1 2017-04-12T00:00:59  <cfields> heh
  2 2017-04-12T00:14:10  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  3 2017-04-12T00:19:38  *** dermoth has quit IRC
  4 2017-04-12T00:20:23  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  5 2017-04-12T00:32:18  *** Samdney has quit IRC
  6 2017-04-12T00:42:53  *** d_t has quit IRC
  7 2017-04-12T01:55:06  <jtimon> cfields: at the same time, I'm a sed newbie, there were no '\' in my teacher's blackboard or my "reduded-c" interpreter implemented in c++, please, don't laught to loud when you tell me what my mistake is in: https://0bin.net/paste/mHKVu6pkl2XopjAb#3S9s6vUOBTnlmnDMWRKH6Te6-oJAjdE3lBD0LtS45/s
  8 2017-04-12T01:55:08  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3 | Encrypt wallet · Issue #3 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  9 2017-04-12T01:57:02  * jtimon https://www.gnu.org/software/sed/manual/sed.html#sed-regular-expressions
 10 2017-04-12T02:10:15  <cfields> jtimon: i think you want something like: sed -i 's/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\),\(.*\))/for(\1 :\2)/' net_processing.cpp
 11 2017-04-12T02:10:15  <cfields> ?
 12 2017-04-12T02:11:12  <jtimon> oh, yeah, the dot, thank you very much
 13 2017-04-12T02:12:35  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 14 2017-04-12T02:12:44  <cfields> np
 15 2017-04-12T02:13:52  <cfields> jtimon: you'll need to filter some things out of that. iirc pairs are handled differently, at least.
 16 2017-04-12T02:15:31  <jtimon> I shouldn't even need a pair I think, now I'm trying sed -i "s/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\), /for (${\1} :" src/net_processing.cpp
 17 2017-04-12T02:16:09  <jtimon> bash: s/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\), /for (${\1} :: bad substitution
 18 2017-04-12T02:17:54  <jtimon> it feels like it's something embarrasingly obvious
 19 2017-04-12T02:18:40  *** Joseph__ has quit IRC
 20 2017-04-12T02:18:49  *** NewLiberty has quit IRC
 21 2017-04-12T02:39:23  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
 22 2017-04-12T02:47:21  <jtimon> ok, "git checkout -- ." was the first thing I was missing before trying again with something different
 23 2017-04-12T02:47:46  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 24 2017-04-12T02:48:26  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 25 2017-04-12T02:52:02  *** goksinen has quit IRC
 26 2017-04-12T02:52:23  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
 27 2017-04-12T02:53:13  <jtimon> alright, I think 'git checkout -- . ; sed -i 's/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\),/for (\1 :/' ./src/qt/*.cpp ./src/wallet/*.cpp' is enough to test your PR on travis
 28 2017-04-12T02:56:28  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 29 2017-04-12T02:57:45  <cfields> jtimon: does that actually build?
 30 2017-04-12T02:58:53  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 31 2017-04-12T03:02:38  <jtimon> cfields: sed does what I expect, and only with ./src/qt/*.cpp , it passes unittests
 32 2017-04-12T03:03:02  <cfields> mm, neat
 33 2017-04-12T03:05:46  <jtimon> now it's time to make it "fail" on purpose and open a PR, then add a fixup commit to be squashed once your pr is merged
 34 2017-04-12T03:06:31  <jtimon> neat indeed, I expect this to be revolution in refactors, thanks again
 35 2017-04-12T03:09:07  <cfields> :) happy to help
 36 2017-04-12T03:10:55  <cfields> I've had this one (the cnode change) done on a ton of branches, but never felt like dealing with the process of pushing it through. So yea, I can see how it could be helpful for lots of similar changes.
