12017-02-20T00:01:10 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22017-02-20T00:09:55 *** afk11 has quit IRC
32017-02-20T00:10:07 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
42017-02-20T00:38:09 <instagibbs> gmaxwell, commits so nice they're credited twice
52017-02-20T00:41:12 *** chris200_ has quit IRC
62017-02-20T00:44:10 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
72017-02-20T00:46:30 *** goksinen_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
82017-02-20T00:47:57 *** moli_ has quit IRC
92017-02-20T00:55:14 *** chris2000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102017-02-20T00:55:25 *** IRCFrEAK has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112017-02-20T00:55:26 *** IRCFrEAK has left #bitcoin-core-dev
122017-02-20T01:01:05 *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132017-02-20T01:24:28 *** city22 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142017-02-20T01:38:55 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] droark opened pull request #9806: txoutsbyaddress index (take 3) (master...gettxoutsbyaddress) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9806
152017-02-20T01:47:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #9807: RPC doc fix-ups. (master...rpc-test-trivial-fixups) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9807
162017-02-20T01:58:27 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
172017-02-20T02:06:33 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
182017-02-20T02:14:00 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
192017-02-20T02:18:02 *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
202017-02-20T02:21:07 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212017-02-20T02:28:18 *** chjj has quit IRC
222017-02-20T02:28:40 *** chjj_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232017-02-20T02:28:59 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
242017-02-20T02:59:56 *** chjj has quit IRC
252017-02-20T03:16:24 *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
262017-02-20T03:16:52 *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272017-02-20T03:34:57 *** jtimon has quit IRC
282017-02-20T03:42:28 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292017-02-20T03:44:06 *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302017-02-20T03:46:48 *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
312017-02-20T03:48:56 *** chjj has quit IRC
322017-02-20T03:50:49 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332017-02-20T03:58:32 *** goksinen_ has quit IRC
342017-02-20T04:00:07 *** dermoth has quit IRC
352017-02-20T04:00:57 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362017-02-20T04:01:54 *** madgoat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372017-02-20T04:01:54 *** madgoat has left #bitcoin-core-dev
382017-02-20T04:19:11 *** kadoban has quit IRC
392017-02-20T04:19:29 <gmaxwell> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5uy4h6/bitcoin_core_0140_release_candidate_1_available/ddyj3sx/ report that the transparent overlay isn't transparent. (thinking about it I have no idea if it was transparent for me...)
402017-02-20T04:19:52 <achow101> I'm doing a fix for unifying the boolean verbose arguments with the RPCs. should the default be a boolean, or a verbosity number?
412017-02-20T04:19:59 <achow101> gmaxwell: it's supposed to be transparent?
422017-02-20T04:23:01 <sipa> it's modal, not transparent?
432017-02-20T04:24:01 <sipa> oh, release notes say semi-transparent
442017-02-20T04:25:17 <achow101> the pr for it, #8371 says its supposed to be semi-transparent. but that screenshot does not look very semi-transparent
452017-02-20T04:25:19 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8371 | [Qt] Add out-of-sync modal info layer by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #8371 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
462017-02-20T04:26:33 <sipa> maybe the transparent part is the background, where you can see the actual tab?
472017-02-20T04:27:45 <achow101> it looks like you have to look really close. then you can see the background
482017-02-20T04:27:51 <achow101> zoom in. a lot
492017-02-20T04:29:44 <gmaxwell> I'm just a messager!
502017-02-20T04:50:31 *** Guest80933 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512017-02-20T04:51:35 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
522017-02-20T04:54:35 *** chris200_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532017-02-20T04:56:14 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
542017-02-20T04:56:15 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
552017-02-20T04:56:15 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
562017-02-20T04:56:15 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
572017-02-20T04:56:15 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
582017-02-20T04:56:16 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
592017-02-20T04:56:16 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
602017-02-20T04:56:17 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
612017-02-20T04:56:17 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
622017-02-20T04:56:17 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
632017-02-20T04:56:18 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
642017-02-20T04:56:18 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
652017-02-20T04:56:19 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
662017-02-20T04:56:19 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
672017-02-20T04:56:30 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
682017-02-20T04:56:31 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
692017-02-20T04:56:31 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
702017-02-20T04:56:32 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
712017-02-20T04:56:32 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
722017-02-20T04:56:33 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
732017-02-20T04:56:33 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
742017-02-20T04:56:33 <Guest80933> Sirs How can I start with signature campaign. I am just a newbie in bitcointalk.org
752017-02-20T04:56:34 *** Guest80933 has quit IRC
762017-02-20T04:57:18 *** chris2000 has quit IRC
772017-02-20T05:01:29 *** chjj has quit IRC
782017-02-20T05:01:33 *** city22 has quit IRC
792017-02-20T05:01:43 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802017-02-20T05:04:41 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] GCarneiroA opened pull request #9808: Master (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9808
812017-02-20T05:14:48 *** chjj has quit IRC
822017-02-20T05:19:34 *** owowo has quit IRC
832017-02-20T05:24:06 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
842017-02-20T05:36:58 *** davec has quit IRC
852017-02-20T05:46:12 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
862017-02-20T05:46:41 *** cannon-c has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
872017-02-20T06:07:08 *** arowser has quit IRC
882017-02-20T06:07:24 *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
892017-02-20T06:14:27 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
902017-02-20T06:17:32 *** paveljanik has quit IRC
912017-02-20T06:22:02 *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
922017-02-20T06:22:25 *** justan0theruser is now known as OfficialLeibniz
932017-02-20T06:23:17 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
942017-02-20T06:35:32 *** To7 has quit IRC
952017-02-20T06:41:14 *** chjj has quit IRC
962017-02-20T06:41:34 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
972017-02-20T07:09:28 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
982017-02-20T07:25:02 <wumpus> gmaxwell: I like the idea of always adding a warning to getinfo's warning field though. We could introduce that in a minor 0.14 release
992017-02-20T07:29:01 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1002017-02-20T07:35:09 <jonasschnelli> Has there been talk to default enable -walletrbf=1 in 0.15? Or should the direction be that one can set the rbf flag per send*?
