37  <sipa> jonasschnelli: isn't easier through the json interface?
219 2017-01-04T14:09:12  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #9471: [WIP][depends] libevent 2.1.7rc (master...depends-0-14-0-libevent) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9471
220 2017-01-04T14:09:19  <jonasschnelli> sipa: last time I checked there where some limits and not all data was available
221 2017-01-04T14:09:51  *** fanquake has left #bitcoin-core-dev
222 2017-01-04T14:13:28  <jonasschnelli> sipa: I guess the main problem is: curl https://api.github.com/rate_limit
223 2017-01-04T14:13:51  <jonasschnelli> Maybe I need to a sleep(100) and run it over night
224 2017-01-04T14:14:08  <jonasschnelli> I mean, not I need a sleep(100), the script.
225 2017-01-04T14:19:01  <jonasschnelli> Ah. Found the reason why I didn't used the API: "Requests that return multiple items will be paginated to 30 items by default."
226 2017-01-04T14:20:17  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5bc3b6cede8d...df1ab5b4d67b
227 2017-01-04T14:20:17  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 388ea19 Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Set (count) placeholder in sendcoinsdialog to notranslate
228 2017-01-04T14:20:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master df1ab5b MarcoFalke: Merge #9470: qt: Set (count) placeholder in sendcoinsdialog to notranslate...
229 2017-01-04T14:20:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9470: qt: Set (count) placeholder in sendcoinsdialog to notranslate (master...2017_01_more_translate_fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9470
230 2017-01-04T14:33:07  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
231 2017-01-04T14:34:23  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
232 2017-01-04T14:50:37  <luke-jr> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5ltw5n/bitcoin_core_v0131_sends_enormously_high_fee/ seems to not be an isolated case
233 2017-01-04T14:54:23  <MarcoFalke> jonasschnelli: I think there is already a repo with all the github comments to Bitcoin Core. (Including history for each comment)
234 2017-01-04T14:54:44  <MarcoFalke> But I can't find the link. I think someone mentioned it last year in Zürich
235 2017-01-04T14:54:48  <jonasschnelli> Yes. I remember that. Is it up to date? I can't recall the URL though
236 2017-01-04T14:56:37  <jonasschnelli> A html dump is always a good thing. Also, parsing auto-generated-html is simple and a good regex exercise. :)
237 2017-01-04T14:56:57  <luke-jr> a markdown dump would be better *hides*
238 2017-01-04T14:59:17  <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: Yeah. But does Github offers a md dump? I don't think so.
239 2017-01-04T14:59:29  <rabidus_> http://bitcoinfees.21.co shows that there are plenty of more those 421-450 satoshi/byte transactions. Maybe related to that bug?
240 2017-01-04T15:01:37  <MarcoFalke> kanzure: ^ Might know the url to the repo. :)
241 2017-01-04T15:02:01  <kanzure> actually no, i'd like to know that repo as well
242 2017-01-04T15:02:15  <MarcoFalke> How come no one ever reported that wallet fee bug?
243 2017-01-04T15:03:29  <kanzure> (i've also never heard of it.)
244 2017-01-04T15:05:19  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: there must be some way, since the AJAX gets it for comment editing
245 2017-01-04T15:07:04  <kanzure> or email inbox receiving all comments
246 2017-01-04T15:07:30  <kanzure> which is better because you have even deleted comments (which, ahem, has happened to btcdrak and others)
247 2017-01-04T15:13:36  <jtimon> jonasschnelli: I just realized I never understood your proposal for the spv mode in bitcoin core (or maybe I'm missing something about bloom filter based implementations of SPV)
248 2017-01-04T15:13:59  <jonasschnelli> jtimon: It's simple.
249 2017-01-04T15:14:07  <jtimon> you said that this is better for privacy because it will download full blocks, which makes sense to me
250 2017-01-04T15:14:24  <jtimon> but how do you know which blocks you want to download?
251 2017-01-04T15:14:24  <jonasschnelli> Just download blocks, scan transactions, if relevant to the wallet, mark them a fSPV=true
252 2017-01-04T15:14:31  <jonasschnelli> Just all of them!
253 2017-01-04T15:14:43  <jonasschnelli> But not deeper then your wallet birthday.
254 2017-01-04T15:15:08  <jonasschnelli> If you start a fresh bitcoin-qt/d, you download only a couple of blocks and can start using Core with SPV
255 2017-01-04T15:15:08  <jtimon> mhmm, you download all blocks without validating them?
