1 2017-03-04T00:02:39  <gmaxwell> no those figures are from using the scalar sha2 code.
  2 2017-03-04T00:03:06  <gmaxwell> AFAIK the only real place we can make good use of the parallel sha2 SSE code would be in hash tree computation, but that is complicated as you know.
  3 2017-03-04T00:03:24  <gmaxwell> IIRC the SIMD scalar sha2 is ~2x faster than ours, and the SIMD parallel sha2 is 3x faster than ours.
  4 2017-03-04T00:03:52  <luke-jr> merkle trees probably aren't a significant amount of hashing I think?
  5 2017-03-04T00:05:26  <gmaxwell> They're actually tons. because every node in it is three compression function runs. and there are txn*2 nodes in total.
  6 2017-03-04T00:05:46  <gmaxwell> so a block can have something like 24000 compression function runs.
  7 2017-03-04T00:06:22  <luke-jr> hmm
  8 2017-03-04T00:08:06  <sipa> so 8ms?
  9 2017-03-04T00:08:11  <sipa> that's significant
 10 2017-03-04T00:08:53  <sipa> assuming 3 GHz and 15 cpb for sha256
 11 2017-03-04T00:09:14  <TD-Linux> <wumpus> gmaxwell: it's a bit scary though as the external process will be able to keep a reference, and have all your key data :) <- you can seal the fd and verify the seal in the sandboxed process to eliminate this vulnerability
 12 2017-03-04T00:10:07  <gmaxwell> yes, it's non-trivial in terms of validation latency.
 13 2017-03-04T00:11:18  <TD-Linux> er actually disregard me, there is no read seal
 14 2017-03-04T00:15:06  *** afk11_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 15 2017-03-04T00:16:49  *** mobilemo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 16 2017-03-04T00:18:02  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
 17 2017-03-04T00:19:08  *** mobilemo has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 18 2017-03-04T00:22:06  *** bityogi has quit IRC
 19 2017-03-04T00:50:42  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 20 2017-03-04T00:51:11  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 21 2017-03-04T00:52:27  <jeremyrubin> hm Bitcoin Unlimited just added ~parallel block validation~ but I'm pretty sure it has no perforance benefit
 22 2017-03-04T00:52:49  <jeremyrubin> (in case anyone is looking at what they implemented)
 23 2017-03-04T00:53:30  <TD-Linux> jeremyrubin, correct, it is not a performance enhancement but an attempt to "fix" quadratic hashing
 24 2017-03-04T00:53:48  <jeremyrubin> wait what
 25 2017-03-04T00:54:01  <jeremyrubin> The parallel block validation?
 26 2017-03-04T00:54:03  <TD-Linux> yes
 27 2017-03-04T00:54:17  <sipa> it means that the node doesn't stall if your block takes a day to validate
 28 2017-03-04T00:54:25  <TD-Linux> yup, it'll just burn a core for a day
 29 2017-03-04T00:54:51  <TD-Linux> of course under the assumption that the block also gets orphaned.
 30 2017-03-04T00:55:11  <jeremyrubin> Yeah isn't that block hopefully just going to orphan
 31 2017-03-04T00:55:16  <jeremyrubin> if it takes that long to validate
 32 2017-03-04T00:55:18  <jeremyrubin> hmm
 33 2017-03-04T00:55:52  <sipa> also, since our validation is already parallel anyway, it makes both blocks slower
 34 2017-03-04T00:56:05  <jeremyrubin> yeah that's why I thought it was useless
 35 2017-03-04T00:56:18  <jeremyrubin> core can only do so many IPC
 36 2017-03-04T00:56:19  <TD-Linux> jeremyrubin, thus the question "how long is too long"
 37 2017-03-04T00:56:39  <jeremyrubin> Well... that seems to be a hard fork then?
 38 2017-03-04T00:57:09  <jeremyrubin> Because now you'll partition old nodes trying to validate whatever monster block (assuming it crashes/kills your node on old hardware)
 39 2017-03-04T00:57:25  <TD-Linux> jeremyrubin, it is likely to cause forks, yes.
