12016-02-04T00:20:21  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  22016-02-04T00:23:46  *** adam3us has quit IRC
  32016-02-04T00:24:01  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  42016-02-04T00:25:32  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
  52016-02-04T00:44:40  *** arubi_ has quit IRC
  62016-02-04T00:51:47  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
  72016-02-04T00:57:16  *** bityogi has quit IRC
  82016-02-04T01:00:24  <Luke-Jr> kanzure: it's  intentional I think
  92016-02-04T01:07:19  *** arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102016-02-04T01:21:20  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 112016-02-04T01:25:30  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
 122016-02-04T01:48:24  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 132016-02-04T01:48:47  *** bityogi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142016-02-04T01:48:53  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 152016-02-04T01:50:07  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
 162016-02-04T01:54:34  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 172016-02-04T01:57:58  <PRab> Any idea why "./bin/gbuild -i --commit signature=v${VERSION} ../bitcoin/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-win-signer.yml" is giving "fatal: ambiguous argument 'v0.12.0rc3':"?
 182016-02-04T01:58:08  <PRab> All of the other gitian stuff worked.
 192016-02-04T02:08:41  *** bityogi has quit IRC
 202016-02-04T02:10:31  *** belcher has quit IRC
 212016-02-04T02:10:45  <Luke-Jr> what is VERSION?
 222016-02-04T02:12:33  <PRab> echo ${VERSION}
 232016-02-04T02:12:35  <PRab> 0.12.0rc3
 242016-02-04T02:16:45  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
 252016-02-04T02:19:56  <cfields> PRab: sigs aren't posted yet
 262016-02-04T02:20:25  <cfields> waiting to see if the new cert comes through
 272016-02-04T02:21:05  <PRab> cfields: I thought I was generating my own sigs. What sig needs to be posted?
 282016-02-04T02:21:51  <cfields> PRab: win-signer attaches the detached codesign payload to the binaries
 292016-02-04T02:21:58  <cfields> same as osx-signer
 302016-02-04T02:22:26  <PRab> Oh, gotcha. I didn't realize that what it was doing.
 312016-02-04T02:22:29  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: "A soft-fork BIP strictly requires a clear miner majority expressed by blockchain voting (eg, using BIP 9). In addition, if the economy seems willing to make a "no confidence" hard-fork (such as a change in proof-of-work algorithm), the soft-fork does not become Final for as long as such a hard-fork has potentially-majority support, or at most three months. Soft-fork BIPs may also set additional requirements for their adoption.
 322016-02-04T02:22:31  <Luke-Jr> Because of the possibility of changes to miner dynamics, especially in light of delegated voting (mining pools), it is highly recommended that a supermajority vote around 95% be required by the BIP itself, unless rationale is given for a lower threshold."
 332016-02-04T02:22:32  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: is this clearer?
 342016-02-04T02:23:22  <PRab> I thought it was just signing the binary so that it could be checked before somebody preformed the windows signature. This is even cooler.
 352016-02-04T02:23:53  <PRab> Out of curiosity, where does the detached codesign payload live?
 362016-02-04T02:24:21  <PRab> In a git repo?
 372016-02-04T02:25:39  <cfields> PRab: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin-detached-sigs/tree/0.12
 382016-02-04T02:26:08  <PRab> cfields: Ah, I had looked in there, but I looked at master.
 392016-02-04T02:27:25  <PRab> So until that is posted, it sounds like I can't do that part of the gitian build.
 402016-02-04T02:27:41  <PRab> No big deal. I can do it later.
 412016-02-04T02:27:42  *** p15 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 422016-02-04T02:28:08  <cfields> PRab: i sign, detach the sigs, and push them up, without posting the binaries anywhere. That way it's nearly guaranteed that the signer hasn't tampered with anything
 432016-02-04T02:28:41  <cfields> PRab: yep, this one's going to be delayed a bit. fingers crossed it should be taken care of soon.
 442016-02-04T02:28:53  <PRab> Yep, makes sense now. Thanks for all the hard work.
 452016-02-04T02:29:32  <cfields> np, sorry for the inconvenience
 462016-02-04T02:30:35  <Luke-Jr> cfields: btw, would you be interested in making sigs for Bitcoin LJR as well?