256 2017-01-04T15:15:28  <jonasschnelli> jtimon: You have to do that anyways
257 2017-01-04T15:15:32  <jonasschnelli> (if you want a full node)
258 2017-01-04T15:15:36  <jtimon> ok, I get now, thanks
259 2017-01-04T15:15:48  <jonasschnelli> Just download the relevant blocks first, don't validate and use them for SPV
260 2017-01-04T15:16:21  <jonasschnelli> As soon as we have block-bloom-filters, we can find out which of the blocks are relevant to the wallet (2nd step)
261 2017-01-04T15:18:11  <MarcoFalke> kanzure: jonasschnelli: If it is on the web, you can find it: https://github.com/zw/bitcoin-gh-meta
262 2017-01-04T15:18:19  <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: thanks.
263 2017-01-04T15:18:41  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
264 2017-01-04T15:18:56  <jonasschnelli> jtimon: If your node is out-of-sync for a week, you need to catch up 144*7 blocks = ~1GB data, ... .maybe 30min.
265 2017-01-04T15:19:35  <jonasschnelli> and the download blocks are kept for the later full-validation
266 2017-01-04T15:20:26  <jtimon> thanks again, it was the "download all blocks from wallet creation" part that I was missing
267 2017-01-04T15:22:44  *** windsok has quit IRC
268 2017-01-04T15:25:55  <kanzure> MarcoFalke: thank you. i've now timestamped that repository as of 38ff87cb68592ca19b10803908cf3d1bf0320bf7 :D.
269 2017-01-04T15:29:17  <kanzure> we should probably ask whoever maintains that to do some automatic timestamping (petertodd made a git compatibility tool)
270 2017-01-04T15:33:16  *** NielsvG has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
271 2017-01-04T15:33:19  *** arubi has quit IRC
272 2017-01-04T15:33:19  *** wasi has quit IRC
273 2017-01-04T15:42:08  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/df1ab5b4d67b...123ea7362478
274 2017-01-04T15:42:09  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fae26e8 MarcoFalke: [qt] Add more sources to translate
275 2017-01-04T15:42:09  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master facf3e7 MarcoFalke: [qt] `make translate`
276 2017-01-04T15:42:10  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 123ea73 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9457: [qt] Select more files for translation...
277 2017-01-04T15:42:28  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9457: [qt] Select more files for translation (master...Mf1701-qtTrans) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9457
278 2017-01-04T15:42:49  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
279 2017-01-04T15:42:49  *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
280 2017-01-04T15:56:37  <gmaxwell> morcos: RE #9167  I asked a question there and I think you may have answered me on IRC but I don't remember the reply.
281 2017-01-04T15:56:39  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9167 | IsAllFromMe by morcos · Pull Request #9167 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
282 2017-01-04T15:59:59  <morcos> gmaxwell: yep, will copy conversation into PR
283 2017-01-04T16:01:33  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sigh, #9326 apparently breaks with LibreSSL
284 2017-01-04T16:01:35  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9326 | Update for OpenSSL 1.1 API. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9326 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
285 2017-01-04T16:03:11  *** windsok has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
286 2017-01-04T16:04:47  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
287 2017-01-04T16:05:54  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: okay, well we don't support that.... And dark, I did test it with older OpenSSL.
288 2017-01-04T16:06:27  <luke-jr> apparently LibreSSL claims to be OpenSSL >=1.1 for some stupid reason :/
289 2017-01-04T16:06:40  <luke-jr> without supporting 1.1 APIs..
290 2017-01-04T16:07:18  <gmaxwell> morcos: oh right, that was where I commented that we should track input values so fees could be computed accurately.
291 2017-01-04T16:07:49  <morcos> ha, yes, i left out the rest of the conversation, because i figured that was a bigger change. sorry.
292 2017-01-04T16:08:03  <gmaxwell> it was, I agree.
293 2017-01-04T16:08:18  <luke-jr> libressl-2.5.0/include/openssl/opensslv.h:#define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER  0x20000000L
294 2017-01-04T16:08:19  <luke-jr> >_<
295 2017-01-04T16:09:33  *** abpa has quit IRC
296 2017-01-04T16:10:56  <timothy> luke-jr: cool
297 2017-01-04T16:11:14  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: so it needs to be changed to a #if NEW_OPENSSL_API  and a #define NEW_OPENSSL_API that has a different version test for libressl and openssl?