 40 2017-03-04T00:57:30  <TD-Linux> itself it is not a hard fork.
 41 2017-03-04T00:59:14  <jeremyrubin> yeah, sorry was slightly imprecise with terminology
 42 2017-03-04T01:00:06  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 43 2017-03-04T01:00:10  <jeremyrubin> it seems they don't mention it being a quadratic hashing fix in the documentation
 44 2017-03-04T01:00:45  <jeremyrubin> Also it seems quadratic hashing isn't really a problem before this either, just wait until the block gets orphaned?
 45 2017-03-04T01:01:40  <gmaxwell> yea, it clearly has some unexplored interactions with selfish mining too.  E.g. if you mine an empty block, now you hold it locally for a bit comfortable that if there is a block race, you'll win even though you announced later... you can be up to the typical validation time late in your announcement.
 46 2017-03-04T01:01:58  <gmaxwell> jeremyrubin: qudratic hashing is a _huge_ problem if you've ripped off the blocksize limit and done nothing about it.
 47 2017-03-04T01:02:29  <gmaxwell> a block could take days to hash and shut down the network. :P (except for collaborating miners that know to 'optimize out' checking that transaciton) :)
 48 2017-03-04T01:03:18  <jeremyrubin> Do we have a provision for abandoning a block mid validation if a longer header chain is seen?
 49 2017-03-04T01:03:30  <jeremyrubin> Probably a tighter way to address same concern.
 50 2017-03-04T01:04:45  <gmaxwell> it's not a concern for us. As it's not really easy to make excessively slow blocks in the concernsus rules and segwit completely fixes quadratic hashing.
 51 2017-03-04T01:05:15  <gmaxwell> could basically worry about it once it _ever_ would have made a difference, rather than adding complexity now.
 52 2017-03-04T01:05:44  <gmaxwell> (the complexity would be that that longer chain may be invalid, so you'll have to go back to validating the other thing, seems messy as heck)
 53 2017-03-04T01:06:04  <jeremyrubin> well... it can be a good "defensive" code in case a new compelxity attaack is ever found.
 54 2017-03-04T01:06:27  <gmaxwell> sure but has to be weighed against the complexity of the fix and the risk it implies.
 55 2017-03-04T01:06:44  <jeremyrubin> I think it's a simple rule; always be trying to validate the largest-POW chain
 56 2017-03-04T01:07:01  <TD-Linux> if such an attack was made, simply stalling is a pretty good failure option
 57 2017-03-04T01:07:23  <gmaxwell> (maybe if someone implemented it they'd find it was easy... though just testing it makes me feel uneasy, concurrency is really hard to test well.)
 58 2017-03-04T01:07:49  <jeremyrubin> fair!
 59 2017-03-04T01:08:39  <gmaxwell> jeremyrubin: we do that, subject to the fact that while validating a block we're effectively non-concurrent, so we won't learn about the longer chain until we're done.  So really the complexity there is just in safely increasing the concurrency. Which might be an independant good--- e.g. a side effect of the changes for the block testing stuff we were talking about a day ago.
 60 2017-03-04T01:11:10  <TD-Linux> certainly I'd hope for more tests than parallel validation has :^)
 61 2017-03-04T01:12:27  <gmaxwell> we don't really have a good test harness for testing concurrency.  data race freeness doesn't mean that a parallel algorihim will yield expected results in all ordering sequences.
 62 2017-03-04T01:15:57  <TD-Linux> some sort of framework that would cause all mutexes to block until the test explicitly lets them continue would be neat.
 63 2017-03-04T01:17:27  <gmaxwell> TD-Linux: well RR actually has neat stuff for making threaded execution determinstic, that I think could be listed into being a concurrency fuzzing tool.
 64 2017-03-04T01:18:16  <gmaxwell> e.g. replay from an to a given point... and then repeat the replay with many different values given to the RNG that schedules the threads, and see if you get different results.