 472016-02-04T02:31:25  <cfields> Luke-Jr: sure, though tbh i'd rather put the effort into porting an osx signer
 482016-02-04T02:31:48  <cfields> fyi, win is already signed in linux. osx is the only hold-out
 492016-02-04T02:31:59  <Luke-Jr> cfields: well, I didn't see any trivial way to get keys to sign with :/
 502016-02-04T02:32:31  <cfields> Luke-Jr: oh, no, i wouldn't be comfortable signing with the same keys :)
 512016-02-04T02:34:12  <Luke-Jr> do you have an easy way to get another set? XD
 522016-02-04T02:35:43  <cfields> Luke-Jr: i'm honestly not sure what the requirements are. we'll be going down that path after 0.12 though, need to get new keys for Core. i can let you know how it goes
 532016-02-04T02:36:25  <Luke-Jr> cfields: ok. maybe if you get a convenient opportunity for two key-pairs, get one for LJR? ;)
 542016-02-04T02:36:47  <cfields> heh, sure
 552016-02-04T02:46:36  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
 562016-02-04T02:55:49  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: that's definitely clearer, but...
 572016-02-04T02:56:20  <jtimon> let's think for a moment about the sequence of events
 582016-02-04T02:57:45  *** adam3us1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 592016-02-04T02:57:46  *** adam3us has quit IRC
 602016-02-04T02:57:59  <jtimon> 1) controversial softfork gets activated
 612016-02-04T02:57:59  <jtimon> 2) some time
 622016-02-04T02:57:59  <jtimon> 3.a) asic-reset hardfork to revert 1
 632016-02-04T02:57:59  <jtimon> 3.b) there's not "economic consensus" to revert 1
 642016-02-04T02:58:11  <jtimon> ho much time is 2?
 652016-02-04T02:58:17  <jtimon> s/ho/how
 662016-02-04T02:58:45  <Luke-Jr> that's the "at most three months"
 672016-02-04T02:59:48  <Luke-Jr> perhaps I should also clarify that the Final soft-fork can still be moved to a Replaced status should it later gain consensus?
 682016-02-04T03:00:09  <jtimon> so if 3.a happens 6 months after 1, the softfork BIP proposing 1 will get to final?
 692016-02-04T03:00:27  <Luke-Jr> (maybe not; I guess that's implied in a hardfork anyway)
 702016-02-04T03:00:34  <jtimon> oh, I guess that would solve my time concern
 712016-02-04T03:00:37  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: Final and then Replaced
 722016-02-04T03:01:36  <jtimon> yep, if a softfork that gets to the final state can then be reverted to replaced if it's found to be controversial, then I guess my concern goes away
 732016-02-04T03:02:21  <Luke-Jr> What happens if the economy decides to hard-fork away from a controversial soft-fork, more than three months later?
 742016-02-04T03:02:22  <Luke-Jr> * The controversial soft-fork, in this circumstance, changes from Final to Replaced status to reflect the nature of the hard-fork replacing the previous (final) soft-fork.
 752016-02-04T03:02:33  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 762016-02-04T03:02:38  <Luke-Jr> ^ sound good?
 772016-02-04T03:04:03  <jtimon> I would still really like to make uncontroversial soft/hard forks as similar as possible, since I believe philosohpically there's much more difference between controversial/uncontroversial than between soft/hard fork (the latter being just a time/technical/convenience advantage in softforks, but nothing fundamentally different for non-deployment concerns)
 782016-02-04T03:04:21  <Luke-Jr> we can't change the nature of the differences. :P
 792016-02-04T03:05:08  <jtimon> of course not, we can just change our terms and definitions
 802016-02-04T03:07:47  *** d_t has quit IRC
 812016-02-04T03:09:13  <jtimon> mhmm...so I was, I guess, previously asking that only uncontroversial changes could get to the final state (neither controversial soft nor hard should ever get to final), but you propose that instead controversial softforks can get to final and then reverted to replaced by a hardfork
 822016-02-04T03:10:02  <Luke-Jr> even controversial hardforks can get to Final, provided they have de facto destroyed the dissent
 832016-02-04T03:10:21  <Luke-Jr> (not to say they *should*..)
 842016-02-04T03:10:46  <jtimon> mmhmm, can a controversial hardfork be "replaced" by another controversial hardfork? how does this all look when there's 8 controversial hardforks living in parallel?
 852016-02-04T03:11:08  <Luke-Jr> everyone needs to be using the hardforked rules to get to Final
 862016-02-04T03:11:35  <Luke-Jr> a controversial hardfork gets there, by forcing everyone else to use its rules
 872016-02-04T03:12:26  <jtimon> ok, so if at one point two controversial hardforks coexist (that is, the controversial hardfork and the no-hardfork ruleset) there will never be a final hardfork again?