298 2017-01-04T16:12:11  <luke-jr> I guess so. I was just going to change it to http://bpaste.net/show/ac2c68d93576
299 2017-01-04T16:12:30  <luke-jr> (getting some libressl user to test this before I open a PR)
300 2017-01-04T16:12:44  <timothy> luke-jr: I think you should use something like have_func("CRYPTO_lock") || $defs.push("-DHAVE_OPENSSL_110_THREADING_API")
301 2017-01-04T16:12:58  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302 2017-01-04T16:13:07  <timothy> check if CRYPTO_lock function exists instead of rely on OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER
303 2017-01-04T16:13:18  <luke-jr> EVP_MD_CTX_new in this case
304 2017-01-04T16:13:41  <luke-jr> I suppose that'd probably be more future-proof if LibreSSL then adds it
305 2017-01-04T16:18:46  <luke-jr> someone here has an OpenSSL 1.1 system? Can you test http://bpaste.net/show/7565deaf5c48 ?
306 2017-01-04T16:20:17  <luke-jr> (note re-running autogen.sh is needed)
307 2017-01-04T16:22:00  <timothy> luke-jr: give me 2 minutes
308 2017-01-04T16:24:37  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #9472: Disentangle progress estimationc from heckpoints and update it (master...update_tx_estimation) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9472
309 2017-01-04T16:25:00  *** NielsvG has left #bitcoin-core-dev
310 2017-01-04T16:25:21  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
311 2017-01-04T16:40:02  *** BashCo has quit IRC
312 2017-01-04T16:40:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #9474: Mark the minconf parameter to move as ignored (master...stale_minconf_parameter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9474
313 2017-01-04T16:41:13  <timothy> luke-jr: you have to use AC_CHECK_FUNCS instead
314 2017-01-04T16:47:11  <luke-jr> timothy: does this work any better? http://bpaste.net/show/b0c01efeceb6
315 2017-01-04T16:47:27  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
316 2017-01-04T16:49:04  <timothy> AC_CHECK_DECLS is wrong
317 2017-01-04T16:49:28  <timothy> wait
318 2017-01-04T16:49:55  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: patch does not work on openssl 1.1
319 2017-01-04T16:51:21  <gmaxwell> HAVE_DECL_EVP_MD_CTX_NEW isn't getting set.
320 2017-01-04T16:54:31  <timothy> setting CFLAGS is useless since it's using g++
321 2017-01-04T16:54:39  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322 2017-01-04T16:54:44  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
323 2017-01-04T16:55:23  <luke-jr> hmm
324 2017-01-04T16:55:41  <timothy> configure:29569: g++ -c -g -O2 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wno-unused-parameter -DHAVE_BUILD_INFO -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS conftest.cpp >&5
325 2017-01-04T16:57:10  <timothy> gmaxwell: do you have the same behaviour?
326 2017-01-04T17:00:20  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
327 2017-01-04T17:02:11  <luke-jr> ok, tested http://bpaste.net/show/5acc82591b69 with a non-installed OpenSSL 1.1 build, should work finally
328 2017-01-04T17:03:47  <timothy> +CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS} ${SSL_CFLAGS}"
329 2017-01-04T17:03:49  <timothy> typo
330 2017-01-04T17:04:02  <timothy> CXXFLAGS+"${CXXFLAGS} ${SSL_CFLAGS}" imho
331 2017-01-04T17:04:08  <timothy> CXXFLAGS=
332 2017-01-04T17:05:15  <luke-jr> oops good catch
333 2017-01-04T17:05:29  * luke-jr wonders why autoconf doesn't have a macro to push-and-append stuff like this
334 2017-01-04T17:06:12  <timothy> since SSL_CXXFLAGS doesn't exists, SSL_CFLAGS is ok
335 2017-01-04T17:06:48  <gmaxwell> that (fixed version of luke's patch) compiles for me.
336 2017-01-04T17:07:08  <timothy> for me too
337 2017-01-04T17:08:41  <luke-jr> thanks
338 2017-01-04T17:08:48  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #9475: Let autoconf detect presence of EVP_MD_CTX_new (master...EVP_MD_CTX_new) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9475
339 2017-01-04T17:16:21  *** abpa has quit IRC
340 2017-01-04T17:16:45  <timothy> luke-jr: why don't you use  #include <openssl/evp.h> (https://www.openssl.org/docs/manmaster/man3/EVP_MD_CTX_new.html) ?
341 2017-01-04T17:17:57  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342 2017-01-04T17:18:00  <luke-jr> timothy: the actual code doesn't.