 65 2017-03-04T01:18:18  <TD-Linux> gmaxwell, well if you want to fuzz rather than be explicit, doesn't rr's chaos mode already count?
 66 2017-03-04T01:18:25  <gmaxwell> oh does it already do this? lol
 67 2017-03-04T01:19:03  <luke-jr> [01:01:39] <gmaxwell> yea, it clearly has some unexplored interactions with selfish mining too.  E.g. if you mine an empty block, now you hold it locally for a bit comfortable that if there is a block race, you'll win even though you announced later… you can be up to the typical validation time late in your announcement. <-- they may claim this is a good thing, since it incentivises smaller blocks
 68 2017-03-04T01:20:22  <luke-jr> although in fact it incentivises blocks which meet relay-network policy even better
 69 2017-03-04T01:20:43  <luke-jr> or rather, the most-limited relay policy
 70 2017-03-04T01:20:48  <gmaxwell> the key point about selfish mining is that it gives excess returns to larger miners. So "incenticizes smaller blocks at the expense of decenteralization" ... missing the point. :P  Also,  not smaller but empty the validation time difference between a block and a slightly smaller one is neglgible, you have to make the block empty to reliably cut in front of others.
 71 2017-03-04T01:21:47  <gmaxwell> the latest BIP152 stuff is much more policy durable than prior stuff, since it will retain transactions rejected for policy reasons and still use them to reconstruct blocks.
 72 2017-03-04T01:23:08  <luke-jr> that's not a good thing IMO
 73 2017-03-04T01:23:32  <luke-jr> the network policy putting pressure on miners is a desirable trait
 74 2017-03-04T01:23:50  <luke-jr> although most-restrictive isn't the ideal either, so meh
 75 2017-03-04T01:24:10  <gmaxwell> 'network policy' doesn't matter, other miners policy matters. And moreover: doublespend is 'policy' that is not in the miners control.
 76 2017-03-04T01:24:23  <gmaxwell> Without extra someone spamming doublespends can considerably slow propagation.
 77 2017-03-04T01:25:13  <luke-jr> true, but if that's the only concern, we would want to limit the extra pool to just double spends
 78 2017-03-04T01:25:43  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: consider, without it there is pressure to not increase the minimum feerate in your mempool.
 79 2017-03-04T01:26:03  <gmaxwell> because it will make you slower to accept blocks from others with a lower minimum feerate.
 80 2017-03-04T01:26:31  <gmaxwell> (though I think there should probably be seperate extra pools for different kinds of rejections, adding complexity would have delayed getting it in)
 81 2017-03-04T01:26:59  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: also keep in mind that any time miners expirence delays the easiest solution for them is to just centeralize their pooling more.
 82 2017-03-04T01:27:18  <gmaxwell> they're not going to sit and go "oh that sucks, I'll twiddle my policy."
 83 2017-03-04T01:27:37  * luke-jr notes he didn't oppose extra-pool :P
 84 2017-03-04T01:28:43  <gmaxwell> fair enough.