 882016-02-04T03:13:29  <jtimon> no hardfork (controversial or not) can force any user to validate a particular ruleset
 892016-02-04T03:14:24  <Luke-Jr> I would think users of a non-Final hard-fork do not count toward subsequent hard-fork proposals
 902016-02-04T03:15:14  <Luke-Jr> since they're no longer using Bitcoin
 912016-02-04T03:17:32  <jtimon> you said a hardfork is only final if the dissenting branch died, if two branches coexist forever, both of them are non-final forever and this no subsequent hardfork proposal count for any of the two branches!
 922016-02-04T03:18:26  <Luke-Jr> hmm
 932016-02-04T03:18:40  <jtimon> let's bring my canonical example: let's say some users suddenly decide bitcoin should have 5% annual demurrage
 942016-02-04T03:18:41  <Luke-Jr> I don't see a solution for that hypothetical :P
 952016-02-04T03:19:13  <jtimon> and we have 2 branches that live forever (let's call them bitcoin and freifork respectively)
 962016-02-04T03:20:04  <Luke-Jr> no
 972016-02-04T03:20:06  <Luke-Jr> the original is not a branch
 982016-02-04T03:21:18  <jtimon> the recommendation in bip99 should be that if freiforkers know beforehand the two branches will never merge, they should consider starting an altcoin instead of a controversial hardfork
 992016-02-04T03:21:33  <Luke-Jr> no difference
1002016-02-04T03:22:05  <jtimon> but there's theoretically cases for a legitimate controversial hardfork (asic-reset for starters)
1012016-02-04T03:23:34  <jtimon> yes, there's a difference: an altcoin gives you far more parameter choosing flexibility (say, you deeply believe that 100 is a more round number than 21 or whatever)
1022016-02-04T03:23:47  <Luke-Jr> asic-reset isn't controversial, and still needs consensus
1032016-02-04T03:24:19  <Luke-Jr> a non-consensus hardfork that never becomes Final, is literally an altcoin
1042016-02-04T03:25:41  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: I already admited we disagree on whether an asic-reset hardfork is intrinsically controversial (as bip99 indicates) or not (as you believe), let's please agree to disagree on that
1052016-02-04T03:26:01  <Luke-Jr> well, then don't try to use it as a premise :p
1062016-02-04T03:26:52  <jtimon> well the premise in bip99 is that uncontroversial things require bip9 regardless of them being softforks or hardforks
1072016-02-04T03:27:02  <Luke-Jr> ewww
1082016-02-04T03:27:24  <Luke-Jr> hardforks should never use miner voting :<
1092016-02-04T03:27:46  <Luke-Jr> unless maybe it's super clear that miners are only indicating economic consensus
1102016-02-04T03:27:58  <jtimon> because "uncontroversial" always means "uncontroversial" (by any defintion), no matter how long you have to wait to deploy it for practical purposes
1112016-02-04T03:28:01  <Luke-Jr> ie, they'd manually set the vote and not merely run software supporting it
1122016-02-04T03:29:48  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: "hardforks should never use miner voting" as you hopefully know already, bip99 (and I believe petertodd) directly contradicts this, modulo s/miner voting/miner upgrade coordination/
1132016-02-04T03:30:55  <Luke-Jr> I have no read BIP 99 yet. Remind me to oppose it I guess >_<
1142016-02-04T03:31:04  <Luke-Jr> unless the modulo there changes it
1152016-02-04T03:31:11  <jtimon> would you agree that "mining voting" is a confusing term that leads people to talk about "hashing power democracy" and other confusing concepts?
1162016-02-04T03:31:21  <Luke-Jr> shrug
1172016-02-04T03:32:02  <Luke-Jr> the problem is trying to use a consensus-establishing system for something it cannot establish consensus on
1182016-02-04T03:32:08  <Luke-Jr> not the terminology
1192016-02-04T03:32:19  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: "I have no read BIP 99 yet. Remind me to oppose it I guess" shrug maybe you should have read it before writting your own
1202016-02-04T03:32:33  <Luke-Jr> mine has different goals than BIP 99
1212016-02-04T03:32:50  <Luke-Jr> BIP 99 is, as I understand it, aimed at successful deployment of softforks and hardforks
1222016-02-04T03:32:56  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: how do you know if you haven't read bip99 yet?
1232016-02-04T03:33:03  <Luke-Jr> I did skim it :P
1242016-02-04T03:33:22  <Luke-Jr> am I wrong?
1252016-02-04T03:35:02  <jtimon> not on the goals, I would complete it with "and deploy an uncontroversial hardfork" and classify not-recommended/unsuccesful soft/hard-forks as well"
1262016-02-04T03:35:44  <Luke-Jr> I do think you should split the HF proposal out to another BIP, FWIW
1272016-02-04T03:36:08  <jtimon> but really, I was assuming that you had read it all along, that could have probably saved us a lot of terminology discussion...