 37 2017-04-12T03:11:52  <jtimon> at the very least, it revolutionized the way I think about refactors, maybe it was obvious to use sed for rebase and review for everyone else but certainly not for me
 38 2017-04-12T03:12:42  <jtimon> yeah, not only painful simple changes will stop to be painful
 39 2017-04-12T03:12:56  <jtimon> which is the fisrt use case
 40 2017-04-12T03:15:03  <jtimon> but also some painful changes that authors don't even open as PR because they're too disruptive will be open now
 41 2017-04-12T03:15:29  <cfields> awesome
 42 2017-04-12T03:15:32  <jtimon> and more importantly, reviewed too
 43 2017-04-12T03:15:52  <cfields> jtimon: you might look at pairing it with "git rebase -i --exec <script>" too :)
 44 2017-04-12T03:16:04  <cfields> for maintaining
 45 2017-04-12T03:17:04  <jtimon> or maybe I'm over-excited about this, it is good enough to know I am not stupid for not thinking about this by myself beforehand
 46 2017-04-12T03:17:38  <jtimon> -exec was failing locally for some reason
 47 2017-04-12T03:18:17  <cfields> heh
 48 2017-04-12T03:18:28  <cfields> headed off, nnite
 49 2017-04-12T03:24:15  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 50 2017-04-12T03:25:48  *** goksinen has quit IRC
 51 2017-04-12T04:03:46  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #10193: scripted-diff: sed -i 's/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\),/for (\1 :/' ./src/qt/*.cpp (master...b14-10189-scripted-qt-foreach) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193
 52 2017-04-12T04:05:43  <cfields> jtimon: you didn't format the commit message in a way that it will be picked up
 53 2017-04-12T04:06:00  <cfields> jtimon: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193/commits/d04198309e7e9b21de1604cc4321148b37a46347
 54 2017-04-12T04:16:18  <jtimon> cfields: np, updated https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10189#issuecomment-293468978 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193
 55 2017-04-12T04:17:29  <cfields> that looks better, thanks
 56 2017-04-12T04:44:42  *** To7 has quit IRC
 57 2017-04-12T04:52:21  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 58 2017-04-12T05:15:10  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
 59 2017-04-12T05:18:16  *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 60 2017-04-12T05:18:17  *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 61 2017-04-12T06:00:20  *** Victor_sueca has quit IRC
 62 2017-04-12T06:01:28  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 63 2017-04-12T06:15:40  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 64 2017-04-12T06:50:00  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
 65 2017-04-12T06:54:56  *** jnewshoes has quit IRC
 66 2017-04-12T06:55:24  *** LeMiner has quit IRC
 67 2017-04-12T06:55:25  *** adiabat has quit IRC
 68 2017-04-12T06:55:36  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
 69 2017-04-12T06:55:53  *** murchandamus has quit IRC
 70 2017-04-12T06:56:13  *** nickler has quit IRC
 71 2017-04-12T06:56:52  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 72 2017-04-12T06:56:53  *** chjj has quit IRC
 73 2017-04-12T06:57:01  *** adiabat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 74 2017-04-12T06:57:43  *** LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 75 2017-04-12T06:57:58  *** murchandamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 76 2017-04-12T07:00:42  *** jnewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 77 2017-04-12T07:02:00  *** nickler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 78 2017-04-12T07:03:59  *** kexkey_ has quit IRC
 79 2017-04-12T07:06:33  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
 80 2017-04-12T07:08:32  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 81 2017-04-12T07:18:32  *** kadoban has quit IRC
 82 2017-04-12T07:24:23  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 83 2017-04-12T07:26:32  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 84 2017-04-12T07:26:34  *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
 85 2017-04-12T07:36:40  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 86 2017-04-12T07:44:45  *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 87 2017-04-12T08:23:43  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 88 2017-04-12T08:26:53  *** moli_ has quit IRC
 89 2017-04-12T08:40:21  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 90 2017-04-12T08:43:53  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 91 2017-04-12T08:49:35  *** d_t has quit IRC
 92 2017-04-12T09:11:28  *** frabrunelle has quit IRC
 93 2017-04-12T09:11:28  *** herzmeister[m] has quit IRC
 94 2017-04-12T09:11:28  *** kewde[m] has quit IRC
 95 2017-04-12T09:13:18  *** herzmeister[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 96 2017-04-12T09:15:42  *** so has quit IRC
 97 2017-04-12T09:26:19  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 98 2017-04-12T09:30:36  <wumpus> taking another look at #9694, really want to move forward multiwallet support
 99 2017-04-12T09:30:44  <wumpus> #8694 sorry
100 2017-04-12T09:31:39  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9694 | Importmulti cannot import bare private keys · Issue #9694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
101 2017-04-12T09:31:40  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8694 | Basic multiwallet support by luke-jr · Pull Request #8694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
102 2017-04-12T09:34:40  *** frabrunelle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
103 2017-04-12T09:34:40  *** kewde[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
104 2017-04-12T09:51:03  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
105 2017-04-12T09:58:52  *** d_t has quit IRC
106 2017-04-12T10:12:00  *** so has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
107 2017-04-12T10:28:14  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bulldozer00 opened pull request #10194: Remove unecessary friend keyword from the class definition (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10194
108 2017-04-12T10:38:14  *** kayamm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
109 2017-04-12T10:38:15  *** kayamm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
110 2017-04-12T10:46:41  <wumpus> what's the problem with travis today?
111 2017-04-12T10:52:20  <wumpus> nm, no travis issue today :)
112 2017-04-12T10:57:55  *** arubi has quit IRC
113 2017-04-12T11:00:16  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
114 2017-04-12T11:15:20  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
115 2017-04-12T11:20:27  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
116 2017-04-12T11:58:53  *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
117 2017-04-12T12:37:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #10195: Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model (master...pertxoutcache) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10195
118 2017-04-12T12:37:39  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
119 2017-04-12T12:42:32  *** Jared has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
120 2017-04-12T12:42:52  *** Jared is now known as Guest19942
121 2017-04-12T12:49:52  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122 2017-04-12T12:49:52  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
123 2017-04-12T12:49:59  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
124 2017-04-12T13:01:16  *** To7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
125 2017-04-12T13:04:31  *** [b__b] has quit IRC
126 2017-04-12T13:08:26  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
127 2017-04-12T13:11:08  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
128 2017-04-12T13:16:42  *** jnewbery has quit IRC
129 2017-04-12T13:24:15  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
130 2017-04-12T13:26:45  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
131 2017-04-12T13:31:21  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132 2017-04-12T13:37:34  *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
133 2017-04-12T13:40:01  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
134 2017-04-12T13:43:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery reopened pull request #10191: [trivial] Remove unused submit block parameters argument (master...remove_submit_block_params) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10191
135 2017-04-12T13:48:13  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
136 2017-04-12T13:50:02  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
137 2017-04-12T13:50:30  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
138 2017-04-12T13:54:01  *** ChillazZ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
139 2017-04-12T13:54:28  *** [b__b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
140 2017-04-12T13:55:32  *** d_t has quit IRC
141 2017-04-12T14:30:28  *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142 2017-04-12T14:36:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #10196: Bugfix: PrioritiseTransaction updates the mempool tx counter (master...2017-04-prioritise-transaction) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10196
143 2017-04-12T14:47:19  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
144 2017-04-12T14:49:57  *** mol has quit IRC
145 2017-04-12T14:56:05  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
146 2017-04-12T14:56:29  *** molz_ has quit IRC
147 2017-04-12T14:56:45  *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
148 2017-04-12T14:57:10  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
149 2017-04-12T14:57:59  *** Guest19942 has quit IRC
150 2017-04-12T15:12:35  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10197: Functional test warnings (master...functional_test_warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10197
151 2017-04-12T15:17:04  *** talmai has quit IRC
152 2017-04-12T15:46:57  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
153 2017-04-12T15:57:37  *** Char0n has quit IRC
154 2017-04-12T15:59:09  *** shesek has quit IRC
155 2017-04-12T16:08:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10198: [tests] Remove is_network_split from functional test framework (master...remove_is_network_split) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10198
156 2017-04-12T16:09:07  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery closed pull request #10198: [tests] Remove is_network_split from functional test framework (master...remove_is_network_split) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10198
157 2017-04-12T16:15:52  *** Char0n has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
158 2017-04-12T16:19:25  *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
159 2017-04-12T16:21:41  *** chjj has quit IRC
160 2017-04-12T16:41:26  *** root-servers has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
161 2017-04-12T16:57:10  *** e4xit has quit IRC
162 2017-04-12T17:01:34  *** sanada has quit IRC
163 2017-04-12T17:01:46  <arubi> is there a way to get bitcoind to not complain about any non-standardness?  I'd still like for it to error on operations with invalid transactions, but for example I'd like it to not care about DER strictness, or to ignore the P2SH requirement for a valid redeemscript (provided some preimage to p2sh, it should pass, no matter if the preimage parses as a script at all).  "SCRIPT_VERIFY_NONE = 0;" in script/interpreter.h (I'm on some
164 2017-04-12T17:01:47  <arubi> 0.13.99) looks promising, but I'm not sure what to set it to.  would love a hint on what I should look for
165 2017-04-12T17:03:24  <arubi> this is for testnet \ regtest use by the way
166 2017-04-12T17:06:24  <arubi> maybe I should just set all verify flags to 0 :)
167 2017-04-12T17:10:16  <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: Like you mentioned you can tinker with the verify flags: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/policy/policy.h#L52
168 2017-04-12T17:10:28  <Chris_Stewart_5> but I'm not sure if you can do this from the command line :/
169 2017-04-12T17:10:45  <arubi> oh no command line, these flags are not enough though
170 2017-04-12T17:11:23  <arubi> it's letting it advance, I can send non standard transactions with some of these flags disabled, but getblocktemplate fails
171 2017-04-12T17:11:48  <arubi> I don't wanna say that it's related, I already mauled this specific code to death
172 2017-04-12T17:11:49  <Chris_Stewart_5> hmmm, perhaps you need to tinker with relay policy? Not sure where that is set in the codebase though
173 2017-04-12T17:11:59  <arubi> other nodes drop the transaction
174 2017-04-12T17:12:04  <arubi> actually I think they're banning me
175 2017-04-12T17:12:40  <arubi> I'll be able to mine it myself eventually on testnet, when the diff drops, I just need getblocktemplate to work :)  setting all verify flags to 0 now
176 2017-04-12T17:17:25  <arubi> muhaha it's working
177 2017-04-12T17:18:40  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #10199: Better fee estimates (master...smarterfee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10199
178 2017-04-12T17:20:50  <Chris_Stewart_5> setting all the flags to zero worked?
179 2017-04-12T17:21:00  <arubi> yep
180 2017-04-12T17:21:12  <Chris_Stewart_5> you couldn't just unset STRICTDER?
181 2017-04-12T17:21:43  <arubi> well I noticed script_verify_p2sh is used even with this tx's bare p2pk
182 2017-04-12T17:22:17  <arubi> I did unset strictder to even be able to relay it... I think checking block validity is even more strict than that
183 2017-04-12T17:22:41  <arubi> if you saw the tx in #-dev, it's also a hybrid pubkey, so maybe more relaxed flags are needed
184 2017-04-12T17:26:07  <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: Is p2pk scripts considered non standard?
185 2017-04-12T17:26:37  <arubi> if it's a hybrid pubkey, probably
186 2017-04-12T17:27:41  <arubi> also the signature itself is weird.  uses 0x01000000 as the sighash when the sig is passed as input
187 2017-04-12T17:28:28  <arubi> so it's actually passed with a 4 byte value instead of just 0x01.. I think it should still be valid?
188 2017-04-12T17:31:48  *** jnewbery has quit IRC
189 2017-04-12T17:32:19  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
190 2017-04-12T17:34:24  <instagibbs> morcos, for #10199 did you look at how it handles chain limits? There was some speculation during last spam attack that the chain limits were causing high-fee transactions to "fail" to get into blocks, spiking fees randomly
191 2017-04-12T17:34:25  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10199 | Better fee estimates by morcos · Pull Request #10199 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
192 2017-04-12T17:35:46  <morcos> instagibbs: the estimates don't consider txs that are dependent on other txs
193 2017-04-12T17:35:56  <morcos> i don't think i saw that speculation, but it makes no sense
194 2017-04-12T17:36:00  <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: Look at this function if you haven't seen it yet: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b83264d9c7a8ddb79f64bd9540caddc8632ef31f/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L186
195 2017-04-12T17:36:15  <Chris_Stewart_5> to see if the hash type is valid
196 2017-04-12T17:36:37  <arubi> being defined != being valid :)
197 2017-04-12T17:37:09  <arubi> the famous amount overflow transaction used 0xA8 as sighash iirc, weird, but it resolves to ALL
198 2017-04-12T17:38:12  <arubi> interpreter.cpp has the rules for setting up the sighash, it does a bunch of bitwise and's with 1F and flags it knows.  really I think 32 bits can be used.  sighashv2 uses 32 bits
199 2017-04-12T17:39:21  <instagibbs> morcos, ok good to know. One less idea why someone was doing that then.
200 2017-04-12T17:40:18  <arubi> er, it uses 16 bits.
201 2017-04-12T17:42:54  <arubi> was just informed that I may be wrong re. 4 bytes sighash value :)
202 2017-04-12T17:45:17  <arubi> bip66 might be causing testnet failures where it works on regtest.  will stop spamming :)
203 2017-04-12T17:45:24  <Chris_Stewart_5> Yeah when checking the signature you have to prepend? the extra bytes?
204 2017-04-12T17:45:46  <arubi> (-dev)
205 2017-04-12T17:47:05  *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
206 2017-04-12T17:58:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b44adf92342a...350b22497c7c
207 2017-04-12T17:58:12  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4d9950d John Newbery: Set BCLog::LIBEVENT correctly for old libevent versions.
208 2017-04-12T17:58:13  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5255aca John Newbery: [rpc] Add logging RPC...
209 2017-04-12T17:58:13  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7fd50c3 John Newbery: allow libevent logging to be updated during runtime
210 2017-04-12T17:58:36  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10150: [rpc] Add logging rpc (master...logging_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10150
211 2017-04-12T17:58:59  <gmaxwell> neat
212 2017-04-12T18:00:13  *** tripleslash has quit IRC
213 2017-04-12T18:00:19  *** chjj has quit IRC
214 2017-04-12T18:02:20  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
215 2017-04-12T18:13:59  *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
216 2017-04-12T18:14:08  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
217 2017-04-12T18:14:08  *** bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
218 2017-04-12T18:14:15  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
219 2017-04-12T18:14:26  *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
220 2017-04-12T18:15:58  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/350b22497c7c...de01da7cad32
221 2017-04-12T18:15:59  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8c3e6c6 KibbledJiveElkZoo: Changed "Send" button default status from true to false...
222 2017-04-12T18:15:59  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master de01da7 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10177: Changed "Send" button default status from true to false...
223 2017-04-12T18:16:20  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10177: Changed "Send" button default status from true to false (master...ui_fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10177
224 2017-04-12T18:25:58  <BlueMatt> wumpus: can we give that guy an award for "most humorous bug report"?
225 2017-04-12T18:40:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bulldozer00 closed pull request #10194: Remove unecessary friend keyword from the class definition (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10194
226 2017-04-12T18:51:13  *** jnewbery has quit IRC
227 2017-04-12T19:11:37  *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
228 2017-04-12T19:17:59  <BlueMatt> #9942 looks mergeable
229 2017-04-12T19:18:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9942 | Refactor CBlockPolicyEstimator by morcos · Pull Request #9942 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
230 2017-04-12T19:18:37  <BlueMatt> same with #9480, maybe jeremyrubin should change the commit message, but has like 5 acks
231 2017-04-12T19:18:38  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9480 | De-duplicate SignatureCacheHasher by JeremyRubin · Pull Request #9480 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
232 2017-04-12T19:26:05  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
233 2017-04-12T19:26:34  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
234 2017-04-12T19:26:57  *** juscamarena is now known as Guest76166
235 2017-04-12T19:36:21  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
236 2017-04-12T19:59:23  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #10200: Mining: Skip recent transactions if fee difference is small (master...2017-04-dont-mine-recent-tx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10200
237 2017-04-12T20:12:12  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: wow, that is much more complicated than I expected.  What I had just expected it to do is to simply skip very new transactions unless they paid a high feerate, just like we skip transactions that there aren't room in the block for.
238 2017-04-12T20:12:27  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: is there a big fee income difference from doing a simple thing like that?
239 2017-04-12T20:14:34  <BlueMatt> cfields: wait, we really want random bash snippets in git history run by a script in #10189? I'm unsure about the wisdom of that?
240 2017-04-12T20:14:36  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10189 | devtools/net: add a verifier for scriptable changes. Use it to make CNode::id private. by theuni · Pull Request #10189 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
241 2017-04-12T20:14:48  <BlueMatt> i mean its super nice to have, but also...running bash scripts out of git messages :/
242 2017-04-12T20:16:02  <cfields> BlueMatt: arguably if a script is used to transform a large chunk of code, it should be saved with the commit for future reference. Why not use it too?
243 2017-04-12T20:16:13  <BlueMatt> yea......
244 2017-04-12T20:16:59  <BlueMatt> cfields: do merge tools show commit messages very clearly for sign-off?
245 2017-04-12T20:17:13  <BlueMatt> would need to if they dont for this, i suppose
246 2017-04-12T20:17:23  <cfields> BlueMatt: "git notes" is what you're asking about, i think :)
247 2017-04-12T20:17:42  <BlueMatt> hmm?
248 2017-04-12T20:18:32  <cfields> BlueMatt: i suppose I don't understand your question
249 2017-04-12T20:19:00  <BlueMatt> cfields: contrib/devtools/github-merge.py
250 2017-04-12T20:19:20  <BlueMatt> i would expect them to clearly query the merger to read each commit's commitmsg
251 2017-04-12T20:21:30  <cfields> unsure. Wouldn't change anything there, though. the merge script could just run the verifier first.
252 2017-04-12T20:22:08  <BlueMatt> cfields: oh dear god lets not default to running random peoples' commitmsg scripts on wumpus' computer
253 2017-04-12T20:22:42  <BlueMatt> cfields: my point is that many people dont read commitmsgs in enough detail and might miss such scripts esp if they're replaced last-minute in a "title-only rebase"
254 2017-04-12T20:24:40  <cfields> BlueMatt: travis runs the script and fails if it doesn't transform 1:1. It can be done locally as well....
255 2017-04-12T20:25:00  <cfields> BlueMatt: I don't see what's so terrible about automating this checking: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9902/commits/bac5c9cf643e9333479ac667426d0b70f8f3aa7f
256 2017-04-12T20:25:35  <BlueMatt> cfields: insmod cool_thing.ko && sed s/BOOST_FOREACH/for/
257 2017-04-12T20:25:50  <BlueMatt> it'll transform 1:1 still?
258 2017-04-12T20:25:54  <BlueMatt> this is not a sufficient check
259 2017-04-12T20:26:01  <BlueMatt> automating on travis whatever
260 2017-04-12T20:26:24  <BlueMatt> putting yet more scripts in a place that people might not see it is bad...I'm only suggesting we make it more apparent at least to people pressing the merge button
261 2017-04-12T20:26:35  <BlueMatt> as many of us primarily just look at the diff itself
262 2017-04-12T20:28:09  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
263 2017-04-12T20:28:16  *** root-servers has quit IRC
264 2017-04-12T20:28:28  * BlueMatt ponders if you can get a ^H somewhere....insmod kool_things.ko &&^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsed s/BOOST_FOREACH/for/
265 2017-04-12T20:28:32  <BlueMatt> probably not
266 2017-04-12T20:29:16  <cfields> BlueMatt: the person pressing the merge button on bac5c9cf643e9333479ac667426d0b70f8f3aa7f should be running that sed script to be sure all occurances have been caught. Again, this should only be automatiting cases where mass transforms need to be checked anyway.
267 2017-04-12T20:29:51  <BlueMatt> cfields: yes, but the person pressing the merge button should also be reading the script before it gets automatically run on their system
268 2017-04-12T20:29:57  <BlueMatt> I think we're talking past each other somehow
269 2017-04-12T20:30:00  <cfields> so yea, maybe not make it part of the merge script, but i don't see how having c-i do it could be a bad thing
270 2017-04-12T20:30:12  <BlueMatt> I didnt say having c-i do it is bad?
271 2017-04-12T20:30:16  <BlueMatt> i agree, travis should do it?
272 2017-04-12T20:30:33  <BlueMatt> my only point was that the person pressing the merge button MUST be forced to read commit messages now
273 2017-04-12T20:30:43  <BlueMatt> <BlueMatt> I think we're talking past each other somehow
274 2017-04-12T20:32:23  <cfields> ok, fair enough. I thought you point was that the person hitting the button should be verifying as well if it's going to live in the commit message..
275 2017-04-12T20:32:56  <BlueMatt> oh i mean maybe, i dont care much either way there, travis should run it so thats good
276 2017-04-12T20:33:13  <BlueMatt> my only point is something should be done because many of us dont read commit messages as part of review (much)
277 2017-04-12T20:33:49  <cfields> BlueMatt: jtimon suggested a prefix: "scripted-diff: commit msg here". I suppose for those, the merge-tool could interrupt and present the full message, if it doesn't already
278 2017-04-12T20:34:01  <BlueMatt> that may help, i suppose
279 2017-04-12T20:34:04  <BlueMatt> long prefix sucks though
280 2017-04-12T20:34:09  <BlueMatt> scripted:
281 2017-04-12T20:34:24  <cfields> well it could also just detect the script begin/end
282 2017-04-12T20:34:31  <BlueMatt> but, yea, putting it in the commit title itself is probably good
283 2017-04-12T20:34:38  <BlueMatt> no, i like jtimon's suggestion
284 2017-04-12T20:35:04  <jtimon> yep, look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193 for an example (needs some squashing after completing it)
285 2017-04-12T20:36:57  <cfields> jtimon: btw, I think you're looking for: sed -i '/#include <boost\/foreach.hpp>/d' file
286 2017-04-12T20:36:58  <cfields> :)
287 2017-04-12T20:37:04  <jtimon> btw, how can I do sed -i ':a;N;$!ba;s/#include <boost\/foreach.hpp>\n//' ./src/*.cpp but excluding some specific files ?
288 2017-04-12T20:38:36  *** waxwing has quit IRC
289 2017-04-12T20:43:10  <jtimon> yeah, for qt and wallet  I have it done, but some places use BOOST_REVERSE_FOREACH so they need to maintain the include for now
290 2017-04-12T20:43:31  <jtimon> that's why I need to exclude specific files
291 2017-04-12T20:44:29  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: yeah it is certainly possible i overlooked something simple
292 2017-04-12T20:44:45  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: but with what you describe, i don't see how you could bound the income difference?
293 2017-04-12T20:44:54  <sdaftuar> without making assumptions about the fee distribution
294 2017-04-12T20:44:55  <cfields> jtimon: how about just changing those to rbegin/rend iterators in a prior commit?
295 2017-04-12T20:46:10  <jtimon> yeah, that would be another option, at first I was thinking of only removing it from qt and wallet for now, but if I can completely remove them using this, it doesn't look as disruptive as I expected
296 2017-04-12T20:46:44  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: one way to implement what you describe might be, fill up the first X% of the block, and if no recent transactions were chosen, then exclude recent transactions from the remainder of the block
297 2017-04-12T20:47:11  <sdaftuar> but if fee distributions were close to flat, then you might give up a lot of income unless X is large
298 2017-04-12T20:47:17  <jtimon> I mean, if people are ok with doing it all at once, I would prefer it
299 2017-04-12T20:51:21  <BlueMatt> jtimon: please. kill boost
300 2017-04-12T20:51:26  *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
301 2017-04-12T20:52:19  <jtimon> BlueMatt: alright, that feeback is useful
302 2017-04-12T20:52:51  <BlueMatt> :)
303 2017-04-12T20:53:07  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: and conversely, i think you could also have the problem of including recent transactions too frequently -- a small high feerate transactions that was recently received should almost certainly not be included
304 2017-04-12T20:53:50  <sdaftuar> because block reward is still high enough that it dominates
305 2017-04-12T20:57:16  *** waxwing has quit IRC
306 2017-04-12T21:07:47  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
307 2017-04-12T21:13:07  *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
308 2017-04-12T21:26:40  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
309 2017-04-12T21:28:43  <bincap> is it possible to write a script that executes or not depending on version bits of current block? (e.g. a payment locked by activation of segwit)?
310 2017-04-12T21:28:54  <bincap> (or of other block)
311 2017-04-12T21:29:40  *** moli_ has quit IRC
312 2017-04-12T21:37:27  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
313 2017-04-12T21:38:23  <sipa> no, transactions cannot observe what block they are in
314 2017-04-12T21:38:35  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
315 2017-04-12T21:38:39  <sipa> otherwise you couldn't validate them before being confirmed
316 2017-04-12T21:39:01  <bincap> sipa: in previous block(s) then
317 2017-04-12T21:53:02  <sipa> no, transactions cannot observe what block they are in
318 2017-04-12T21:57:24  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: income difference is bound by amount_you_will_skip times transactions.
319 2017-04-12T22:00:57  <bincap> sipa: could they instead observe e.g. version bits of block defined in script by it's height?
320 2017-04-12T22:01:29  <bincap> that could allow to set up some incentives for users promising to support given BIP to actually do that
321 2017-04-12T22:04:24  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: I agree that what you propose is more 'correct', but it is non-trivially more complex. I'm doubtful that it increases income a meaningful amount, we've also not seen miners working especially hard in increasing their work update speed.. which causes similar losses.
322 2017-04-12T22:05:33  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
323 2017-04-12T22:06:19  <jtimon> would adding something like https://gist.github.com/arvidsson/7231973 be acceptable for getting rid of BOOST_REVERSE_FOREACH ?
324 2017-04-12T22:12:43  <sipa> bincap: transactions don't observe blocms
325 2017-04-12T22:12:52  <sipa> transactions exist before they're in a block
326 2017-04-12T22:13:09  <sipa> their validity is independent of what chain they are included in
327 2017-04-12T22:13:10  <sipa> so no
328 2017-04-12T22:15:09  <bincap> I see. I thought of something like NLockTime
329 2017-04-12T22:24:19  <bincap> can you otherwise create now a transaction, that will be very expensive to spend without segwit, but easy with segwit? (for example some setup of creating dust transactions and collecting them in segwit)
330 2017-04-12T22:28:34  *** Guest76166 has quit IRC
331 2017-04-12T22:29:32  *** Guest76166 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332 2017-04-12T22:34:42  <gmaxwell> bincap: such things would create terrible incentives to lie about your rule support. These kinds of proposals have been rehashed many times before...
333 2017-04-12T22:42:08  <berndj> gmaxwell, i think i started this line of thinking in #bitcoin, my version was only slightly different, where the coins become redeemable by anyone (i.e. probably a miner) if SW should fail to be active
334 2017-04-12T22:42:15  <berndj> so blame me for that :)
335 2017-04-12T22:58:57  *** vicenteH has quit IRC
336 2017-04-12T22:59:28  *** jannes has quit IRC
337 2017-04-12T23:14:53  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
338 2017-04-12T23:18:04  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
339 2017-04-12T23:24:01  *** sanada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
340 2017-04-12T23:31:46  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i don't think the PR is all that complex, it may appear to be because i broke things out into lots of small commits (hopefully, to help review).  but admittedly i introduced some complexity in order to shave a few milliseconds off the runtime
341 2017-04-12T23:32:07  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: to confess, I didn't review it yet but you made it _sound_ complex.
342 2017-04-12T23:32:13  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: conceptually, i could have kept things very simple if i just ran CNB twice, once allowing recent transacitons in, and once without them
343 2017-04-12T23:32:39  <gmaxwell> yes, but that would have pretty poor performance.
344 2017-04-12T23:32:53  <sdaftuar> not terribly poor, if you avoided the TBV call
345 2017-04-12T23:32:58  <sdaftuar> er, redundant TBV call
346 2017-04-12T23:33:17  <sdaftuar> basically you would just call addPackageTxs twice... average runtime of 7-8ms
347 2017-04-12T23:33:34  <sdaftuar> so that times two, versus the optimization i did, which gets down to about 10ms instead
348 2017-04-12T23:34:15  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
349 2017-04-12T23:34:33  <sdaftuar> i do want to save further optimization for a future PR.  but i could back out the optimization in this one, if it would aid review
350 2017-04-12T23:35:14  <gmaxwell> Do you have a benchmark for this, that lets you measure how often it picks each option and how much fees it loses on consistent traffic?
351 2017-04-12T23:35:59  <gmaxwell> e.g. that you could also try a braindead simple patch that just skips txn you've had less than X seconds, unless they have astronomic fees?
352 2017-04-12T23:36:13  <sdaftuar> yeah i have simulated this a bunch.  i think with 10seconds of recency and 1% threshold, it almost never will include recent transactions.
353 2017-04-12T23:36:42  <sdaftuar> my most recent run was with 30 seconds/0.5% threshold, and it still very rarely included recent transactions... maybe a handful of times out of more than 1000 samples
354 2017-04-12T23:37:20  <gmaxwell> I made measurements of cross node mempool consistency a while back, but cdecker tells me that propagation has become much slower (which was intentional) so those numbers probably should be redone.
355 2017-04-12T23:39:10  <sdaftuar> so the toggles in that model would be X (number of seconds) and fee (feerate?) threshold?
356 2017-04-12T23:39:14  <cdecker> Yeah, TX propagation has slowed down considerably (http://bitcoinstats.com/network/propagation/), but blocks have sped up a lot
357 2017-04-12T23:39:48  <sdaftuar> cdecker: thats great data, thanks!
358 2017-04-12T23:40:42  <gmaxwell> (It slowed down because we unbroke trickling)
359 2017-04-12T23:43:08  <midnightmagic> +1 unbreaking trickling
360 2017-04-12T23:44:21  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
361 2017-04-12T23:45:30  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362 2017-04-12T23:51:14  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
363 2017-04-12T23:55:57  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
364 2017-04-12T23:57:27  *** chjj has quit IRC