 85 2017-03-04T01:54:25  *** abpa has quit IRC
 86 2017-03-04T01:55:33  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
 87 2017-03-04T01:57:05  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2017-03-04T02:08:10  *** dodomojo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 89 2017-03-04T02:11:28  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
 90 2017-03-04T02:12:53  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 91 2017-03-04T02:22:40  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 92 2017-03-04T02:24:05  *** dodomoj__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 93 2017-03-04T02:25:28  *** dodomojo_ has quit IRC
 94 2017-03-04T02:27:26  *** dodomojo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 95 2017-03-04T02:27:34  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
 96 2017-03-04T02:30:22  *** dodomoj__ has quit IRC
 97 2017-03-04T02:34:43  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2017-03-04T02:34:45  *** rafalcpp_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 99 2017-03-04T02:35:19  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
100 2017-03-04T02:37:43  *** dodomojo_ has quit IRC
101 2017-03-04T02:40:55  *** str4d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102 2017-03-04T02:44:57  *** rafalcpp_ has quit IRC
103 2017-03-04T02:45:32  *** rafalcpp_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2017-03-04T02:46:01  *** dodomojo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
105 2017-03-04T02:47:01  *** dodomoj__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
106 2017-03-04T02:48:26  *** dodomoj__ has quit IRC
107 2017-03-04T02:48:55  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
108 2017-03-04T02:50:40  *** dodomojo_ has quit IRC
109 2017-03-04T02:54:03  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
110 2017-03-04T03:02:23  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
111 2017-03-04T03:35:39  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
112 2017-03-04T03:42:10  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
113 2017-03-04T03:44:57  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
114 2017-03-04T03:54:15  <luke-jr> #8694 is finally ready for final reviewing
115 2017-03-04T03:54:17  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8694 | Basic multiwallet support by luke-jr · Pull Request #8694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
116 2017-03-04T04:15:09  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
117 2017-03-04T04:15:29  <jeremyrubin> I'm debugging something; is there a threadsafe way to access pcoinstip during connectblock? I want to be able to access it from a scriptcheck
118 2017-03-04T04:15:52  <jeremyrubin> I'm guessing I would have to add locks around the usage
119 2017-03-04T04:16:19  <jeremyrubin> curious if anyone's done this before and if the performance decrease is bad
120 2017-03-04T04:16:58  <jeremyrubin> (I think it might be doable to parallelize checking the inputs)
121 2017-03-04T04:26:10  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
122 2017-03-04T04:29:34  *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
123 2017-03-04T04:30:56  <jeremyrubin> hm I think i have something workable using shared_mutex
124 2017-03-04T04:31:00  *** kadoban has quit IRC
125 2017-03-04T04:31:28  *** molz_ has quit IRC
126 2017-03-04T04:33:41  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
127 2017-03-04T05:04:09  *** Victor_sueca has quit IRC
128 2017-03-04T05:05:17  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
129 2017-03-04T05:07:04  *** str4d has quit IRC
130 2017-03-04T05:42:46  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2017-03-04T05:49:36  *** Robinson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2017-03-04T05:57:51  *** jannes has quit IRC
133 2017-03-04T05:59:58  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
134 2017-03-04T06:00:32  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
135 2017-03-04T06:02:17  *** dodomojo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2017-03-04T06:05:58  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
137 2017-03-04T06:20:10  *** Robinson has quit IRC
138 2017-03-04T06:21:55  *** dodomojo_ has quit IRC
139 2017-03-04T06:23:49  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2017-03-04T06:34:51  *** str4d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
141 2017-03-04T06:36:23  *** dodomojo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2017-03-04T06:37:06  *** dodomoj__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
143 2017-03-04T06:39:24  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
144 2017-03-04T06:40:37  *** dodomojo_ has quit IRC
145 2017-03-04T06:44:50  *** whphhg has quit IRC
146 2017-03-04T06:45:04  *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
147 2017-03-04T06:46:59  *** whphhg has quit IRC
148 2017-03-04T06:47:17  *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2017-03-04T06:48:59  *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
150 2017-03-04T06:55:45  *** str4d has quit IRC
151 2017-03-04T06:59:13  *** dodomoj__ has quit IRC
152 2017-03-04T07:05:27  *** To7 has quit IRC
153 2017-03-04T07:08:11  *** whphhg has quit IRC
154 2017-03-04T07:08:23  *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
155 2017-03-04T07:33:11  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
156 2017-03-04T07:38:01  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
157 2017-03-04T07:51:25  *** Victor_sueca has quit IRC
158 2017-03-04T07:52:32  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2017-03-04T07:55:47  *** whphhg has quit IRC
160 2017-03-04T08:00:00  *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
161 2017-03-04T08:07:27  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] kobake opened pull request #9916: Fix msvc compiler error C4146 (minus operator applied to unsigned type) (master...fix-minus-operator-target-for-msvc-c4146) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9916
162 2017-03-04T08:07:41  <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: can always not support gitian builds with the first introduction of a new feature ;)
163 2017-03-04T08:16:34  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
164 2017-03-04T08:18:12  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
165 2017-03-04T08:24:24  *** jyap has left #bitcoin-core-dev
166 2017-03-04T08:27:45  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