1282016-02-04T03:36:24  <Luke-Jr> I probably should go read it.
1292016-02-04T03:38:01  <Luke-Jr> (I had mostly forgotten it even existed when I started this one)
1302016-02-04T03:39:35  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: thanks, that's useful feedback I realized conflating "let's clasify uncontroversial hardforks with all the rest of theorethically potential hardforks" and "and let's deploy one of those uncontroversial hardforks, what was the point of putting them in context otherwise" is potentially confusing: I will reaplace the code entire code section with a link to another bip draft
1312016-02-04T03:40:38  <jtimon> to reiterate, having a bip in draft state for an undefined amount of time is right, right?
1322016-02-04T03:41:18  <Luke-Jr> ?
1332016-02-04T03:41:24  <jtimon> unless someone complains that it should move to replaced or something, obviously
1342016-02-04T03:42:36  <jtimon> last question: is it fine if bip99 stays as a darft while I wait to rebase the informational part on top of yours and move the code/hardfork-proposal part to a different bip to be linked from this one?
1352016-02-04T03:43:24  <jtimon> (without knowing when any of those two things may happen)
1362016-02-04T03:43:33  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: I don't see why not
1372016-02-04T03:43:50  <Luke-Jr> Rejected status has a timeout of 3 years
1382016-02-04T03:45:37  <jtimon> oh, I missed that, "not touched in 3 years" -> rejected, I think I have time or it will be replaced by some other first hardfork by that time, great
1392016-02-04T03:47:11  *** adnn_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402016-02-04T03:47:27  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412016-02-04T03:47:51  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: thanks for answering many questions, this was really helpful (but could have been even more productive if you had read bip99)
1422016-02-04T03:48:15  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: np, hopefully I'll get them added to the BIP's Rationale so others get the answers too ☺
1432016-02-04T03:48:45  <Luke-Jr> I'll try to read BIP 99 soon, unless you'd rather I wait for you to split it?
1442016-02-04T03:51:38  <jtimon> no, the part to be splitted is just the code section (and its respective references)
1452016-02-04T03:51:47  <Luke-Jr> k
1462016-02-04T03:52:00  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
1472016-02-04T03:52:08  <jtimon> please read it, I think you will understand some of my points better
1482016-02-04T03:52:12  <Luke-Jr> I will
1492016-02-04T03:56:09  <jtimon> in fact the next main change I had plannned was just to add "use a negative block version number after activation" to both of the hardfork recommendations (as explained in the talk), plus incorporate some of the feedback (like incorporate the "let's keep 50 btc subsidy forever" as an example of a failed controversial hardfork)
1502016-02-04T03:56:39  <Luke-Jr> eh, negative? just don't interpret it as signed and ignore the first bit :P
1512016-02-04T03:57:04  <Luke-Jr> or better yet, set the first bit on the first block, and make a consensus rule that it be clear from that point forward..
1522016-02-04T03:57:11  <Luke-Jr> so it can be reused
1532016-02-04T03:57:51  <Luke-Jr> frankly, it's pretty dumb that versionbits considers it as a number at all at this point
1542016-02-04T03:57:54  <jtimon> yeah, "negative" or "first bit active" mean the seam here: non-upgraded nodes will preceive it as invalid [unless they have a more advanced warning system backported]
1552016-02-04T03:58:57  <Luke-Jr> I should assign a number for biprevised so I don't need to keep saying "my BIP" for it..
1562016-02-04T03:59:01  <jtimon> in any case we both know what bit we're talking about: the one that would old nodes think a given block is invalid
1572016-02-04T03:59:33  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: ack on number, or at least just open a PR to the bips repo
1582016-02-04T03:59:44  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: can't open a PR until GitHub fixes their crap :/
1592016-02-04T03:59:53  <Luke-Jr> my repo is somehow de-linked so it can't PR to the main on
1602016-02-04T03:59:55  <Luke-Jr> one*
1612016-02-04T04:00:06  <jtimon> github crap?