1012017-02-20T07:40:30 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1022017-02-20T07:52:52 *** chjj has quit IRC
1032017-02-20T07:53:59 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1042017-02-20T07:54:53 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: not sure about that. We'd have be sure there are no significant wallets or companies that have problems accepting RBF transactions before making it default
1052017-02-20T08:01:44 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062017-02-20T08:05:06 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072017-02-20T08:08:24 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1082017-02-20T08:14:16 <cannon-c> Default RBF would make fee increase for faster processing easier for the non-tech savvy. I see lots of
1092017-02-20T08:14:57 <cannon-c> questions referring how to get transactions unstuck, most wallets that are not core, are difficult for non-technical to resend transaction.
1102017-02-20T08:16:00 <cannon-c> But I believe should notify users that RBF is set, with easily accessible ability to uncheck. Just my opinion
1112017-02-20T08:17:06 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122017-02-20T08:17:09 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132017-02-20T08:18:42 <cannon-c> Wouldn't RBF fee increase in lieu of sending new transaction that is stuck, prevent transaction ID from changing? If so I see how RBF would be great advantage
1142017-02-20T08:23:14 *** pavel_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152017-02-20T08:24:02 *** chjj has quit IRC
1162017-02-20T08:24:24 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172017-02-20T08:24:40 *** paveljanik has quit IRC
1182017-02-20T08:25:05 *** [Author] has quit IRC
1192017-02-20T08:30:29 <gmaxwell> wumpus: fwiw, I believe several other wallets are producing OO rbf (electrum and green address)
1202017-02-20T08:30:59 <gmaxwell> wumpus: also, you can always bump your way out of flagging, which should reduce the issue.
1212017-02-20T08:31:20 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I think we should hear feedback for how things go for bumpfee users in 0.14.x
1222017-02-20T08:31:35 <jonasschnelli> I think OO rbf should be the default and optionally, if you want to pay a 0-conf merchant, you may want to switch it of.
1232017-02-20T08:31:49 <jonasschnelli> *off
1242017-02-20T08:32:11 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I think bumping it off is somewhat superior to switching it off, unless you're really sure you want it off.
1252017-02-20T08:32:43 <gmaxwell> rationale: even if the rx side will ignore the unconfirmed tx with it off, it might just confirm right away.
1262017-02-20T08:39:22 *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272017-02-20T08:39:27 *** juscamarena_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282017-02-20T08:55:10 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292017-02-20T08:58:32 <wumpus> gmaxwell: okay that would be a good argument to enable it by default on master now, at least
1302017-02-20T08:58:38 <jonasschnelli> 0.14.0rc1 sync against random peers
1312017-02-20T08:58:39 <jonasschnelli> 2017-02-19 20:25:48 UpdateTip: new best=00000000839a8e6886ab5951d76f411475428afc90947ee320161bbf18eb6048 height=1 version=0x00000001 log2_work=33.000022 tx=2 date='2009-01-09 02:54:25' progress=0.000000 cache=0.0MiB(1tx)
1322017-02-20T08:58:44 <jonasschnelli> 2017-02-19 23:06:26 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000002204d1e9885416bfef39a2259a48a3eb5d36b6e8e21fad7 height=453816 version=0x20000002 log2_work=86.006491 tx=197951144 date='2017-02-19 23:00:41' progress=0.999994 cache=4096.3MiB(7229926tx) warning='2 of last 100 blocks have unexpected version'
1332017-02-20T08:59:22 <wumpus> is it syncing or stuck?
1342017-02-20T08:59:29 <jonasschnelli> No.. it's fast. :)
1352017-02-20T08:59:45 <gmaxwell> 453816 is currentish.
1362017-02-20T08:59:48 <wumpus> ooh! great.I thought you were worried about the version warning
1372017-02-20T08:59:57 <jonasschnelli> 453816 was at 2017-02-19 23:06:26
1382017-02-20T09:00:01 <gmaxwell> that is with increased dbcache, obviously.
1392017-02-20T09:00:10 <jonasschnelli> 7GB cache. yes.
1402017-02-20T09:00:32 <wumpus> oh only 7GB cache :-)
1412017-02-20T09:00:34 <gmaxwell> a little cheating there because it has never flushed at all. :P
1422017-02-20T09:00:45 <jonasschnelli> Almost same sync-times then we has with 0.13.0 but more blocks. :)
1432017-02-20T09:01:01 <wumpus> yes seems the bottleneck now is really i/o for the utxo database
1442017-02-20T09:01:19 <gmaxwell> well, sipa has code that makes it ~33% faster.
1452017-02-20T09:01:20 <sipa> last week gmaxwell and i tried to sync a 0.7.2 node from scratch, with -connect to a fast new node
1462017-02-20T09:01:21 <jonasschnelli> flush takes only a couple of seconds on that machine.. so neglectable
1472017-02-20T09:01:46 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: flush of the utxo cache, with 4gb in is not going to take a couple seconds.
1482017-02-20T09:01:55 <gmaxwell> try a minute.
1492017-02-20T09:02:01 <wumpus> but yes with database in RAM or on a SSD it's surprisingly fast
1502017-02-20T09:02:07 <jonasschnelli> I'll measure my shutdown now...
1512017-02-20T09:02:20 <gmaxwell> also, part of the time is hidden in the next start up.
1522017-02-20T09:02:34 <wumpus> too bad that that doesn't help my odroid64 :-)
1532017-02-20T09:02:50 <sipa> jonasschnelli: flushing means that every subsequent spend from an out-of-cache tx afterwards needs a read from disk and deserialization
1542017-02-20T09:02:50 <jonasschnelli> Maybe 15s
1552017-02-20T09:03:02 <jonasschnelli> I'm using a 1GB/s SSD
1562017-02-20T09:03:16 <sipa> so the slowdown is partially in later entries
1572017-02-20T09:03:26 <wumpus> yes it's not the flushing itself, as in writing, that poses a bottleneck with leveldb. leveldb is very fast with writing. It's that the flush empties the entire db
1582017-02-20T09:03:54 <wumpus> +cache
1592017-02-20T09:04:03 <jonasschnelli> https://0bin.net/paste/RdqE7Qkd8uMcew8H#o5kz3c7fBGijX2ZXzJ4d8fAozAN0h5IAQvaD8gwaeRz
1602017-02-20T09:04:09 <sipa> half of the time is constructing the batch for leveldb to write
1612017-02-20T09:04:39 <wumpus> <gmaxwell> well, sipa has code that makes it ~33% faster.<- that's good news! how?
1622017-02-20T09:04:49 <sipa> wumpus: per txout caching
1632017-02-20T09:05:11 <wumpus> sipa: ah nice
1642017-02-20T09:05:12 <gmaxwell> It unfortunately increases the size of the utxo database on disk somewhat.
1652017-02-20T09:05:20 <sipa> and undo data
1662017-02-20T09:05:35 <wumpus> by how much?
1672017-02-20T09:05:43 <gmaxwell> Less than double. I think it's a clear win.
1682017-02-20T09:06:13 <gmaxwell> Basically the keys get repeated.. leveldb has some compaction of that, but its not perfect.
1692017-02-20T09:06:20 <wumpus> could anything be gained by compressing undo data?
1702017-02-20T09:06:23 <gmaxwell> and the undo data is only slightly larger.
1712017-02-20T09:06:37 <wumpus> as you say "repeated", compression seems obvs answer
1722017-02-20T09:06:39 <sipa> undo data is already compressed pretty well
1732017-02-20T09:06:43 <wumpus> ok
1742017-02-20T09:07:03 <gmaxwell> well we can reduce the size of all blocks by ~27% using different stuff, I don't think we've looked to shrink undo data much more than it alread is.
1752017-02-20T09:07:04 <sipa> but the size increase on the chainstate should be investigated more carefully
1762017-02-20T09:07:28 <sipa> if it increases significantly, it may not be a win for systems with slow disks
1772017-02-20T09:07:30 <wumpus> true, undo data is deleted together with the blocks on pruning
1782017-02-20T09:07:38 <wumpus> chainstate growth is much more worrying
1792017-02-20T09:07:46 <sipa> yes :(
1802017-02-20T09:07:52 <gmaxwell> also, I'm sure now we have enough improvements that the sse2-sha256 will be more of a speedup, I think jonasschnelli benchmarked 5% in IBD time, and that was before assumevalid.
1812017-02-20T09:08:08 <gmaxwell> wumpus: well the growth, whatever it is, should be roughly a constant factor.
1822017-02-20T09:08:11 <jonasschnelli> Yes. IBD is not much of a difference...
1832017-02-20T09:08:20 <jonasschnelli> with wumpuses sse2
1842017-02-20T09:08:35 <wumpus> 5% is pretty nice
1852017-02-20T09:08:40 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Sure.
1862017-02-20T09:08:42 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I think 5% isn't bad. y'all expect too much from optimizations. And on top of assume valid and that 33% gain that 5% will be much larger.
1872017-02-20T09:08:46 <sipa> oh, so... we were unable to get 0.7.2 to sync past some block in 2015
1882017-02-20T09:09:02 <jonasschnelli> But I think it's great for nodes running in sync.
1892017-02-20T09:09:04 <wumpus> compound growth, heh
1902017-02-20T09:09:08 <gmaxwell> even with massively increased locks.
1912017-02-20T09:09:20 <wumpus> all those 5% and 3% stacked on top of each other do count
1922017-02-20T09:09:21 <gmaxwell> In libsecp256k1 we celebrate 1% improvements.
1932017-02-20T09:10:24 <jonasschnelli> We often focus on IBD improvments,... they are great. Boiling hot water quick is great,... but keeping it warm with low amount of energy also counts. :)
1942017-02-20T09:11:01 <sipa> well IBD time is a biased proxy for block validation time
1952017-02-20T09:11:09 <sipa> and it keeps users happy
1962017-02-20T09:11:47 <sipa> many of the improvements to IBD time do matter for single node validation... except assumevalid, though we get sigcache in return
1972017-02-20T09:12:15 *** moli_ has quit IRC
1982017-02-20T09:12:47 <jonasschnelli> Yes. That's true. But sse2 5% in IBD may results in 10-15% during in-sync state because of lesser IO. My Pine64 (RPi clone) would really love that.
1992017-02-20T09:13:17 <jonasschnelli> (and it actually has SHA256 NI)
2002017-02-20T09:13:45 *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012017-02-20T09:17:15 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #9808: Master (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9808
2022017-02-20T09:18:47 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: since we have 0.14 now branched off, we could try to make a little step towards refactoring out BDB. Maybe check #9143?
2032017-02-20T09:18:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9143 | Refactor ZapWalletTxes to avoid layer violations by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9143 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2042017-02-20T09:21:22 *** cbits has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052017-02-20T09:23:39 *** harrymm has quit IRC
2062017-02-20T09:25:07 <cbits> @jonasschnelli I'm in the camp that rbf should either be set by default with a checkbox to unset it per transaction, or entirely off in the settings. Or the other option, of having it not set by default, but you get the behavior I first described if you set rbf on.
2072017-02-20T09:26:36 <cbits> Electrum currently makes you set rbf on for every transaction even after making the option visible in the settings. Which imo is annoying. Should be default.
2082017-02-20T09:27:01 <jonasschnelli> cbits: I think the GUI can handle RBF pretty well. I see more potential in improving the RPC API.
2092017-02-20T09:27:19 <jonasschnelli> The gui will very likely have https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9697 in 0.15.
2102017-02-20T09:27:32 <jonasschnelli> And a per-tx-opt-in checkbox
2112017-02-20T09:27:51 <jonasschnelli> And, the GUI offers user verification before sending (to inform better about the RBF state).
2122017-02-20T09:28:18 *** chjj has quit IRC
2132017-02-20T09:30:43 <cbits> jonasschnelli: nice. Didn't see that pull. I'll check it out.
2142017-02-20T09:33:40 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
2152017-02-20T09:34:00 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162017-02-20T09:38:50 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172017-02-20T09:39:37 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2182017-02-20T09:40:29 <jonasschnelli> I'm setting up a new gitian machine... but facing an error with the vm sudoers config:
2192017-02-20T09:40:29 <jonasschnelli> https://0bin.net/paste/V1mMAN3IRN2c1lSE#Xuff715O4aijc+o9h04ohmF145+fRrXqojsb11jDxmy
2202017-02-20T09:40:35 <jonasschnelli> Any idea how to fix that?
2212017-02-20T09:41:01 <jonasschnelli> It seems that the prompt breaks the make-base-vm process
2222017-02-20T09:46:25 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232017-02-20T09:46:35 <wumpus> strange
2242017-02-20T09:47:43 <wumpus> is this a sudo issue in the VM or the host machine? confusing
2252017-02-20T09:47:55 <wumpus> looks something *on* the vm, so changing sudoers won't help you either
2262017-02-20T09:50:29 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Seems to be on the VM.
2272017-02-20T09:50:52 <jonasschnelli> I'm using make-base-vm on a non-VM host. Using -KVM
2282017-02-20T09:50:54 <wumpus> I created a new base image twice yesterday - no issues
2292017-02-20T09:51:58 <wumpus> this is kvm or lxc?
2302017-02-20T09:52:28 <jonasschnelli> KVM
2312017-02-20T09:52:37 <wumpus> okay what I tried is LXC
2322017-02-20T09:52:52 <jonasschnelli> Just tried LXC and seems to have worked..
2332017-02-20T09:55:09 <wumpus> the upgrader should probably be passed some kind of silent/don't prompt flag for the KVM image build
2342017-02-20T09:57:42 <jonasschnelli> After using LXC, the base image was named "base-trusty-amd64" instead of "base-trusty-amd64.qcow2"... renamed and trying to gbuild now
2352017-02-20T09:58:29 *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
2362017-02-20T09:59:38 *** city22 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372017-02-20T10:04:25 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: that is the correct naming
2382017-02-20T10:04:33 <wumpus> lxc image is not a qcow
2392017-02-20T10:04:49 <jonasschnelli> ah... I guess I need to set USE_LXC
2402017-02-20T10:13:09 <wumpus> yep
2412017-02-20T10:13:28 *** city22 has quit IRC
2422017-02-20T10:16:26 <jonasschnelli> libexec/config-bootstrap-fixup: line 15: target-bin/bootstrap-fixup.in: No such file or directory
2432017-02-20T10:20:27 <wumpus> never seen that one before
2442017-02-20T10:22:42 *** whphhg has quit IRC
2452017-02-20T10:24:01 <wumpus> not sure if KVM will work at all in my setup, but will try making a KVM image
2462017-02-20T10:36:12 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472017-02-20T10:40:39 *** goksinen has quit IRC
2482017-02-20T10:43:43 *** city22 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2492017-02-20T10:46:09 *** lclc has quit IRC
2502017-02-20T10:50:11 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: I get the same error as you
2512017-02-20T10:50:27 <wumpus> making an issue
2522017-02-20T10:57:59 *** cbits has quit IRC
2532017-02-20T11:00:03 *** city22 has quit IRC
2542017-02-20T11:00:49 <wumpus> https://github.com/devrandom/gitian-builder/issues/144
2552017-02-20T11:01:40 <wumpus> would be nice if we could resolve this before final
2562017-02-20T11:12:32 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572017-02-20T11:20:00 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582017-02-20T11:29:27 *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2592017-02-20T11:30:38 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602017-02-20T11:34:59 *** goksinen has quit IRC
2612017-02-20T11:36:16 *** [Author] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622017-02-20T11:42:45 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632017-02-20T11:56:23 *** cannon-c has quit IRC
2642017-02-20T12:03:25 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] GCarneiroA opened pull request #9809: Master (0.10...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9809
2652017-02-20T12:04:34 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #9809: Master (0.10...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9809
2662017-02-20T12:05:46 *** Lauda has quit IRC
2672017-02-20T12:11:10 *** Lauda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682017-02-20T12:24:52 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692017-02-20T12:28:59 *** goksinen has quit IRC
2702017-02-20T12:33:19 *** squidicuz has quit IRC
2712017-02-20T12:33:44 *** squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722017-02-20T12:36:18 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732017-02-20T12:45:01 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742017-02-20T12:45:02 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2752017-02-20T13:22:46 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762017-02-20T13:26:53 *** OptMate has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772017-02-20T13:28:34 *** OptMate has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782017-02-20T13:36:26 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2792017-02-20T13:48:19 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2802017-02-20T13:50:20 <achow101> jonasschnelli: that's an issue with vmbuilder. see https://bugs.launchpad.net/vmbuilder/+bug/1659952
2812017-02-20T13:51:07 <jonasschnelli> achow101: Nice! thanks. You should probably report that also here -> https://github.com/devrandom/gitian-builder/issues/144
2822017-02-20T13:51:13 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2832017-02-20T13:52:00 *** OptMate has quit IRC
2842017-02-20T14:03:57 *** city22 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852017-02-20T14:07:54 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2862017-02-20T14:21:27 *** chjj has quit IRC
2872017-02-20T14:28:41 *** city22 has quit IRC
2882017-02-20T14:30:37 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892017-02-20T14:31:16 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2902017-02-20T14:32:28 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
2912017-02-20T14:33:40 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922017-02-20T14:37:36 *** chjj has quit IRC
2932017-02-20T14:40:06 *** Alina-malina_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2942017-02-20T14:40:24 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
2952017-02-20T14:42:44 *** lclc has quit IRC
2962017-02-20T14:42:59 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2972017-02-20T14:43:30 *** Alina-malina_ has quit IRC
2982017-02-20T14:43:30 *** Alina-malina_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992017-02-20T14:47:19 *** goksinen has quit IRC
3002017-02-20T14:48:43 *** wasi has quit IRC
3012017-02-20T14:49:10 *** whphhg has quit IRC
3022017-02-20T14:49:25 *** harrymm has quit IRC
3032017-02-20T14:53:19 *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3042017-02-20T14:59:15 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3052017-02-20T14:59:32 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062017-02-20T15:00:53 *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3072017-02-20T15:03:49 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
3082017-02-20T15:06:50 *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3092017-02-20T15:09:08 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3102017-02-20T15:17:52 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3112017-02-20T15:20:54 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3122017-02-20T15:25:20 <paveljanik> anyone running Windows here?
3132017-02-20T15:25:32 <paveljanik> can you please try loading mempool.dat?
3142017-02-20T15:26:07 *** lclc has quit IRC
3152017-02-20T15:35:03 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3162017-02-20T15:35:26 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3172017-02-20T15:36:09 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3182017-02-20T15:37:18 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3192017-02-20T15:41:39 *** goksinen has quit IRC
3202017-02-20T16:00:08 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3212017-02-20T16:04:39 *** goksinen has quit IRC
3222017-02-20T16:25:09 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232017-02-20T16:26:46 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/390a39bb5cf4...1a9fd5cb9d13
3242017-02-20T16:26:47 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9adb694 Luke Dashjr: Qt/Intro: Move sizeWarningLabel text into C++ code
3252017-02-20T16:26:47 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 50c5657 Luke Dashjr: Qt/Intro: Storage shouldn't grow significantly with pruning enabled
3262017-02-20T16:26:48 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f6d18f5 Luke Dashjr: Qt/Intro: Explain a bit more what will happen first time
3272017-02-20T16:27:07 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9724: Qt/Intro: Add explanation of IBD process (master...intro_explain) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9724
3282017-02-20T16:29:41 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1a9fd5cb9d13...7ca2f542708b
3292017-02-20T16:29:41 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1bfe6b4 Mitchell Cash: Use package name variable inside $(package)_file_name variable
3302017-02-20T16:29:42 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7ca2f54 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9794: Minor update to qrencode package builder...
3312017-02-20T16:30:05 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9794: Minor update to qrencode package builder (master...minor_depends_fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9794
3322017-02-20T16:30:29 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7ca2f542708b...2dad02232af1
3332017-02-20T16:30:29 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ec1267f Russell Yanofsky: [wallet] Remove importmulti always-true check...
3342017-02-20T16:30:30 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2dad022 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9760: [wallet] Remove importmulti always-true check...
3352017-02-20T16:30:54 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9760: [wallet] Remove importmulti always-true check (master...pr/multitaut) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9760
3362017-02-20T16:32:21 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2dad02232af1...aa791e29114f
3372017-02-20T16:32:22 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9fc7f0b Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: RPC/Mining: GBT should return 1 MB sizelimit before segwit activates
3382017-02-20T16:32:23 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 279f944 Luke Dashjr: QA: Test GBT size/weight limit values
3392017-02-20T16:32:23 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master aa791e2 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9619: Bugfix: RPC/Mining: GBT should return 1 MB sizelimit before segwit activates...
3402017-02-20T16:32:39 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9619: Bugfix: RPC/Mining: GBT should return 1 MB sizelimit before segwit activates (master...bugfix_gbt_presw) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9619
3412017-02-20T16:36:57 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.14: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/40c754cb38cd...861cb0c83db0
3422017-02-20T16:36:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 6552729 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: RPC/Mining: GBT should return 1 MB sizelimit before segwit activates...
3432017-02-20T16:36:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.14 861cb0c Luke Dashjr: QA: Test GBT size/weight limit values...
3442017-02-20T16:46:26 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3452017-02-20T16:50:14 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/aa791e29114f...7639d38f14b1
3462017-02-20T16:50:15 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 13f6085 Wladimir J. van der Laan: netbase: Make InterruptibleRecv return an error code instead of bool
3472017-02-20T16:50:15 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3ddfe29 Wladimir J. van der Laan: netbase: Do not print an error on connection timeouts through proxy...
3482017-02-20T16:50:16 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7639d38 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9726: netbase: Do not print an error on connection timeouts through proxy...
3492017-02-20T16:50:40 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9726: netbase: Do not print an error on connection timeouts through proxy (master...2017_02_intr_recv_error) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9726
3502017-02-20T16:58:17 *** lclc has quit IRC
3512017-02-20T17:00:36 *** kyletorpey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522017-02-20T17:02:44 <paveljanik> sipa, wumpus: #9810 - any idea (seems to be crlf on serialization ;-)?
3532017-02-20T17:02:45 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9810 | 0.14 not loading mempool.dat? · Issue #9810 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3542017-02-20T17:03:06 <paveljanik> binary on write?
3552017-02-20T17:03:24 <paveljanik> Windows...
3562017-02-20T17:03:41 *** wangchun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3572017-02-20T17:04:00 <wumpus> that could be the explanation, good catch! how is the file opened?
3582017-02-20T17:04:24 <wumpus> if its opened in text (instead of binary) mode, windows will convert \n to \r\n
3592017-02-20T17:06:19 *** moli_ has quit IRC
3602017-02-20T17:06:29 <paveljanik> it is written with "w" and opened with "r"
3612017-02-20T17:06:50 <wumpus> that should be "wb" and "rb"
3622017-02-20T17:06:58 <wumpus> so you've found the issue, congrats
3632017-02-20T17:07:01 <paveljanik> Hmm, this reminds me: zerocoin was missing =, we are missing b ;-)
3642017-02-20T17:07:17 <paveljanik> we should congrat to the reporter!
3652017-02-20T17:07:25 *** eenoch_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3662017-02-20T17:07:49 <wumpus> I mean you've found the probable solution
3672017-02-20T17:08:04 <paveljanik> but really: any dev with Windows to really test this?
3682017-02-20T17:08:21 *** Alina-malina_ is now known as Alina-malina
3692017-02-20T17:08:21 <wumpus> are you going to make a PR?
3702017-02-20T17:08:35 *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
3712017-02-20T17:08:46 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3722017-02-20T17:08:56 <paveljanik> for master and you'll backport?
3732017-02-20T17:09:12 <wumpus> yes
3742017-02-20T17:09:16 *** cryptapus_afk is now known as cryptapus
3752017-02-20T17:09:17 *** instagibbs has quit IRC
3762017-02-20T17:09:19 *** OfficialLeibniz has quit IRC
3772017-02-20T17:09:19 *** eenoch has quit IRC
3782017-02-20T17:09:19 *** atroxes has quit IRC
3792017-02-20T17:09:19 *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
3802017-02-20T17:09:20 *** murchandamus has quit IRC
3812017-02-20T17:09:30 <paveljanik> give me a few minutes
3822017-02-20T17:09:33 *** atroxes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3832017-02-20T17:09:40 *** dgenr8 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3842017-02-20T17:09:48 *** murchandamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3852017-02-20T17:11:39 *** BashCo has quit IRC
3862017-02-20T17:11:40 *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3872017-02-20T17:11:58 *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3882017-02-20T17:13:45 *** OfficialLeibniz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3892017-02-20T17:15:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] paveljanik opened pull request #9813: Read/write mempool.dat as a binary. (master...20170220_mempool_binary) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9813
3902017-02-20T17:25:25 <wumpus> paveljanik: thanks
3912017-02-20T17:25:52 <paveljanik> you're welcome!
3922017-02-20T17:27:43 <paveljanik> we use "w" for PID and log
3932017-02-20T17:28:53 <paveljanik> and in tests
3942017-02-20T17:28:56 <paveljanik> all "text" files
3952017-02-20T17:32:22 *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3962017-02-20T17:32:42 <cfields> windows users who ran rc1 will need to delete mempool.dat. Not sure if that
3972017-02-20T17:32:49 <cfields> 's worth adding to the release notes or not
3982017-02-20T17:34:30 <paveljanik> it is auto fixed at the first exit?
3992017-02-20T17:34:37 <paveljanik> by saving the new file...
4002017-02-20T17:34:55 *** aalex has quit IRC
4012017-02-20T17:35:40 *** kyletorpey has quit IRC
4022017-02-20T17:36:13 <cfields> ah, right.
4032017-02-20T17:39:42 <wumpus> for text files it makes sense not to add 'b', otherwise you cannot open it in notepad
4042017-02-20T17:50:47 *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052017-02-20T17:53:04 *** whphhg has quit IRC
4062017-02-20T17:55:21 *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
4072017-02-20T17:59:35 *** aalex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4082017-02-20T18:03:16 <achow101> paveljanik: I can test on windows, as soon as I my windows node finishes syncing
4092017-02-20T18:03:39 <paveljanik> achow101, great!
4102017-02-20T18:13:27 <achow101> if only we could figure out how to make cross compiling work on xenial... cross compiling for windows is such a pain now
4112017-02-20T18:19:12 *** jamoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4122017-02-20T18:23:05 <sipa> achow101: what fails?
4132017-02-20T18:23:43 <achow101> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/1
4142017-02-20T18:23:45 <achow101> still unresolved
4152017-02-20T18:25:22 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
4162017-02-20T18:25:42 *** jamoes has quit IRC
4172017-02-20T18:26:03 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4182017-02-20T18:29:15 *** jamoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4192017-02-20T18:29:39 *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4202017-02-20T18:31:07 *** BashCo has quit IRC
4212017-02-20T18:33:40 <achow101> paveljanik: your fix didn't work for me on ubuntu 16.04
4222017-02-20T18:34:06 <paveljanik> achow101, on Ubuntu?
4232017-02-20T18:34:19 <paveljanik> you have tried the provided mempool.dat?
4242017-02-20T18:34:28 <paveljanik> My fix fixes save on Windows...
4252017-02-20T18:35:03 <achow101> oh, it was windows specific? I am testing on both ubuntu and windows, just waiting for windows to finish building
4262017-02-20T18:35:26 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
4272017-02-20T18:37:08 *** murchandamus has quit IRC
4282017-02-20T18:38:01 *** murchandamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4292017-02-20T18:46:06 <achow101> paveljanik: for some reason I had to delete the mempool.dats before it would work properly
4302017-02-20T18:46:33 *** murchandamus has quit IRC
4312017-02-20T18:48:56 *** murchandamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4322017-02-20T18:50:25 *** murchandamus has quit IRC
4332017-02-20T18:50:37 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4342017-02-20T18:50:48 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4352017-02-20T18:51:12 <paveljanik> yes, this is probably caused by the issue fixed ;-)
4362017-02-20T18:51:53 *** isle2983 has quit IRC
4372017-02-20T18:51:56 <paveljanik> achow101, can you please try again with the master-saved mempool.dat?
4382017-02-20T18:52:16 <paveljanik> and then run fixed tree with the old mempool.dat?
4392017-02-20T18:52:39 <paveljanik> it won't use it. But at exit, it should rewrite it and then on the new start it should use it.
4402017-02-20T18:53:21 *** murchandamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4412017-02-20T18:57:32 *** harrymm has quit IRC
4422017-02-20T19:03:48 *** owowo has quit IRC
4432017-02-20T19:08:30 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4442017-02-20T19:09:29 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4452017-02-20T19:13:03 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
4462017-02-20T19:16:59 <achow101> ok, it looks like it does rewrite the old one and actually uses it
4472017-02-20T19:17:51 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4482017-02-20T19:26:39 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4492017-02-20T19:32:47 *** isle2983 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4502017-02-20T19:52:31 *** harrymm has quit IRC
4512017-02-20T19:53:53 *** kyletorpey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4522017-02-20T19:59:36 *** lclc has quit IRC
4532017-02-20T20:08:13 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4542017-02-20T20:12:39 <paveljanik> achow101, perfect!
4552017-02-20T20:13:08 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4562017-02-20T20:15:47 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4572017-02-20T20:26:40 *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4582017-02-20T20:28:51 *** droark has quit IRC
4592017-02-20T20:35:28 *** handlex has quit IRC
4602017-02-20T20:37:00 <BlueMatt> what am I missing? why are we going out of our way to prefer data() over &v[0]?
4612017-02-20T20:37:14 <BlueMatt> I mean its more readable, sure, but I dont believe it is safer in any measurable way?
4622017-02-20T20:38:12 <BlueMatt> or, maybe I'm missing in docs...is it that data() is defined for 0-length vectors (though not dereferenceable - it can return any garbage it wants), but &[0] is not?
4632017-02-20T20:43:14 <gwillen> BlueMatt: I believe &[0] should be defined for zero-length vectors, it's legal to take a pointer to the slot right after the end of an array (this is what e.g. a .end() iterator is)
4642017-02-20T20:43:33 <gwillen> see the _second_ (not accepted) answer which quotes the standard: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/988158/take-the-address-of-a-one-past-the-end-array-element-via-subscript-legal-by-the
4652017-02-20T20:43:46 <midnightmagic> huh, that's interesting. I've been fighting with almost that exact same thing.
4662017-02-20T20:43:53 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4672017-02-20T20:44:08 *** jannes has quit IRC
4682017-02-20T20:44:59 <BlueMatt> gwillen: hmm? I mean that doesnt inherintly mean C++ allows it as well?
4692017-02-20T20:45:09 <sipa> BlueMatt: vect[0] is a reference to non-existing data if vector is empty, which is illegal
4702017-02-20T20:45:17 <sipa> you can have a pointer to non-existing data, but not a reference
4712017-02-20T20:45:49 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok, so it is illegal in C++ but not C?
4722017-02-20T20:45:54 <gwillen> sipa: but &foo[0] is a pointer, not a reference
4732017-02-20T20:45:55 <BlueMatt> (well, vector but not array)
4742017-02-20T20:46:00 <gwillen> and a pointer to one past the end is definitely legal
4752017-02-20T20:46:08 <sipa> gwillen: &foo[0] = &(foo[0])
4762017-02-20T20:46:17 <sipa> that's taking the address of a reference to non-existing data
4772017-02-20T20:46:31 <BlueMatt> sipa: see stackoverflow link from gwillen, it sppears to be legal in C
4782017-02-20T20:46:33 <gwillen> do you believe it's different in C++ with a vector than in C with an array?
4792017-02-20T20:46:39 <sipa> C doesn't have references
4802017-02-20T20:46:39 *** OfficialLeibniz has quit IRC
4812017-02-20T20:46:45 <sipa> the question doesn't apply
4822017-02-20T20:46:46 <gwillen> right
4832017-02-20T20:47:01 <sipa> a[b] in C is just syntactic sugar for *(a+b)
4842017-02-20T20:47:04 <gwillen> but in C that construction would appear to actually dereference an invalid pointer, but the standard gives it a pass
4852017-02-20T20:47:25 <gwillen> and explicity says that if you do &foo[x] it turns into foo+x and does not dereference
4862017-02-20T20:47:34 <sipa> well that's about arrays
4872017-02-20T20:47:38 * gwillen nods
4882017-02-20T20:47:48 <sipa> which are defined by the language
4892017-02-20T20:47:51 <BlueMatt> mmm, ok
4902017-02-20T20:48:06 <gwillen> well, it actually also says this pass applies to the * operator as well, and &(*foo) does not dereference either, which is slightly more general
4912017-02-20T20:48:20 <sipa> but vector is a standard library class, where vect[x] is an operator that returns a reference to a vector element
4922017-02-20T20:48:23 <gwillen> but I suppose that would be hard to spec for user-defined operators
4932017-02-20T20:48:24 * gwillen nod
4942017-02-20T20:48:29 <sipa> which is just impossible to do if there are no elements
4952017-02-20T20:50:12 <sipa> for example, a vector implementation (and in practice does) contains a pointer to the first element of the data
4962017-02-20T20:50:25 <sipa> but initializes it to nullptr if there are no elements allocated
4972017-02-20T20:50:44 <sipa> vect[0] would then be implemented as a dereference of nullptr
4982017-02-20T20:51:07 * gwillen no
4992017-02-20T20:51:09 <sipa> so forcing vect[0] to be valid for empty vectors would outlaw the obviously simplest implementation
5002017-02-20T20:51:12 <gwillen> nod*
5012017-02-20T20:51:47 <BlueMatt> yea, ok
5022017-02-20T20:51:49 <sipa> whereas array[0] is simply a reference to the element 1 past the array... not nullptr
5032017-02-20T20:52:05 <gwillen> right
5042017-02-20T20:52:20 <sipa> actually, i believe that C and/or C++ require every object to have non-zero allocation space
5052017-02-20T20:52:47 <sipa> otherwise alias detection is nearly impossible
5062017-02-20T20:56:42 <luke-jr> hmm
5072017-02-20T20:57:04 <luke-jr> &foo[0] actually called operator[] in C++, rather than just being (foo+0)?
5082017-02-20T20:57:14 <sipa> for vectors, yes
5092017-02-20T20:57:18 <luke-jr> I guess it would have to :x
5102017-02-20T20:57:30 <sipa> for arrays i don't know
5112017-02-20T20:57:51 <luke-jr> a shame, &foo[0] looks nicer XD
5122017-02-20T20:58:27 <sipa> also, (foo+0) for a vector would be nonsense... you can't add 0 to a vector
5132017-02-20T20:58:37 <luke-jr> âº
5142017-02-20T21:01:43 <sipa> FATAL: ThreadSanitizer CHECK failed: ../../../../src/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_deadlock_detector1.cc:122 "((len)) > ((0U))" (0x0, 0x0)
5152017-02-20T21:01:46 <sipa> #0 <null> <null> (libtsan.so.0+0x00000007c0d3)
5162017-02-20T21:01:46 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/0 | HTTP Error 404: Not Found
5172017-02-20T21:01:48 <sipa> #1 <null> <null> (libtsan.so.0+0x00000007c0db)
5182017-02-20T21:01:50 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5192017-02-20T21:01:51 <sipa> #2 __sanitizer::CheckFailed(char const*, int, char const*, unsigned long long, unsigned long long) <null> (libtsan.so.0+0x000000081303)
5202017-02-20T21:01:53 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2 | Long-term, safe, store-of-value · Issue #2 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5212017-02-20T21:01:54 <sipa> much sad
5222017-02-20T21:02:11 <sipa> assertion failure inside tsan :(
5232017-02-20T21:03:11 *** lclc has quit IRC
5242017-02-20T21:05:37 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5252017-02-20T21:15:20 *** lclc has quit IRC
5262017-02-20T21:17:16 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5272017-02-20T21:23:10 *** lclc has quit IRC
5282017-02-20T21:42:22 *** wasi has quit IRC
5292017-02-20T21:42:47 *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5302017-02-20T21:50:02 <BlueMatt> god damnit gribble
5312017-02-20T21:51:04 <sipa> indeed!
5322017-02-20T21:51:19 <btcdrak> issue 0 as well lol
5332017-02-20T21:57:40 *** harrymm has quit IRC
5342017-02-20T22:00:47 *** Guest42592 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5352017-02-20T22:04:15 <BlueMatt> should we mention somewhere in the release notes that 0.14 has mega-super-amazing-faster block relay?
5362017-02-20T22:07:22 <sipa> there is an issue about that by cory i think
5372017-02-20T22:07:23 <sipa> or a pr
5382017-02-20T22:08:17 <BlueMatt> ok, good...I often dont read release-notes stuff :/
5392017-02-20T22:08:21 <BlueMatt> I suppose I'm a bad contributor :/
5402017-02-20T22:13:10 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5412017-02-20T22:44:05 *** aalex has quit IRC
5422017-02-20T22:58:02 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
5432017-02-20T23:00:13 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
5442017-02-20T23:06:00 *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5452017-02-20T23:07:27 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
5462017-02-20T23:43:17 *** roidster has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5472017-02-20T23:43:20 *** roidster is now known as Guest47564
5482017-02-20T23:44:18 *** Guest47564 is now known as roidster
5492017-02-20T23:50:00 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you should measure it.
5502017-02-20T23:50:19 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: which part?
5512017-02-20T23:52:56 <gmaxwell> preferably the mega-super-amazing parts.
5522017-02-20T23:53:52 <BlueMatt> fast-relay: we have good measurements for how long validation takes
5532017-02-20T23:53:55 <BlueMatt> you win by that much :)
5542017-02-20T23:54:01 *** laurentmt has quit IRC