167 2017-03-04T08:31:55  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
168 2017-03-04T08:32:16  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
169 2017-03-04T08:33:08  *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
170 2017-03-04T08:34:01  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
171 2017-03-04T08:35:08  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172 2017-03-04T09:21:51  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
173 2017-03-04T09:24:14  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
174 2017-03-04T09:25:35  *** n1ce has quit IRC
175 2017-03-04T09:26:10  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
176 2017-03-04T09:26:32  *** n1ce has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
177 2017-03-04T09:30:35  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
178 2017-03-04T09:46:29  *** Robinson has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
179 2017-03-04T10:15:58  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
180 2017-03-04T10:20:25  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
181 2017-03-04T10:27:03  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
182 2017-03-04T10:33:36  *** wvr has quit IRC
183 2017-03-04T10:35:52  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
184 2017-03-04T10:37:00  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
185 2017-03-04T10:41:41  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
186 2017-03-04T10:41:41  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
187 2017-03-04T10:45:35  *** nemgun has quit IRC
188 2017-03-04T10:49:27  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
189 2017-03-04T10:56:08  *** afk11_ has quit IRC
190 2017-03-04T11:11:41  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
191 2017-03-04T12:35:30  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
192 2017-03-04T12:44:49  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
193 2017-03-04T12:48:57  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
194 2017-03-04T12:53:11  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
195 2017-03-04T13:14:46  <wumpus> whee I have RPC working over a UNIX socket
196 2017-03-04T13:16:08  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
197 2017-03-04T13:19:27  <wumpus> needed no changes to libevent on the server side. however to make bitcoin-cli be able to http over a UNIX socket needs a small change.
198 2017-03-04T14:12:35  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
199 2017-03-04T14:15:26  *** JackH has quit IRC
200 2017-03-04T14:15:54  *** Robinson has quit IRC
201 2017-03-04T14:24:38  *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202 2017-03-04T14:24:44  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
203 2017-03-04T15:07:55  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
204 2017-03-04T15:08:14  *** Taek42 is now known as Taek
205 2017-03-04T15:32:08  *** bityogi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2017-03-04T15:40:20  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
207 2017-03-04T15:45:00  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
208 2017-03-04T15:45:48  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
209 2017-03-04T15:46:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #9919: UNIX sockets support for RPC (master...2017_03_unix_socket) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9919
210 2017-03-04T16:00:57  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
211 2017-03-04T16:09:48  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
212 2017-03-04T16:15:43  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
213 2017-03-04T16:15:45  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
214 2017-03-04T16:40:59  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
215 2017-03-04T16:42:00  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
216 2017-03-04T17:10:04  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
217 2017-03-04T17:12:04  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
218 2017-03-04T17:16:31  *** Sosumi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
219 2017-03-04T18:00:22  *** belcher has quit IRC
220 2017-03-04T18:00:40  <sipa> wumpus: nice
221 2017-03-04T18:06:03  *** str4d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222 2017-03-04T18:08:26  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
223 2017-03-04T18:22:45  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
224 2017-03-04T18:27:16  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
225 2017-03-04T18:42:22  *** neha has quit IRC
226 2017-03-04T18:44:11  *** neha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
227 2017-03-04T19:04:35  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
228 2017-03-04T19:04:58  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
229 2017-03-04T19:09:35  *** jtimon has quit IRC
230 2017-03-04T19:34:16  *** bityogi has quit IRC
231 2017-03-04T19:37:01  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232 2017-03-04T19:47:29  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
233 2017-03-04T19:52:52  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2017-03-04T20:00:57  *** neha has quit IRC
235 2017-03-04T20:02:36  *** neha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2017-03-04T20:11:13  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
237 2017-03-04T20:15:25  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
238 2017-03-04T20:17:59  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
239 2017-03-04T20:23:21  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
240 2017-03-04T20:25:55  *** To7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
241 2017-03-04T20:26:00  *** abhishekcs10_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
242 2017-03-04T20:48:48  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
243 2017-03-04T20:50:26  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
244 2017-03-04T20:54:58  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
245 2017-03-04T21:06:54  *** murchandamus11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
246 2017-03-04T21:07:12  *** rabidus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
247 2017-03-04T21:07:23  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
248 2017-03-04T21:12:03  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
249 2017-03-04T21:13:10  <Lightsword> wumpus, would it be easy to also do block notifications over the unix socket?