1622016-02-04T04:00:22  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: try opening a PR from my repo to the main repo, and you'll find it's impossible :<
1632016-02-04T04:00:27  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1642016-02-04T04:01:18  <jtimon> mhmm, I believe destroying your repo, forking bitcoin/bips again, etc would solve it
1652016-02-04T04:01:29  <Luke-Jr> yes, but I don't want to do that :p
1662016-02-04T04:01:52  <Luke-Jr> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/314 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/315 could use more reviews btw
1672016-02-04T04:02:01  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682016-02-04T04:03:16  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1692016-02-04T04:03:30  <jtimon> fair enough, but other people need to open a PR before getting a bip number, someone will accuse you of abusing your power :p
1702016-02-04T04:03:37  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1712016-02-04T04:03:37  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722016-02-04T04:03:49  <Luke-Jr> jtimon: that's not true, people have been assigned numbers without a PR many times
1732016-02-04T04:04:38  <Luke-Jr> and I just assigned BIP 74 pre-PR a week or so ago, so that's certainly not changed since I became editor either :p
1742016-02-04T04:04:48  <jtimon> oh, I thought the new modus operandis was PR before number
1752016-02-04T04:05:57  <jtimon> I was just teasing anyway, assign yourself a number, but at some point you will need to open a PR as well
1762016-02-04T04:06:00  <Luke-Jr> anyway, since it's dealing specifically with the BIP process, I was thinking BIP 2
1772016-02-04T04:06:11  <Luke-Jr> yes, I am nagging GitHub support to fix the PR stuff
1782016-02-04T04:06:33  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: I think bip 2 would be most appropriate
1792016-02-04T04:07:30  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: just curious, has the github bug anything to do with the fact that bips is not a "base project" but a fork of ptodd's?
1802016-02-04T04:08:23  <jtimon> that way we will be able to say "read bip 1 and 2..."
1812016-02-04T04:11:34  *** lightningbot` has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1822016-02-04T04:11:38  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832016-02-04T04:12:11  *** lightningbot has quit IRC
1842016-02-04T04:12:12  *** zmanian_ has quit IRC
1852016-02-04T04:12:45  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
1862016-02-04T04:12:51  *** windsok_ has quit IRC
1872016-02-04T04:14:02  *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882016-02-04T04:14:29  *** windsok has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892016-02-04T04:14:31  *** morcos has quit IRC
1902016-02-04T04:14:59  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1912016-02-04T04:16:43  *** mr_burdell_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1922016-02-04T04:17:47  *** zmanian_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1932016-02-04T04:19:08  *** mr_burdell has quit IRC
1942016-02-04T04:19:09  *** Guest50070 has quit IRC
1952016-02-04T04:19:09  *** roasbeef has quit IRC
1962016-02-04T04:19:09  *** mr_burdell_ is now known as mr_burdell
1972016-02-04T04:19:15  *** petertodd has quit IRC
1982016-02-04T04:19:15  *** devrandom has quit IRC
1992016-02-04T04:19:15  *** Lightsword has quit IRC
2002016-02-04T04:19:17  <jtimon> Luke-Jr: what do you mean? the parent of petertodd/bips was genjix/bips in github?
2012016-02-04T04:19:26  <Luke-Jr> indeed
2022016-02-04T04:19:31  *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2032016-02-04T04:19:39  *** mr_burdell is now known as Guest97100
2042016-02-04T04:19:42  *** devrandom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052016-02-04T04:20:02  *** s1w has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062016-02-04T04:20:10  *** roasbeef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072016-02-04T04:20:25  *** petertodd has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2082016-02-04T04:20:25  *** s1w is now known as Guest51729
2092016-02-04T04:20:48  *** petertodd is now known as Guest60961
2102016-02-04T04:20:49  <jtimon> I see
2112016-02-04T04:22:18  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122016-02-04T04:23:08  <jtimon> can't someone create the PR while giving you the rights to force push in it?
2132016-02-04T04:25:11  <jtimon> I believe btcdrak somehow took over maaku's bip68/bip112 opened bips with no problem, maybe someone else can create it and somehow transfer control to you or something (random thoughts, who knows how github works inside for this)
2142016-02-04T04:32:36  <Luke-Jr> sure, but no big deal
2152016-02-04T04:32:40  <Luke-Jr> I expect resolution in a few days
2162016-02-04T04:40:32  *** adam3us1 has quit IRC
2172016-02-04T05:07:19  *** adnn__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182016-02-04T05:08:10  *** adnn_ has quit IRC
2192016-02-04T05:22:36  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202016-02-04T05:35:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
2212016-02-04T05:35:28  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2222016-02-04T05:36:06  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232016-02-04T05:58:16  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242016-02-04T05:58:17  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2252016-02-04T05:58:49  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2262016-02-04T05:58:50  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2272016-02-04T05:59:21  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282016-02-04T05:59:21  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2292016-02-04T05:59:21  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302016-02-04T06:07:46  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
2312016-02-04T06:21:36  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322016-02-04T06:21:40  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332016-02-04T07:00:29  *** zibbo has quit IRC
2342016-02-04T07:48:17  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352016-02-04T07:55:02  <GitHub71> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eb331794a22b...898fedf42fdc
2362016-02-04T07:55:03  <GitHub71> bitcoin/master c77c662 kirkalx: peers.dat, banlist.dat recreated when missing
2372016-02-04T07:55:03  <GitHub71> bitcoin/master 898fedf Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7458: [Net] peers.dat, banlist.dat recreated when missing...