343 2017-01-04T17:18:23  <luke-jr> figure less hiccups if the check and code are closer aligned
344 2017-01-04T17:21:18  <timothy> luke-jr: on openssl 1.1  you have openssl/evp.h
345 2017-01-04T17:21:58  <luke-jr> x509_vfy.h includes evp.h, and Core's code only includes x509_vfy.h
346 2017-01-04T17:26:18  <jtimon> how realistic it is to hope to get https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8994 merged for 0.14 ?
347 2017-01-04T17:27:21  <jtimon> what is it missing? as said in a comment, segwit.py and p2p-compactblocks.py still need to run with self.chain = "regtest" instead of self.chain = "custom". But perhaps that's ok?
348 2017-01-04T17:27:53  *** wvr has quit IRC
349 2017-01-04T17:30:28  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
350 2017-01-04T17:37:21  <jtimon> maybe a new rpc test changing some chainparams values?
351 2017-01-04T17:50:18  <MarcoFalke> cfields: Any guess why #9416 causes a undefined reference to `qInitResources_bitcoin()'?
352 2017-01-04T17:50:19  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9416 | travis: make distdir before make by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #9416 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
353 2017-01-04T18:08:51  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
354 2017-01-04T18:14:38  *** protomar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
355 2017-01-04T18:20:37  <paveljanik> MarcoFalke, https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/187303535#L1939
356 2017-01-04T18:20:46  <paveljanik> Cannot find file 'res/movies/spinner-000.png'
357 2017-01-04T18:21:27  <paveljanik> strange 8)
358 2017-01-04T18:24:28  <Chris_Stewart_5> Just to be clear, there are public keys in the blockchain that do not pass the `IsCompressedOrUncompressedPubKey` check right? This is enforced as policy right?
359 2017-01-04T18:28:42  <sipa> there may be
360 2017-01-04T18:28:44  <sipa> i'm not sure
361 2017-01-04T18:28:45  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs closed pull request #8992: Enable pubkey lookup for p2sh-p2wpkh in validateaddress (master...validatep2pkh) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8992
362 2017-01-04T18:28:57  <sipa> there certainly are in testnet
363 2017-01-04T18:29:16  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: Is there a BIP that was proposed that check?
364 2017-01-04T18:31:01  <sipa> not afaik
365 2017-01-04T18:38:45  <cfields> MarcoFalke: hmm, sounds like something's legitimately not getting included
366 2017-01-04T18:39:12  <MarcoFalke> paveljanik had a hint. Let me try to solve the wildcard
367 2017-01-04T18:40:04  <cfields> MarcoFalke: ah, missed that
368 2017-01-04T18:45:47  <cfields> MarcoFalke: hmm, it's been a while, but i'm assuming that I somehow missed the other qrc in fc4ad0c7fcf2e5841756c9d1003f95c879ee5cd2
369 2017-01-04T18:48:02  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: We don't have a more general public key check do we? For instance, a valid public key encoding that encompasses all encodings that are valid in openssl?
370 2017-01-04T18:48:12  <cfields> MarcoFalke: so.. http://pastebin.com/raw/xYXmu8Jk
371 2017-01-04T18:48:21  <MarcoFalke> cfields: Could be but when this is the cause, I don't understand why travis didn't fail back then: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/fc4ad0c7fcf2e5841756c9d1003f95c879ee5cd2/.travis.yml#L76
372 2017-01-04T18:48:58  <sipa> Chris_Stewart_5: CPubKey::IsFullyValid()
373 2017-01-04T18:49:09  <sipa> (which is implemented in libsecp256k1)
374 2017-01-04T18:49:17  <Chris_Stewart_5> Thank you!
375 2017-01-04T18:50:07  <cfields> MarcoFalke: unsure. The above is just a guess. I need to catch a flight, I'll catch up on irc logs later
376 2017-01-04T18:50:25  <MarcoFalke> sure, will try your patch
377 2017-01-04T18:50:28  <gmaxwell> sipa: I'm doubtful that SIGCHECK_VERIFICATION_FACTOR is correct anymore except on really slow computers, fwiw.
378 2017-01-04T18:50:42  <cfields> MarcoFalke: heh, that came off as very rude. Wasn't intentional :)
379 2017-01-04T18:50:50  <sipa> gmaxwell: willing to change it based on HARD DATA
380 2017-01-04T18:51:02  <MarcoFalke> cfields: I didn't read any rudeness. :P
381 2017-01-04T18:51:13  <gmaxwell> 'HARD DATA, Soft forks.'
382 2017-01-04T18:51:26  <sipa> gmaxwell: though, it's probably better to overshoot than undershoot
383 2017-01-04T18:51:36  <sipa> (seeing a progress bar speed up over time is nice)
384 2017-01-04T18:51:52  <Chris_Stewart_5> /r/oddlysatisfying
385 2017-01-04T18:52:14  <gmaxwell> jeremyrubin: did you ever explore having a simple bypass of the signature cache when validating blocks far from the best header, to reduce lock contention during IBD?
386 2017-01-04T18:52:22  <sipa> gmaxwell: oops
387 2017-01-04T18:52:29  <sipa> my code is wrong
388 2017-01-04T18:52:46  <sipa> it assumes no signature checks up to the timestamp given
389 2017-01-04T18:53:48  *** droark has quit IRC
390 2017-01-04T18:57:38  <Chris_Stewart_5> sipa: I did not realize libsecp256k1 had java bindings in the repo, nice!
391 2017-01-04T18:58:08  <gmaxwell> they might even work!
392 2017-01-04T18:58:30  <sipa> gmaxwell: they have unit tests!
393 2017-01-04T18:58:56  <Chris_Stewart_5> assert(true == true, "true")
394 2017-01-04T19:00:11  <sipa> gmaxwell: jeremyrubin: did you ever explore having a simple bypass of the signature cache   ->   you can't do that at the sigcache level, as there may be CHECKSIG NOTs in the chain
395 2017-01-04T19:01:20  <gmaxwell> sipa: hm? just treat it as there being nothing in the cache for the whole block.
396 2017-01-04T19:01:35  <sipa> Ah
397 2017-01-04T19:01:36  <sipa> nvm
398 2017-01-04T19:01:42  <gmaxwell> which there won't be, in ibd.
399 2017-01-04T19:02:21  <jtimon> btw gmaxwell did you stop working on your patch to get rid of Checkpoints::GetLastCheckpoint() ? it looked quite advanced a while ago
400 2017-01-04T19:05:08  <gmaxwell> We're really review starved right now.
401 2017-01-04T19:09:09  <jtimon> I see
402 2017-01-04T19:09:30  <jtimon> but you didn't open a PR, did you?
403 2017-01-04T19:10:05  <jtimon> no, just looked
404 2017-01-04T19:10:17  <jtimon> anyway, leaving now...
405 2017-01-04T19:10:49  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
406 2017-01-04T19:15:10  *** jtimon has quit IRC
407 2017-01-04T19:18:32  <MarcoFalke> cfields: Your patch works! Mind to create a pull for that some time after your flight?
408 2017-01-04T19:23:50  <morcos> gmaxwell: re: 9465, it concerns me a little that DummySignatureCreator creates 72-byte signatures and not 73-byte signatures.  I realize most of the time its neglible, but it seems like it could just lead to bad edge cases.  It seems like we should always overpay instead.
409 2017-01-04T19:28:31  <sipa> morcos: since low-S, the maximum is 72, i think
410 2017-01-04T19:28:35  <sipa> and on average 71.5
411 2017-01-04T19:28:50  <gmaxwell> darn sipa with the answer while I was off trying to confirm it. :)
412 2017-01-04T19:28:50  <morcos> ah, missed that.. yeah i was caring about the maximum
413 2017-01-04T19:30:17  <sipa> gmaxwell: of course, i also tried to confirm first :)
414 2017-01-04T19:30:35  <morcos> out of curiousity, how were you confirming that
415 2017-01-04T19:30:42  <sipa> 32 bytes S, 33 bytes R, 6 bytes DER stupidity, 1 byte sighash
416 2017-01-04T19:31:03  <sipa> is the maximum
417 2017-01-04T19:31:18  <sipa> where R is 32 bytes 50% of the tie
418 2017-01-04T19:31:51  <morcos> ok i thought you meant confirming S couldn't be more than 32 bytes, which seemed pretty obvious if i understood what low-S meant
419 2017-01-04T19:32:45  *** grbs has quit IRC
420 2017-01-04T19:35:07  *** waxwing has quit IRC
421 2017-01-04T19:35:48  <sipa> maybe we should grind by default to produce a 32-byte R as well
422 2017-01-04T19:35:48  *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
423 2017-01-04T19:35:50  <sipa> :)
424 2017-01-04T19:36:03  *** norotartagen has quit IRC
425 2017-01-04T19:36:03  *** gribble has quit IRC
426 2017-01-04T19:36:03  *** zxzzt has quit IRC
427 2017-01-04T19:36:03  *** ratoder has quit IRC
428 2017-01-04T19:36:05  <sipa> would need 2 iterations on average
429 2017-01-04T19:36:17  *** zxzzt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
430 2017-01-04T19:36:21  *** ratoder has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
431 2017-01-04T19:36:27  *** norotartagen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432 2017-01-04T19:38:04  <gmaxwell> sipa: it could be done in constant time using the endomorphism, no?