250 2017-03-04T21:13:19  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
251 2017-03-04T21:13:19  *** str4d has quit IRC
252 2017-03-04T21:13:20  *** BashCo has quit IRC
253 2017-03-04T21:13:20  *** harrymm has quit IRC
254 2017-03-04T21:13:20  *** isle2983 has quit IRC
255 2017-03-04T21:13:20  *** harding has quit IRC
256 2017-03-04T21:13:20  *** haakonn has quit IRC
257 2017-03-04T21:14:21  <Lightsword> current ckpool local block notification method is basically to execute a binary that then writes to a unix socket for notification of a block
258 2017-03-04T21:14:23  *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
259 2017-03-04T21:14:23  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
260 2017-03-04T21:14:23  *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
261 2017-03-04T21:14:23  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
262 2017-03-04T21:14:23  *** murchandamus1 has quit IRC
263 2017-03-04T21:14:24  *** rabidus has quit IRC
264 2017-03-04T21:14:24  *** baldur has quit IRC
265 2017-03-04T21:14:25  *** pindarhk has quit IRC
266 2017-03-04T21:14:25  *** squidicuz has quit IRC
267 2017-03-04T21:14:26  *** so has quit IRC
268 2017-03-04T21:14:28  *** Sosumi has quit IRC
269 2017-03-04T21:15:23  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
270 2017-03-04T21:17:40  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
271 2017-03-04T21:18:41  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272 2017-03-04T21:18:41  *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
273 2017-03-04T21:18:41  *** baldur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
274 2017-03-04T21:18:41  *** pindarhk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
275 2017-03-04T21:18:41  *** squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
276 2017-03-04T21:20:11  *** so has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
277 2017-03-04T21:21:15  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
278 2017-03-04T21:25:57  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
279 2017-03-04T21:27:57  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
280 2017-03-04T21:29:44  *** bityogi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
281 2017-03-04T21:33:51  <wumpus> Lightsword: everything that an be done over the current P2P port can also be done over the UNIX socket
282 2017-03-04T21:33:56  <wumpus> eh, RPC port
283 2017-03-04T21:34:33  <wumpus> I guess what you're looking for is #7949
284 2017-03-04T21:34:35  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7949 | [RPC] Add RPC long poll notifications by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #7949 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
285 2017-03-04T21:35:16  <Lightsword> wumpus, not long polling, having bitcoind itself write to another app’s listening unix socket for notifications
286 2017-03-04T21:36:47  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
287 2017-03-04T21:43:16  <wumpus> conceptually it's the same, apart from who calls who. In both cases the listeners get immediate notification. Longpolling is simpler as bitcoind doesn't need to keep track of who to notify, that's implied by who is listening
288 2017-03-04T21:43:36  <wumpus> block notifications can also be broadcast over zeromq
289 2017-03-04T21:48:37  *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
290 2017-03-04T21:53:19  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
291 2017-03-04T21:58:12  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
292 2017-03-04T21:59:23  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
293 2017-03-04T22:02:42  *** haakonn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
294 2017-03-04T22:02:42  *** str4d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
295 2017-03-04T22:02:42  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
296 2017-03-04T22:02:42  *** isle2983 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
297 2017-03-04T22:02:42  *** harding has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
298 2017-03-04T22:03:27  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
299 2017-03-04T22:04:02  *** haakonn is now known as Guest32541
300 2017-03-04T22:10:19  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2017-03-04T22:15:35  *** chjj has quit IRC
302 2017-03-04T22:17:31  *** bityogi has quit IRC
303 2017-03-04T22:25:34  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
304 2017-03-04T22:29:27  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
305 2017-03-04T22:30:22  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
306 2017-03-04T22:37:03  <jeremyrubin> how does one CreateNewBlock s.t. a witness is added?