2382016-02-04T07:55:08  <GitHub150> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7458: [Net] peers.dat, banlist.dat recreated when missing (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7458
2392016-02-04T08:22:26  *** mkarrer has quit IRC
2402016-02-04T08:24:39  *** mkarrer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2412016-02-04T08:34:06  *** arubi_ has quit IRC
2422016-02-04T08:44:42  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2432016-02-04T08:52:13  *** rubensayshi has quit IRC
2442016-02-04T08:57:10  *** arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2452016-02-04T09:07:51  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462016-02-04T09:16:57  *** zibbo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472016-02-04T10:17:57  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2482016-02-04T10:28:22  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2492016-02-04T10:33:47  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502016-02-04T10:33:48  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2512016-02-04T10:34:25  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2522016-02-04T10:34:25  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2532016-02-04T10:34:57  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542016-02-04T10:34:58  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2552016-02-04T10:36:02  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2562016-02-04T10:36:02  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2572016-02-04T10:36:04  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582016-02-04T10:36:06  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2592016-02-04T10:36:37  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602016-02-04T10:36:38  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
2612016-02-04T10:39:57  *** sotisoti_ has quit IRC
2622016-02-04T10:40:05  *** sotisoti has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632016-02-04T10:40:05  *** nullpt_ has quit IRC
2642016-02-04T10:40:13  *** warren has quit IRC
2652016-02-04T10:40:22  *** nullpt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662016-02-04T10:40:22  *** Guest97100 has quit IRC
2672016-02-04T10:40:38  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2682016-02-04T10:40:39  *** roasbeef has quit IRC
2692016-02-04T10:40:39  *** lecusemb1e has quit IRC
2702016-02-04T10:40:47  *** trippysalmon has quit IRC
2712016-02-04T10:41:03  *** trippysalmon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722016-02-04T10:41:18  *** mr_burdell has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732016-02-04T10:41:41  *** roasbeef has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2742016-02-04T10:41:41  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2752016-02-04T10:41:54  *** lecusemble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762016-02-04T10:45:23  *** warren has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772016-02-04T10:55:18  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2782016-02-04T11:06:45  *** gevs has quit IRC
2792016-02-04T11:14:24  *** nickler has quit IRC
2802016-02-04T11:22:00  *** nickler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2812016-02-04T11:49:19  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2822016-02-04T12:04:18  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
2832016-02-04T12:04:23  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842016-02-04T12:42:56  <GitHub89> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 19 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/898fedf42fdc...2cdbf28cf395
2852016-02-04T12:42:57  <GitHub89> bitcoin/master d5f4683 Luke Dashjr: Unify package name to as few places as possible without major changes
2862016-02-04T12:42:57  <GitHub89> bitcoin/master 1a6c67c Luke Dashjr: Parameterise 2009 in translatable copyright strings
2872016-02-04T12:42:58  <GitHub89> bitcoin/master 63bcdc5 Luke Dashjr: More complicated package name substitution for Mac deployment
2882016-02-04T12:43:01  <GitHub169> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7192: Unify product name to as few places as possible (master...single_prodname) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7192
2892016-02-04T12:43:39  <wumpus> NOTE: if you are building the git master branch, you need to re-run ./autogen.sh after this
2902016-02-04T12:50:47  *** jl2012_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2912016-02-04T12:53:41  *** adam3us1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2922016-02-04T12:53:56  *** jl2012 has quit IRC
2932016-02-04T12:53:57  *** jl2012_ is now known as jl2012
2942016-02-04T12:53:57  *** adam3us1 has quit IRC
2952016-02-04T12:54:10  *** adam3us has quit IRC
2962016-02-04T12:54:13  *** adam3us1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2972016-02-04T12:54:28  *** adam3us1 has quit IRC
2982016-02-04T12:54:47  *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992016-02-04T12:59:15  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3002016-02-04T13:29:35  *** dcousens has quit IRC
3012016-02-04T13:53:56  *** Tasoshi has quit IRC
3022016-02-04T13:54:26  *** Tasoshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032016-02-04T13:54:41  <GitHub177> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2cdbf28cf395...4f4dc5ef7295
3042016-02-04T13:54:42  <GitHub177> bitcoin/master fa79db2 MarcoFalke: Move maxTxFee out of mempool...
3052016-02-04T13:54:42  <GitHub177> bitcoin/master fa762d0 MarcoFalke: [wallet.h] Remove main.h include
3062016-02-04T13:54:43  <GitHub177> bitcoin/master fad6244 MarcoFalke: ATMP: make nAbsurdFee const
3072016-02-04T13:54:47  <GitHub47> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7070: Move maxTxFee out of mempool (master...MarcoFalke-2015-feeRateRefactor) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7070
3082016-02-04T13:55:53  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3092016-02-04T13:59:20  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3102016-02-04T14:02:29  *** rocinante_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3112016-02-04T14:05:17  *** rocinante_ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3122016-02-04T14:08:35  *** p15 has quit IRC
3132016-02-04T14:27:17  *** Prattler has quit IRC
3142016-02-04T14:28:57  *** Prattler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3152016-02-04T14:41:46  *** drnet has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3162016-02-04T14:59:10  *** Thireus has quit IRC
3172016-02-04T14:59:45  *** drnet has quit IRC
3182016-02-04T15:04:19  *** bitcoin087 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3192016-02-04T15:16:34  *** bitcoin087 has quit IRC
3202016-02-04T15:41:57  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3212016-02-04T15:41:58  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
3222016-02-04T15:42:17  *** bityogi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232016-02-04T15:42:25  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3242016-02-04T15:42:26  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
3252016-02-04T15:42:58  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3262016-02-04T15:45:59  *** Amnez777 has quit IRC
3272016-02-04T15:45:59  *** Amnez777 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3282016-02-04T16:03:39  <GitHub77> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4f4dc5ef7295...d2228384de3a
3292016-02-04T16:03:40  <GitHub77> bitcoin/master 7d0bf0b Jonas Schnelli: include the chaintip *blockIndex in the SyncTransaction signal...
3302016-02-04T16:03:40  <GitHub77> bitcoin/master d222838 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #6480: include the chaintip blockindex in the SyncTransaction signal, add signal UpdateTip()...
3312016-02-04T16:03:44  <GitHub45> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #6480: include the chaintip blockindex in the SyncTransaction signal, add signal UpdateTip() (master...2015/07/syncsignal_hight) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6480
3322016-02-04T16:05:48  <GitHub97> [bitcoin] morcos closed pull request #6936: [WIP] Keep pcoinsTip cache warm (master...HotCache) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6936
3332016-02-04T16:26:43  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3342016-02-04T16:28:52  *** bitcoin271 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3352016-02-04T16:34:45  *** bitcoin271 has quit IRC
3362016-02-04T16:37:00  *** fkhan has quit IRC
3372016-02-04T16:41:14  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
3382016-02-04T16:41:47  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3392016-02-04T16:43:41  <GitHub114> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 8 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d2228384de3a...152a8216cc7b
3402016-02-04T16:43:42  <GitHub114> bitcoin/master 2adf7e2 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: The var is LIBUNIVALUE,not LIBBITCOIN_UNIVALUE
3412016-02-04T16:43:42  <GitHub114> bitcoin/master ab22705 Luke Dashjr: Build against system UniValue when available
3422016-02-04T16:43:43  <GitHub114> bitcoin/master 5d3b29b Luke Dashjr: doc: Add UniValue to build instructions
3432016-02-04T16:43:46  <GitHub143> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7349: Build against system UniValue when available (master...sys_univalue_opt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7349
3442016-02-04T16:46:06  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
3452016-02-04T16:54:04  *** fkhan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3462016-02-04T17:02:01  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
3472016-02-04T17:13:54  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3482016-02-04T17:18:41  *** BashCo has quit IRC
3492016-02-04T17:30:12  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
3502016-02-04T17:30:47  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3512016-02-04T17:34:58  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
3522016-02-04T17:37:16  *** arubi_ has quit IRC
3532016-02-04T17:40:07  *** arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3542016-02-04T17:48:25  *** arubi_ is now known as arubi
3552016-02-04T18:03:49  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3562016-02-04T18:07:10  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3572016-02-04T18:10:04  *** Guest60961 is now known as petertodd
3582016-02-04T18:31:18  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3592016-02-04T18:34:35  <GitHub148> [bitcoin] sandakersmann opened pull request #7467: [0.12] Set -mempoolreplacement to false (master...mempoolreplacement) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7467
3602016-02-04T18:35:46  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
3612016-02-04T18:47:14  <GitHub46> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7467: [0.12] Set -mempoolreplacement to false (master...mempoolreplacement) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7467
3622016-02-04T18:50:22  *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3632016-02-04T18:50:44  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3642016-02-04T19:15:46  *** raedah has quit IRC
3652016-02-04T19:27:06  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3662016-02-04T19:32:00  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3672016-02-04T19:36:36  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
3682016-02-04T19:38:56  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3692016-02-04T19:41:26  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3702016-02-04T19:50:48  *** treehug88 has quit IRC
3712016-02-04T19:53:57  <GitHub92> [bitcoin] mrbandrews opened pull request #7468: [rpc-tests] Change solve() to use rehash (master...ba-fix-rehash) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7468
3722016-02-04T19:55:34  *** Naphex has quit IRC
3732016-02-04T19:56:35  *** raedah has quit IRC
3742016-02-04T20:01:29  *** raedah has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3752016-02-04T20:02:13  *** raedah_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3762016-02-04T20:05:35  *** raedah has quit IRC
3772016-02-04T20:06:39  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3782016-02-04T20:07:54  *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3792016-02-04T20:11:23  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3802016-02-04T20:14:26  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3812016-02-04T20:15:21  *** wallet42 has quit IRC
3822016-02-04T20:15:32  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3832016-02-04T20:19:15  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3842016-02-04T20:28:16  *** arubi has quit IRC
3852016-02-04T20:32:47  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3862016-02-04T20:34:34  *** raedah_ is now known as raedah
3872016-02-04T20:34:44  *** raedah has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3882016-02-04T20:37:18  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
3892016-02-04T20:38:40  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3902016-02-04T20:39:29  *** s1w has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3912016-02-04T20:39:40  <michagogo> cfields: next time you make changes to gitian, would you object to switching the order of the HOSTS var on either Linux or OS X?
3922016-02-04T20:39:52  *** s1w is now known as Guest72371
3932016-02-04T20:46:34  *** Ylbam_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3942016-02-04T20:46:36  *** midnightmagic_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3952016-02-04T20:46:50  *** Eliel_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3962016-02-04T20:47:47  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
3972016-02-04T20:47:48  *** Guest51729 has quit IRC
3982016-02-04T20:47:48  *** devrandom has quit IRC
3992016-02-04T20:47:48  *** Lightsword has quit IRC
4002016-02-04T20:47:48  *** Eliel has quit IRC
4012016-02-04T20:47:48  *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
4022016-02-04T20:47:48  *** kanzure has quit IRC
4032016-02-04T20:47:50  *** Ylbam_ is now known as Ylbam
4042016-02-04T20:49:43  *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052016-02-04T20:49:43  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4062016-02-04T20:49:44  *** kanzure has quit IRC
4072016-02-04T20:50:48  *** devrandom has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4082016-02-04T20:52:31  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4092016-02-04T20:53:43  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4102016-02-04T20:57:40  *** kanzure has quit IRC
4112016-02-04T20:57:41  *** kanzure has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4122016-02-04T21:00:13  <michagogo> s/OS X/win/
4132016-02-04T21:06:10  <Luke-Jr> O.o?
4142016-02-04T21:30:11  *** arubi has quit IRC
4152016-02-04T21:43:27  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4162016-02-04T21:45:57  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4172016-02-04T21:46:58  *** midnightmagic_ has quit IRC
4182016-02-04T21:48:41  *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4192016-02-04T21:51:14  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
4202016-02-04T21:59:28  *** TZander has quit IRC
4212016-02-04T22:04:00  *** belcher has quit IRC
4222016-02-04T22:08:04  *** wangchun has quit IRC
4232016-02-04T22:08:24  *** wangchun has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4242016-02-04T22:09:33  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4252016-02-04T22:43:26  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
4262016-02-04T22:50:53  *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4272016-02-04T22:55:01  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4282016-02-04T22:55:59  *** gavink has quit IRC
4292016-02-04T23:03:09  *** frankenmint has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4302016-02-04T23:05:46  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4312016-02-04T23:08:58  *** frankenmint has quit IRC
4322016-02-04T23:11:53  *** gavink has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4332016-02-04T23:14:52  *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
4342016-02-04T23:16:14  <GitHub130> [bitcoin] dmS0Zq opened pull request #7469: net.h fix spelling: misbeha{b,v}ing (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7469
4352016-02-04T23:17:02  *** gavink has quit IRC
4362016-02-04T23:21:58  *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372016-02-04T23:39:17  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4382016-02-04T23:44:00  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
4392016-02-04T23:52:32  *** laurentmt has quit IRC