433 2017-01-04T19:40:03  <sipa> gmaxwell: oh, sure!
434 2017-01-04T19:40:14  <sipa> the negation endomorphism, you mean?
435 2017-01-04T19:41:15  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
436 2017-01-04T19:41:37  <gmaxwell> negation doesn't change X, and it's used by low-S.  I mean multiply by lambda, potentially twice.
437 2017-01-04T19:43:02  <sipa> is there a guarantee that that will always result in a R.x value in the lower range?
438 2017-01-04T19:49:47  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/123ea7362478...0fc1c31a878e
439 2017-01-04T19:49:47  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ffeb195 Alex Morcos: add test for -walletrejectlongchains
440 2017-01-04T19:49:47  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0fc1c31 MarcoFalke: Merge #9395: Add test for -walletrejectlongchains...
441 2017-01-04T19:49:57  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9395: Add test for -walletrejectlongchains (master...fixmovedtx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9395
442 2017-01-04T19:51:43  <gmaxwell> sipa: thats why I asked, expirementally it's true bit it's not obvious to me how to prove it.
443 2017-01-04T19:53:05  <gmaxwell> sipa: I tested for F(-1) to F(-100000) and in all case either *beta or *beta^2 results in a number less than 2**255
444 2017-01-04T19:53:32  <gmaxwell> okay -1 to -1000000 now.
445 2017-01-04T19:55:28  <gmaxwell> okay, theory disproved.
446 2017-01-04T19:56:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0fc1c31a878e...7dac1e5e9e88
447 2017-01-04T19:56:41  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b50cd7a Alex Morcos: Fix dangerous condition in ModifyNewCoins....
448 2017-01-04T19:56:41  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7dac1e5 Pieter Wuille: Merge #9107: Safer modify new coins...
449 2017-01-04T19:56:52  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #9107: Safer modify new coins (master...saferModifyNewCoins) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9107
450 2017-01-04T19:58:46  <gmaxwell> (it's only true 87% of the time, but happens to hold for all very large and very small field elements)
451 2017-01-04T20:32:24  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452 2017-01-04T20:32:53  <dcousens> gmaxwell: RE https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9463#issuecomment-270303374,  my point was for naming of the RPC calls
453 2017-01-04T20:33:37  <dcousens> Wait, I've just realised I've mis-read what belcher meant, I read it as:   " bitcoin nodes known to your node via RPC."
454 2017-01-04T20:34:17  <dcousens> as in,  RPC connections
455 2017-01-04T20:35:41  <gmaxwell> dcousens: I thought you might have been misreading it that way, thus the question.
456 2017-01-04T20:36:04  <dcousens> gmaxwell: cheers :)
457 2017-01-04T20:47:59  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
458 2017-01-04T21:03:58  *** dcousens has quit IRC
459 2017-01-04T21:04:15  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
460 2017-01-04T21:15:19  *** roidster has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
461 2017-01-04T21:42:16  *** roidster has quit IRC
462 2017-01-04T21:42:43  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
463 2017-01-04T21:54:43  *** droark has quit IRC
464 2017-01-04T22:19:54  *** arubi has quit IRC
465 2017-01-04T22:19:54  *** wasi has quit IRC
466 2017-01-04T22:23:46  *** jannes has quit IRC
467 2017-01-04T22:30:47  *** brg444 has quit IRC
468 2017-01-04T22:31:20  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
469 2017-01-04T22:31:20  *** protomar has quit IRC
470 2017-01-04T22:44:02  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
471 2017-01-04T22:46:21  *** brg444 has quit IRC
472 2017-01-04T22:46:53  *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
473 2017-01-04T22:48:53  *** roidster has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
474 2017-01-04T23:09:29  *** davec has quit IRC
475 2017-01-04T23:10:43  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
476 2017-01-04T23:13:24  *** brg444 has quit IRC