307 2017-03-04T22:37:42  <jeremyrubin> I'm having trouble writing a unit test using TestChain100 once segwit activates
308 2017-03-04T22:43:02  <sipa> you need at least 3 retarget periods worth of blocks
309 2017-03-04T22:44:40  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
310 2017-03-04T22:44:52  <jeremyrubin> ah so I need to be at > 432
311 2017-03-04T22:48:46  <sipa> right
312 2017-03-04T22:49:07  <sipa> 1 period before signalling starts, another before it's locked in, and a third before it is active
313 2017-03-04T22:49:22  <jeremyrubin> hm ok
314 2017-03-04T22:49:31  <jeremyrubin> that helped
315 2017-03-04T22:49:37  <jeremyrubin> now I get witness mismatch
316 2017-03-04T22:53:40  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
317 2017-03-04T22:56:17  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
318 2017-03-04T22:57:49  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
319 2017-03-04T22:59:16  <jeremyrubin>     CMutableTransaction n;
320 2017-03-04T22:59:16  <jeremyrubin>     {
321 2017-03-04T22:59:16  <jeremyrubin>         std::vector<CMutableTransaction> txns;
322 2017-03-04T22:59:16  <jeremyrubin>         n.vin.resize(1);
323 2017-03-04T22:59:16  <jeremyrubin>         n.vin[0].prevout = COutPoint(txSpend.GetHash(), 0);
324 2017-03-04T22:59:18  <jeremyrubin>         n.vout.resize(25);
325 2017-03-04T22:59:21  <jeremyrubin>         n.nVersion = 1;
326 2017-03-04T22:59:23  <jeremyrubin>         n.nLockTime = 0;
327 2017-03-04T22:59:26  <jeremyrubin>         n.vin[0].scriptWitness = CScriptWitness();
328 2017-03-04T22:59:28  <jeremyrubin>         n.vin[0].nSequence = CTxIn::SEQUENCE_FINAL;
329 2017-03-04T22:59:31  <jeremyrubin>         for (auto& v : n.vout) {
330 2017-03-04T22:59:33  <jeremyrubin>             v.scriptPubKey = CScript();
331 2017-03-04T22:59:36  <jeremyrubin>             v.nValue = txSpend.vout[0].nValue / n.vout.size();
332 2017-03-04T22:59:38  <jeremyrubin>         }
333 2017-03-04T22:59:41  <jeremyrubin>         txns.push_back(n);
334 2017-03-04T22:59:44  <jeremyrubin>         CreateAndProcessBlock(txns, scriptPubKey);
335 2017-03-04T22:59:46  <jeremyrubin>     }
336 2017-03-04T23:00:00  <jeremyrubin> (that's the part of the test I'm trying to write)
337 2017-03-04T23:00:48  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
338 2017-03-04T23:01:32  *** wasi has quit IRC
339 2017-03-04T23:02:12  *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
340 2017-03-04T23:02:24  <sipa> please don't paste more than 3 lines
341 2017-03-04T23:03:44  <jeremyrubin> sorry; forgot
342 2017-03-04T23:17:03  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
343 2017-03-04T23:27:41  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
344 2017-03-04T23:32:36  *** wudayoda has quit IRC
345 2017-03-04T23:47:38  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
346 2017-03-04T23:52:04  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
347 2017-03-04T23:54:36  *** riemann has quit IRC
348 2017-03-04T23:59:43  *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev