12016-05-05T00:03:14  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
  22016-05-05T00:12:39  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  32016-05-05T00:16:53  *** kadoban has quit IRC
  42016-05-05T00:22:49  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
  52016-05-05T00:24:27  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  62016-05-05T00:27:54  *** blur3d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  72016-05-05T00:31:30  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
  82016-05-05T00:33:01  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  92016-05-05T00:33:24  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102016-05-05T00:41:18  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 112016-05-05T00:50:41  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 122016-05-05T00:52:12  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
 132016-05-05T00:55:35  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142016-05-05T01:07:04  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 152016-05-05T01:07:35  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 162016-05-05T01:07:52  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
 172016-05-05T01:08:16  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 182016-05-05T01:10:08  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 192016-05-05T01:18:27  *** arowser has quit IRC
 202016-05-05T01:18:41  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 212016-05-05T01:24:55  *** TomMc has quit IRC
 222016-05-05T01:29:39  *** molly has quit IRC
 232016-05-05T01:30:02  *** molly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 242016-05-05T01:35:12  *** belcher has quit IRC
 252016-05-05T01:37:33  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 262016-05-05T01:38:16  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272016-05-05T01:41:09  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 282016-05-05T01:45:04  *** bitcoin-wizards4 has quit IRC
 292016-05-05T01:55:44  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 302016-05-05T01:58:04  *** molly has quit IRC
 312016-05-05T02:14:52  *** xiangfu has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322016-05-05T02:31:49  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 332016-05-05T02:37:21  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
 342016-05-05T02:49:24  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
 352016-05-05T03:00:01  <BlueMatt> lol, did a chainsync with infinite dbcache and, on shutdown, bitcoind did a 1.5G malloc
 362016-05-05T03:00:53  <luke-jr> >_<
 372016-05-05T03:03:51  <BlueMatt> wait...wtf
 382016-05-05T03:04:03  <BlueMatt> and on startup, with a tiny dbcache...leveldb did a 2.1G alloc
 392016-05-05T03:04:06  <BlueMatt> that cant be right
 402016-05-05T03:04:46  <BlueMatt> yea, it is
 412016-05-05T03:04:54  <BlueMatt> heh, the first time you restart after that it does insane things
 422016-05-05T03:08:18  *** randy-waterhouse has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432016-05-05T03:15:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 442016-05-05T03:15:25  *** TomMc has quit IRC
 452016-05-05T03:16:06  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 462016-05-05T04:06:22  *** blur3d has quit IRC
 472016-05-05T04:15:46  *** go1111111 has quit IRC
 482016-05-05T04:32:37  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 492016-05-05T04:39:15  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502016-05-05T04:43:16  *** PRab has quit IRC
 512016-05-05T04:48:12  <GitHub82> [bitcoin] catilac opened pull request #8004: signal handling: fReopenDebugLog and fRequestShutdown should be type sig_atomic_t (master...fix_signal_handler) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8004
 522016-05-05T05:13:02  *** jus7672 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 532016-05-05T05:21:20  *** jus7672 has quit IRC
 542016-05-05T05:34:20  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 552016-05-05T05:35:01  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 562016-05-05T05:36:07  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 572016-05-05T05:48:37  *** randy-waterhouse has quit IRC
 582016-05-05T06:16:07  *** [Author] has quit IRC
 592016-05-05T06:20:28  <GitHub154> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8206835cc173...42a67533828f
 602016-05-05T06:20:29  <GitHub154> bitcoin/master 9eaa0af Wladimir J. van der Laan: tinyformat: force USE_VARIADIC_TEMPLATES...
 612016-05-05T06:20:29  <GitHub154> bitcoin/master 08d7b56 Wladimir J. van der Laan: util: switch LogPrint and error to variadic templates
 622016-05-05T06:20:30  <GitHub154> bitcoin/master 42a6753 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8000: tinyformat: force USE_VARIADIC_TEMPLATES...
 632016-05-05T06:20:38  <GitHub192> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8000: tinyformat: force USE_VARIADIC_TEMPLATES (master...2016_05_tinyformat_variadic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8000
 642016-05-05T06:26:11  *** [Author] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 652016-05-05T06:26:30  *** blur3d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 662016-05-05T06:42:28  *** cheese_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 672016-05-05T06:42:28  *** cheese_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 682016-05-05T06:45:42  *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
 692016-05-05T06:56:22  *** imacomput has quit IRC
 702016-05-05T07:13:00  *** ghtdak has quit IRC
 712016-05-05T07:15:17  <cjcj> What is the git process for including a specific PR (#6853) into the v0.11.2 branch?
 722016-05-05T07:16:20  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 732016-05-05T07:18:22  <Guest7895> cjcj: it gets backporter if it's considered critical
 742016-05-05T07:18:40  <Guest7895> v0.11.2 is a release, not a branch, by the way
 752016-05-05T07:20:13  <Guest7895> 6853 is not a bugfix, and certainly not a critical one
 762016-05-05T07:21:39  *** ghtdak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772016-05-05T07:24:21  *** gill3s has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 782016-05-05T07:24:43  <btcdrak> cjcj: all changes should be made to master, and then they can be backported as required. You backport to the specific branch 0.12, and 0.11
 792016-05-05T07:26:13  <btcdrak> cjcj: normally you just mark it as "requires backport", and the maintainers will cherry-pick backport it after merge, but if it has lots of merge conflicts with the backport branch then you may need to open a PR for it (but wait until master merge first).
 802016-05-05T07:29:36  *** LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 812016-05-05T07:30:17  <cjcj> btcdrak: I never intended to PR this. It would be for my own use only. The 0.12 branch doesn't work for some reason for my case, and #6853 is the only PR from 0.12 I really need. Was just wondering of a painless way to include it, but I think I will just build from CodeSharks fNoRetarget branch.
 822016-05-05T07:31:30  <Guest7895> cjcj: well you can git cherry-pick
 832016-05-05T07:31:50  <Guest7895> though i'm interested why 0.12 does not work for you... perhaps that's an indication of a bigger problem
 842016-05-05T07:33:41  <btcdrak> what does "does not work for me" mean specifically?
 852016-05-05T07:33:50  *** Guest7895 has quit IRC
 862016-05-05T07:33:51  *** Guest7895 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 872016-05-05T07:34:27  *** Guest7895 is now known as sipa
 882016-05-05T07:34:54  <cjcj> Guest7895: Will check out that command. Am not very familiar with git yet. I don't know yet why 0.12, but I bet the problem is on my end. For now 0.11.2 just works so I will continue from there for now.
 892016-05-05T07:39:30  <cjcj> btcdrak: The program crashes when I make an RPC request in 0.12 after running for a while, but it works fine in 0.11.
 902016-05-05T07:40:51  <sipa> perhaps you should open an issue for that?
 912016-05-05T07:40:58  <sipa> or is this with heavy local modifications?
 922016-05-05T07:42:43  <cjcj> sipa: I think the problem is on my end, but I will debug the issue further when I got time and open an issue if it doesn't resolve.
 932016-05-05T07:43:05  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942016-05-05T07:43:13  <cjcj> I'm using python-bitcoinlib as well, so maybe the issue could lie there.
 952016-05-05T07:43:43  <cjcj> Are there heavy differences in the RPC code between 0.11 and 0.12?
 962016-05-05T07:44:15  <sipa> you'll need to give a bit more information about what you're doing
 972016-05-05T07:44:25  <sipa> some things changed a lot, others not at all
 982016-05-05T07:45:11  <wumpus> yes, you need to be more specific about what is not working, 'it doesn't work' is  not a good bug report
 992016-05-05T07:45:47  <wumpus> what are you doing, what error do you get back
1002016-05-05T07:46:10  <wumpus> does bitcoind crash ,if so can you provide a traceback
1012016-05-05T07:46:16  <wumpus> etc
1022016-05-05T07:47:14  <wumpus> if you just want to cherry-pick one commit, use the git cherry-pick command, it may be easy, it may also be very hard if the surrounding code changed a lot between 0.11 and 0.12 (large chance)
1032016-05-05T07:49:20  <cjcj> bitcoind doesn't crash, only the python script I'm running. Will provide a traceback once I have removed some personal info from it.
1042016-05-05T07:49:47  <sipa> ah, ok :)
1052016-05-05T08:24:07  *** arowser has quit IRC
1062016-05-05T08:25:06  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072016-05-05T08:29:08  *** gill3s has quit IRC
1082016-05-05T08:29:09  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
1092016-05-05T08:48:47  *** Justinus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102016-05-05T08:52:02  *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112016-05-05T08:52:22  *** kadoban has quit IRC
1122016-05-05T08:52:48  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132016-05-05T08:54:18  *** BashCo has quit IRC
1142016-05-05T08:59:17  <GitHub26> [bitcoin] avar closed pull request #8003: Get rid of a compiler warning due to #if 0'd test (master...fix-unused-function-compiler-warning) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8003
1152016-05-05T08:59:52  <GitHub154> [bitcoin] avar opened pull request #8005: Add a comment indicating that the btc devs don't want a warning fixed (master...note-that-unused-function-compiler-warning-should-not-be-fixed) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8005
1162016-05-05T09:04:25  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172016-05-05T09:14:02  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182016-05-05T09:20:09  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1192016-05-05T09:25:54  *** ghtdak has quit IRC
1202016-05-05T09:27:16  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212016-05-05T09:59:11  *** jtimon has quit IRC
1222016-05-05T09:59:17  *** kadoban has quit IRC
1232016-05-05T10:38:10  *** xiangfu has quit IRC
1242016-05-05T10:44:01  <GitHub73> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/42a67533828f...f9b4582292e8
1252016-05-05T10:44:01  <GitHub73> bitcoin/master 47eda2d fanquake: [depends] Add -stdlib=libc++ to darwin CXX flags
1262016-05-05T10:44:02  <GitHub73> bitcoin/master f9b4582 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8002: [depends] Add -stdlib=libc++ to darwin CXX flags...
1272016-05-05T10:44:16  <GitHub176> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8002: [depends] Add -stdlib=libc++ to darwin CXX flags (master...depends-darwin-stdlib) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8002
1282016-05-05T10:48:01  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292016-05-05T10:52:24  <GitHub88> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f9b4582292e8...ff69aafe52f9
1302016-05-05T10:52:24  <GitHub88> bitcoin/master 0281678 Warren Togami: doc: Fedora build requirements
1312016-05-05T10:52:25  <GitHub88> bitcoin/master ff69aaf Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7968: doc: Fedora build requirements...
1322016-05-05T10:52:35  <GitHub75> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7968: doc: Fedora build requirements (master...fedora_build_readme) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7968
1332016-05-05T10:52:53  <GitHub74> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ff69aafe52f9...e8d917591f28
1342016-05-05T10:52:53  <GitHub74> bitcoin/master f7c4f79 Daniel Kraft: [trivial] Add missing const qualifiers....
1352016-05-05T10:52:54  <GitHub74> bitcoin/master e8d9175 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7977: [trivial] Add missing const qualifiers....
1362016-05-05T10:53:04  <GitHub193> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7977: [trivial] Add missing const qualifiers. (master...consts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7977
1372016-05-05T10:54:33  <GitHub20> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e8d917591f28...06303533230f
1382016-05-05T10:54:34  <GitHub20> bitcoin/master f90efbf Andrew: Create signmessagewithprivkey rpc...
1392016-05-05T10:54:34  <GitHub20> bitcoin/master 7db0ecb Andrew Chow: Test for signing messages...
1402016-05-05T10:54:35  <GitHub20> bitcoin/master 0630353 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7953: Create signmessagewithprivkey rpc...
1412016-05-05T10:54:42  <GitHub14> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7953: Create signmessagewithprivkey rpc (master...signmessagewithprivkey) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7953
1422016-05-05T10:57:52  <GitHub54> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/06303533230f...d51618e481ab
1432016-05-05T10:57:53  <GitHub54> bitcoin/master 091d6e0 Wladimir J. van der Laan: http: Do a pending c++11 simplification...
1442016-05-05T10:57:53  <GitHub54> bitcoin/master f97b410 Wladimir J. van der Laan: http: Add log message when work queue is full...
1452016-05-05T10:57:54  <GitHub54> bitcoin/master 37b2137 Wladimir J. van der Laan: http: Change boost::scoped_ptr to std::unique_ptr in HTTPRequest...
1462016-05-05T10:58:00  <GitHub179> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7966: http: Do a pending c++11 simplification handling work items (master...2016_04_httpserver_c++11) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7966
1472016-05-05T10:58:02  *** anchow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482016-05-05T11:01:15  <wumpus> anything else that is ready for merge?
1492016-05-05T11:02:13  *** achow101 has quit IRC
1502016-05-05T11:02:34  *** ghtdak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512016-05-05T11:02:40  <gmaxwell> I wish I knew where #7840 was.
1522016-05-05T11:09:01  <wumpus> well seems to have plenty of tested as well as untested acks
1532016-05-05T11:09:19  <wumpus> there are some nits by sdaftuar: do they need to be handled in that pull?
1542016-05-05T11:10:00  <gmaxwell> sipa wanted to stop making refactors further, otherwise it would never go in, so I dont ~think~ so.
1552016-05-05T11:10:11  <gmaxwell> I have further changes on top of that that I'm siting on waiting for that to go in.
1562016-05-05T11:10:24  <wumpus> if there is nothing *critical* and it's only about refactors, I'd suggest the same
1572016-05-05T11:13:15  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582016-05-05T11:13:15  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592016-05-05T11:14:33  <wumpus> so that means #7840 is ready...
1602016-05-05T11:14:59  <GitHub130> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d51618e481ab...3b9a0bf41f23
1612016-05-05T11:15:00  <GitHub130> bitcoin/master f2d3ba7 Gregory Maxwell: Eliminate TX trickle bypass, sort TX invs for privacy and priority....
1622016-05-05T11:15:00  <GitHub130> bitcoin/master dc13dcd Pieter Wuille: Split up and optimize transaction and block inv queues
1632016-05-05T11:15:01  <GitHub130> bitcoin/master ed70683 Pieter Wuille: Handle mempool requests in send loop, subject to trickle...
1642016-05-05T11:15:06  <GitHub56> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7840: Several performance and privacy improvements to inv/mempool handling (master...splitinvtxblock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7840
1652016-05-05T11:15:19  <wumpus> anything else?
1662016-05-05T11:16:19  *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672016-05-05T11:16:32  <wumpus> doing final testing on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7814 at the moment
1682016-05-05T11:16:46  <gmaxwell> wumpus: whats the goal in the rounds of merging right now? just cleaning out backlog?
1692016-05-05T11:16:54  <wumpus> just moving forward
1702016-05-05T11:17:05  <gmaxwell> Good.
1712016-05-05T11:18:31  <gmaxwell> #7934 seems good to me I've had it running since my utACK without issue.
1722016-05-05T11:23:17  *** fengling has quit IRC
1732016-05-05T11:25:23  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742016-05-05T11:25:29  <fanquake> wumpus issues that could be reviewed/closed by inactivity 6835 6355
1752016-05-05T11:26:37  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1762016-05-05T11:28:02  <wumpus> yes #6835 won't be merged anyway - it at least used to be kept up to date by people that cared about it, but it can just as well be a separate branch on someone's repository without being a pull request
1772016-05-05T11:29:31  <fanquake> Also #7149
1782016-05-05T11:30:24  <wumpus> not sure about #6355, seems it just received very little review and testing
1792016-05-05T11:31:37  <wumpus> generally I don't close pulls for inactivty, only issues, if the OP doesn't respond to requests for more data. In this case the author can't help that his PR received so little attention
1802016-05-05T11:32:51  <wumpus> bah #7149 has a lot of changes for a 'bugfix'
1812016-05-05T11:47:04  <fanquake> Seems that #7814 fails on osx when you run the extended test suite
1822016-05-05T11:51:54  *** MarcoFalk_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832016-05-05T11:52:32  <MarcoFalk_> fanquake, which test / exception?
1842016-05-05T11:54:47  *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852016-05-05T11:55:20  <fanquake> MarcoFalk_ will post to GH
1862016-05-05T11:57:09  <fanquake> Looks like you've just missed signmessages.py
1872016-05-05T11:59:22  <MarcoFalk_> When was this merged?
1882016-05-05T11:59:29  <MarcoFalk_> Is probably a merge conflict
1892016-05-05T12:00:07  <MarcoFalk_> You are running merge(master, pull) ?
1902016-05-05T12:00:12  <fanquake> When did I merge it? 10 minutes ago
1912016-05-05T12:00:35  <fanquake> Looking at the PR, you haven't touched signmessages.py at all
1922016-05-05T12:02:52  <MarcoFalk_> Oh, actually you need to compile if you also want to run the signmessage.py test
1932016-05-05T12:03:11  *** arowser has quit IRC
1942016-05-05T12:03:24  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952016-05-05T12:10:17  <GitHub118> [bitcoin] Tyler-Hardin opened pull request #8006: Qt: Add option to disable the system tray icon (master...disable-tray) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8006
1962016-05-05T12:14:42  <jonasschnelli> Whoha! PR/Issue# >8000!
1972016-05-05T12:15:56  <wumpus> it will take some getting used to 5-digit PRs/issues
1982016-05-05T12:17:29  <jonasschnelli> hah.. yes. Soon.
1992016-05-05T12:18:25  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2002016-05-05T12:22:55  *** fanquake has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2012016-05-05T12:30:35  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
2022016-05-05T12:49:01  *** MarcoFalk_ has quit IRC
2032016-05-05T12:55:52  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042016-05-05T13:00:37  *** fengling has quit IRC
2052016-05-05T13:15:08  *** blur3d has quit IRC
2062016-05-05T13:20:24  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
2072016-05-05T13:31:52  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2082016-05-05T13:41:07  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092016-05-05T13:41:07  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102016-05-05T13:50:29  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112016-05-05T13:51:38  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122016-05-05T14:07:04  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
2132016-05-05T14:15:46  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
2142016-05-05T14:20:55  *** MrHodl has quit IRC
2152016-05-05T14:25:57  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162016-05-05T14:27:30  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2172016-05-05T14:30:15  *** gill3s has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2182016-05-05T14:31:33  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192016-05-05T14:31:35  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202016-05-05T14:34:50  *** BonyM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212016-05-05T14:36:05  *** gill3s has quit IRC
2222016-05-05T14:38:27  *** BonyM has quit IRC
2232016-05-05T14:38:44  *** BonyM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242016-05-05T14:40:03  *** gill3s has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252016-05-05T14:45:08  *** Arnavion has quit IRC
2262016-05-05T14:45:27  *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272016-05-05T14:49:10  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282016-05-05T14:53:31  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2292016-05-05T14:55:31  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302016-05-05T14:58:56  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312016-05-05T14:59:20  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322016-05-05T15:03:36  *** fengling has quit IRC
2332016-05-05T15:04:48  <GitHub126> [bitcoin] kazcw opened pull request #8007: Minor locking improvements (master...locknits) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8007
2342016-05-05T15:19:47  *** gill3s has quit IRC
2352016-05-05T15:21:13  *** [\\\] has quit IRC
2362016-05-05T15:22:31  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372016-05-05T15:27:51  *** ebfull has quit IRC
2382016-05-05T15:42:30  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392016-05-05T16:02:32  *** tylerhardin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2402016-05-05T16:06:52  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
2412016-05-05T16:07:59  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2422016-05-05T16:10:00  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
2432016-05-05T16:10:49  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2442016-05-05T16:27:28  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2452016-05-05T16:29:14  *** dirtynewshoes has quit IRC
2462016-05-05T16:31:22  *** dirtynewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472016-05-05T16:43:36  *** Don_John has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2482016-05-05T16:44:42  *** Don_John has quit IRC
2492016-05-05T16:56:31  *** jannes has quit IRC
2502016-05-05T17:00:34  *** muuqwaul has quit IRC
2512016-05-05T17:02:00  <GitHub84> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3b9a0bf41f23...006cdf64dc93
2522016-05-05T17:02:00  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master ec9ad5f Patrick Strateman: Replace memcmp with std::equal in CScript::FindAndDelete...
2532016-05-05T17:02:01  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master c0f660c Patrick Strateman: Replace c-style cast with c++ style static_cast.
2542016-05-05T17:02:01  <GitHub84> bitcoin/master e2a30bc Gavin Andresen: Unit test for CScript::FindAndDelete
2552016-05-05T17:02:04  <GitHub194> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7907:  Optimize and Cleanup CScript::FindAndDelete (master...2016-04-17-findanddelete) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7907
2562016-05-05T17:02:06  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572016-05-05T17:04:58  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2582016-05-05T17:05:03  <GitHub197> [bitcoin] JeremyRand opened pull request #8009: Docs: Fixed invalid example paths in gitian-building.md (master...doc-gitian-building-offline-paths-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8009
2592016-05-05T17:06:37  *** fengling has quit IRC
2602016-05-05T17:12:07  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612016-05-05T17:24:53  *** fedruantine has quit IRC
2622016-05-05T17:27:19  *** arowser has quit IRC
2632016-05-05T17:27:47  *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642016-05-05T17:31:37  *** jtimon has quit IRC
2652016-05-05T17:46:34  *** TomMc has quit IRC
2662016-05-05T18:23:01  *** ebfull has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672016-05-05T18:23:44  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
2682016-05-05T18:26:10  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692016-05-05T18:30:15  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
2702016-05-05T18:56:03  *** To7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712016-05-05T18:57:17  *** muuqwaul has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722016-05-05T19:00:09  <wumpus> meeting time?
2732016-05-05T19:00:28  <anchow101> yes?
2742016-05-05T19:00:54  <btcdrak> yes
2752016-05-05T19:01:09  <jonasschnelli> yes
2762016-05-05T19:01:24  <gmaxwell> I guess so.
2772016-05-05T19:01:24  <wumpus> #startmeeting
2782016-05-05T19:01:24  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu May  5 19:01:24 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
2792016-05-05T19:01:24  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
2802016-05-05T19:01:51  <BlueMatt> hi all
2812016-05-05T19:02:02  <btcdrak> topics?
2822016-05-05T19:02:17  <wumpus> last week's action items were
2832016-05-05T19:02:18  <wumpus> ACTION: (sipa) list a few areas where i think mildly tricky things are done that warrant review (wumpus, 19:08:50)
2842016-05-05T19:02:23  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852016-05-05T19:02:26  <sipa> in a plane, i can only stay online for 15 minutes
2862016-05-05T19:02:32  <wumpus> ACTION: bip 144 needs to include the service bit stuff
2872016-05-05T19:02:33  <sipa> oops, forgot about that; will do
2882016-05-05T19:02:40  <sipa> that's done
2892016-05-05T19:02:42  <instagibbs> wumpus, merged
2902016-05-05T19:02:45  <gmaxwell> petertodd: morcos: sdaftuar: phantomcircuit: MarcoFalk_: jonasschnelli: luke-jr: jtimon: instagibbs:
2912016-05-05T19:02:45  <wumpus> ACTION: (gmaxwell) try to extract some feedback e.g. from roasbeef to reimplemented, who might be aware of other limitations in the spec
2922016-05-05T19:03:00  <phantomcircuit> im here
2932016-05-05T19:03:04  <sdaftuar> hi
2942016-05-05T19:03:18  <cfields> here
2952016-05-05T19:03:26  <gmaxwell> wumpus: I've failed to do that so far, sorry.
2962016-05-05T19:03:39  <wumpus> no rush I suppose
2972016-05-05T19:03:43  <wumpus> any other topics?
2982016-05-05T19:03:59  <anchow101> segwit versionbit
2992016-05-05T19:04:02  <nickler> I've had a look at the btcd segwit PR, it includes around 5 tests
3002016-05-05T19:04:21  <wumpus> #topic segwit versionbit
3012016-05-05T19:04:44  *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022016-05-05T19:04:53  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032016-05-05T19:04:59  <anchow101> The bip still says tbd for bit and date.
3042016-05-05T19:05:08  * sipa randomly proposes bit (1 << 4)
3052016-05-05T19:05:28  * instagibbs tries rng, gets 4
3062016-05-05T19:05:30  <wumpus> if there's no special reason to pick a specific bit I'd suggest previous_bit+1
3072016-05-05T19:05:31  <btcdrak> 8 is lucky in China
3082016-05-05T19:05:52  <sdaftuar> previous_bit + 1 makes sense to me...
3092016-05-05T19:05:55  <btcdrak> wumpus: ack
3102016-05-05T19:05:55  <sipa> so (1 << 1), also fine
3112016-05-05T19:06:00  <anchow101> +1
3122016-05-05T19:06:13  <BlueMatt> I'm with btcdrak
3132016-05-05T19:06:22  <wumpus> otherwise it leaves holes, not a big deal, but dealing out consecutively may reduce the chance of accidentally duplicate assignments
3142016-05-05T19:06:31  <btcdrak> are we ready to think about dates? even for testnet?
3152016-05-05T19:06:50  <jl2012> i think we should set the testnet date now?
3162016-05-05T19:06:53  <gmaxwell> sipa: whatever number you're proposing please post it to the mailing list.
3172016-05-05T19:07:17  <jl2012> start 1 Apr 2016, end 1 Jan 2018?
3182016-05-05T19:07:26  <wumpus> probably we should have some living document that keeps track of current bit assignments, outside the bips
3192016-05-05T19:07:32  <NicolasDorier> for testnet do we need a date ? we did not for csv
3202016-05-05T19:08:23  <anchow101> NicolasDorier, the dat for csv on testnet was March 1st
3212016-05-05T19:08:27  <anchow101> *date
3222016-05-05T19:08:35  <NicolasDorier> ok my bad
3232016-05-05T19:09:36  *** fengling has quit IRC
3242016-05-05T19:09:46  <btcdrak> wumpus: maybe we can add a file bip-0009/assignments.md in the bips repository
3252016-05-05T19:09:49  <anchow101> If the release can be out before June, what about June 1st for a mainnet start date? And May 1st for testnet?
3262016-05-05T19:09:56  *** cloudnthings has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3272016-05-05T19:10:22  <gmaxwell> Dates should not be set until the software is known ready for release, and we are not currently there.
3282016-05-05T19:10:29  <gmaxwell> There is no need to be over-eager.
3292016-05-05T19:10:36  <sipa> i think we need to have a deployment active on testnet before even beginning to consider a start time on mainnet
3302016-05-05T19:10:51  <wumpus> btcdrak: sounds good to me
3312016-05-05T19:10:58  <gmaxwell> I think june first would be fine, but it could be set the day before, for all the system cares.
3322016-05-05T19:11:29  <wumpus> #action add a file bip-0009/assignments.md in the bips repository to keep track of an overview of current bit assignments separate from their bips
3332016-05-05T19:11:32  <btcdrak> jl2012: no need to have such a long expiry date for testnet.
3342016-05-05T19:13:26  <wumpus> okay
3352016-05-05T19:13:53  <wumpus> so do people agree on june 1?
3362016-05-05T19:14:03  <morcos> for testnet?
3372016-05-05T19:14:04  <sipa> for testnet?
3382016-05-05T19:14:10  <morcos> i don't see why not make it earlier
3392016-05-05T19:14:14  <wumpus> that's what the discussion is about right?
3402016-05-05T19:14:24  <morcos> it kind of doesn't matter, just make it may 1st and it happens when it happens
3412016-05-05T19:14:32  <sipa> indeed
3422016-05-05T19:14:36  <wumpus> for mainnet it'd be kind of crazy to decide on an activation date now IMO
3432016-05-05T19:14:37  <btcdrak> morcos: ack
3442016-05-05T19:14:43  <sipa> we're not testing the deployment logic and teansitions
3452016-05-05T19:14:47  <gmaxwell> morcos +1 for testnet.
3462016-05-05T19:14:58  <sipa> may 1st for testnet sounds finr
3472016-05-05T19:15:04  <wumpus> may 1st? more time travel? I've seen enough deloreans this week
3482016-05-05T19:15:10  <jonasschnelli> hah
3492016-05-05T19:15:11  <morcos> i might be obnoxious and start now...  :)
3502016-05-05T19:15:19  <instagibbs> morcos, hostile softforks incoming
3512016-05-05T19:15:26  * sipa is going to disappear
3522016-05-05T19:15:27  <gmaxwell> This date is not something that needs to be set _in advance_, and it also shouldn't be set without coordiating with other implementers (at least in principle)
3532016-05-05T19:15:38  <morcos> wumpus: its what we did with csv, it just means you can starg signaling immediately
3542016-05-05T19:15:44  <wumpus> okay, no decision on a date then
3552016-05-05T19:16:02  <wumpus> #action discuss testnet activation date on bitcoin-dev mailing list
3562016-05-05T19:16:07  <morcos> gmaxwell: i kind of disagree, i think that the code is mature enough that we should activate on testnet now
3572016-05-05T19:16:16  <gmaxwell> morcos: I'm not talking about testnet.
3582016-05-05T19:16:25  <morcos> gmaxwell: teh rest of us are  :)
3592016-05-05T19:16:26  <wumpus> we AREE talking about testnet
3602016-05-05T19:16:31  <gmaxwell> Testnet is fine. do whatever with testnet. If it causes turbulance there, oh well.
3612016-05-05T19:16:33  <wumpus> please don't confuse things
3622016-05-05T19:16:49  <gmaxwell> wumpus: _YOU_ are talking about testnet jl2012 and anchow101 were not.
3632016-05-05T19:17:08  <gmaxwell> I already +1 morcos for testnet.
3642016-05-05T19:17:08  <wumpus> huh *confused*
3652016-05-05T19:17:08  <jl2012> no, I'm talking about testnet
3662016-05-05T19:17:29  <phantomcircuit> haha
3672016-05-05T19:17:35  <morcos> ok so to summarize, email to bitcoin ML stating we are setting the testnet activation start date as may 1st because we believe at this point the activation start date is likely the only consensus change remaining with segwit
3682016-05-05T19:18:12  <gmaxwell> Because it's testnet and the delayed start logic doesn't apply there, we don't care about creating turbulance there if miners upgrade ahead of nodes.
3692016-05-05T19:18:12  <wumpus> makes sense
3702016-05-05T19:18:20  <morcos> this will allow anyone to test their various versions of segwit (different implementations and backports) against each other potentially even before merging
3712016-05-05T19:18:47  <anchow101> morcos: ack
3722016-05-05T19:18:52  <morcos> gmaxwell: yes there is no reason to delay, but there is reason to agree on the start date so that we all activate at the same time
3732016-05-05T19:19:21  <gmaxwell> morcos: yes, may first is fine.
3742016-05-05T19:19:33  *** anchow101 is now known as achow101
3752016-05-05T19:19:39  <btcdrak> ok so (1<<1) with activation may 1st for testnet, and (1<<1) and date TDB for mainnet
3762016-05-05T19:19:48  <jonasschnelli> ack
3772016-05-05T19:19:52  <achow101> yes
3782016-05-05T19:20:07  <morcos> btcdrak: ack
3792016-05-05T19:20:20  <paveljanik> ack
3802016-05-05T19:20:26  <morcos> but what does TDB stand for?  :)
3812016-05-05T19:20:43  * btcdrak palms face
3822016-05-05T19:20:45  <gmaxwell> Totally delicious burger.
3832016-05-05T19:20:48  <jl2012> ack 1 May testnet, how about expiry date?
3842016-05-05T19:20:55  <cfields> ack, but we need to get the gbt changes in place quickly so that testnet is a valid representation of what miners will be running
3852016-05-05T19:21:03  <btcdrak> j2012: 1 year.
3862016-05-05T19:21:09  <morcos> ack 1 year
3872016-05-05T19:21:27  <BlueMatt> sgtm
3882016-05-05T19:21:31  <btcdrak> (1<<1) with activation may 1st and expiry 1 year for testnet, and (1<<1) and dates TBD for mainnet
3892016-05-05T19:21:34  <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: when will we see testnet fork?
3902016-05-05T19:21:47  <morcos> cfields: can you summarize what GBT changes are needed still?
3912016-05-05T19:22:57  <morcos> does #7935 have anything at all to do with segwit?
3922016-05-05T19:23:27  <cfields> morcos: there's a proposal to bip9 that would require that miners set a flag signaling awareness of segwit
3932016-05-05T19:23:46  <cfields> *proposed amendment
3942016-05-05T19:24:39  <cfields> morcos: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/365
3952016-05-05T19:25:14  <morcos> ok i haven't read through all that but i kind of thought it was orthogonal to segwit.  we already have versionbits SF's in the process of being activated.  is segwit somehow materially different.  if not, lets not confuse the issues
3962016-05-05T19:25:58  <gmaxwell> morcos: it's just that a non-sw aware miner can't use GBT w/ segwit and keep mining while they can use CSV.
3972016-05-05T19:26:40  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i don't follow why that is, can you explain?
3982016-05-05T19:27:16  <cfields> morcos: assuming that's adopted, some miners won't be creating blocks with commitments, so i'd like to make sure that we're testing on testnet. Otherwise it's not a great representation of mainnet mining.
3992016-05-05T19:27:21  <gmaxwell> I could be speaking out of my rear, my understanding at a distance was that non-SW ready gbt clients won't insert the commitment.
4002016-05-05T19:27:32  <sdaftuar> but the commitment is created by bitcoind
4012016-05-05T19:28:02  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: classical GBT does not include a coinbase transaction, the client generates it using information from the template.
4022016-05-05T19:28:13  <morcos> if can't use GBT means can't change the txs selected by bitcoind then maybe you're right, but that seems a secondary problem
4032016-05-05T19:28:15  <cfields> sdaftuar: if a miner is too old to understand how to insert the commitment, bitcoind can provide only non-witness txs, so that the miner continues to produce valid blocks
4042016-05-05T19:28:55  <morcos> maybe we should take this up after the meeting.
4052016-05-05T19:29:14  <gmaxwell> sounds fine.
4062016-05-05T19:29:53  <cfields> ok. i only mentioned because i'd like to start upstreaming the mining/pool patches if we're going to deploy on testnet. And can't do that until the gbt stuff is finalized
4072016-05-05T19:30:02  <cfields> but fine to discuss later, i don't think it'll be an issue
4082016-05-05T19:30:39  <wumpus> ok, any other topics to be discussed?
4092016-05-05T19:30:42  <NicolasDorier> yes
4102016-05-05T19:30:55  <NicolasDorier> I just want opinion about
4112016-05-05T19:30:59  <NicolasDorier> making sure the wallet does not create uneconomical output based on current fees, and not based on mintxrelayfee (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7677)
4122016-05-05T19:31:05  <wumpus> nickler mentioned btcd segwit PR tests, but I'm not sure that was a topic suggestion
4132016-05-05T19:31:08  <morcos> cfields: i'd just like to distinguish between necessary changes and changes that are only needed if miners are going to be modifying the tx selection created by bitcoind.  the second category in my mind should not stand in the critical path
4142016-05-05T19:31:46  <NicolasDorier> I had problems with customers when mintxrelayfee where bump because occasionally wallet would produce bellow mintxrelayfee dust for other nods.
4152016-05-05T19:31:57  <wumpus> #topic uneconomical outputs in wallet based on current fees
4162016-05-05T19:32:03  <NicolasDorier> So I proposed to work on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7677
4172016-05-05T19:32:04  <nickler> wumpus: nope I was referring to the action item that mentioned roasbeefs implementation
4182016-05-05T19:32:09  <BlueMatt> also compact block bip, if anyone has bothered to read that
4192016-05-05T19:32:16  <wumpus> nickler: okay :)
4202016-05-05T19:32:28  <cfields> morcos: this has nothing to do with miners modifying tx output. it's that miners need to opt-in to segwit in order for bitcoind to give it witness tx. And that opt-in signal hasn't been implemented yet.
4212016-05-05T19:33:35  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: was that a topic suggestion?
4222016-05-05T19:34:10  <wumpus> any opinions on the wallet issue mentioned by NicolasDorier?
4232016-05-05T19:34:22  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yes
4242016-05-05T19:34:22  <gmaxwell> NicolasDorier: I'll take a look at the issue.
4252016-05-05T19:34:28  <NicolasDorier> Breadwallet had issue also because of that when the mintxrelayfee was bumped
4262016-05-05T19:34:39  <NicolasDorier> so I think we should fix the wallet to not use mintxrelayfee
4272016-05-05T19:34:51  <NicolasDorier> but estimatedfee for determining the dust (only wallet part)
4282016-05-05T19:35:13  <NicolasDorier> would prevent having reliability issue in case it need to be increase in the future
4292016-05-05T19:35:14  <wumpus> it sounds sensible, wallet and relay policy are different things, although the mintxrelayfee should probably be the floor
4302016-05-05T19:35:54  <gmaxwell> or the dust threshould should just be made an infrequently changed fixed constant.
4312016-05-05T19:36:20  <NicolasDorier> gmaxwell: I am talking only about wallet, not relay policy
4322016-05-05T19:36:38  <NicolasDorier> ah
4332016-05-05T19:36:58  <NicolasDorier> I get your point. But well the problem would be the same with a constant. If we get a spam attack, we would increase it
4342016-05-05T19:37:11  <NicolasDorier> and then some wallet will produce below dust rejected by updated nodes
4352016-05-05T19:37:15  <morcos> yes, we should do both things
4362016-05-05T19:37:18  <gmaxwell> lets discuss on the issue.
4372016-05-05T19:37:24  <NicolasDorier> ok
4382016-05-05T19:37:33  <NicolasDorier> there is another quick topic I want to talk about
4392016-05-05T19:37:42  *** GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4402016-05-05T19:37:50  <morcos> we should separate wallet functionality to use some smarter higher value for "dust" and the floor for dust shoudl be a separate variable than the muliple of min relay that it is now
4412016-05-05T19:38:21  <morcos> (floor for dust = policy relay limit for dust)
4422016-05-05T19:38:25  <NicolasDorier> ok, seems good I'll start working on it. It made me some pain nin the past
4432016-05-05T19:38:47  <gmaxwell> morcos: I agree.
4442016-05-05T19:39:34  <NicolasDorier> My other quick topic is
4452016-05-05T19:39:46  <NicolasDorier> long time ago I made a PR to remove unused flag and code
4462016-05-05T19:39:54  <NicolasDorier> on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7574
4472016-05-05T19:40:01  <NicolasDorier> morcos a jtimon had a better idea
4482016-05-05T19:40:08  <NicolasDorier> instead of removing the flag
4492016-05-05T19:40:26  <NicolasDorier> transforming it into one flag for all consensus stuff
4502016-05-05T19:40:36  <NicolasDorier> I'm thinking working on it but
4512016-05-05T19:41:00  <NicolasDorier> if I understand it seems to be better to do such kind of work after the merge of segwit ?
4522016-05-05T19:42:27  <gmaxwell> NicolasDorier: usually if that question arises the answer is yes.
4532016-05-05T19:42:39  <wumpus> yes I think for such non-trivial consensus refactoring it's better to wait until after segwit
4542016-05-05T19:42:52  <NicolasDorier> ok so I'll keep it for later
4552016-05-05T19:44:07  <wumpus> ok
4562016-05-05T19:44:24  <wumpus> #topic compact block bip
4572016-05-05T19:44:24  <gmaxwell> Next subject?
4582016-05-05T19:44:29  <gmaxwell> I read it!
4592016-05-05T19:45:03  <BlueMatt> you're the only one :'(
4602016-05-05T19:45:14  <sdaftuar> not true...
4612016-05-05T19:46:10  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: would you like other people to read it?
4622016-05-05T19:46:21  <BlueMatt> I would :p
4632016-05-05T19:46:24  <BlueMatt> next topic?
4642016-05-05T19:47:36  <cfields> heh, ack
4652016-05-05T19:47:45  <cfields> (ack to reading)
4662016-05-05T19:47:53  <btcdrak> ^
4672016-05-05T19:48:08  <wumpus> so there's nothing about the contents to be discussed?
4682016-05-05T19:48:17  <BlueMatt> wumpus: not really...just hoping for feedback
4692016-05-05T19:48:36  <wumpus> that's what I mean, no feedback
4702016-05-05T19:48:37  <btcdrak> it's pretty dense reading, might need another week...
4712016-05-05T19:48:37  <BlueMatt> wumpus: I think all the outstanding decisions were concluded between gmaxwell and I
4722016-05-05T19:48:44  <BlueMatt> true
4732016-05-05T19:48:56  <gmaxwell> I gave a fair amount of feedback to Matt and he updated prior to putting it up.
4742016-05-05T19:48:59  <BlueMatt> so action to our army of devoted full-time code-reviwers? :p
4752016-05-05T19:49:02  <wumpus> (haven't read it yet)
4762016-05-05T19:49:07  <morcos> too much happening.  we need to clone ourselves.  at least wumpus
4772016-05-05T19:49:11  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: when will the PR be up?
4782016-05-05T19:49:12  <BlueMatt> morcos: yea, that
4792016-05-05T19:49:17  <NicolasDorier> will read it. It takes me more time than most of you to understand it, can't say anything meaningful about it after reading it for 10min :p
4802016-05-05T19:49:23  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: are you just waiting on feedback?
4812016-05-05T19:49:28  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I could do that this week...
4822016-05-05T19:49:29  <wumpus> #action read bluematt's compact block bip
4832016-05-05T19:49:32  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: mostly
4842016-05-05T19:49:34  <wumpus> any URL?
4852016-05-05T19:49:40  <NicolasDorier> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012624.html ?
4862016-05-05T19:49:48  <BlueMatt> wumpus: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/master/bip-TODO.mediawiki
4872016-05-05T19:49:49  <wumpus> #link https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012624.html
4882016-05-05T19:50:01  <wumpus> #link https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/master/bip-TODO.mediawiki
4892016-05-05T19:50:37  <wumpus> ok, any other topics?
4902016-05-05T19:51:52  <gmaxwell> Sounds like no.
4912016-05-05T19:52:12  <wumpus> hey not everyone is a fast typer :)
4922016-05-05T19:52:16  <wumpus> but indeed seems no
4932016-05-05T19:52:23  <NicolasDorier> well it's 4am here ! :p
4942016-05-05T19:52:40  <NicolasDorier> 5 sorry
4952016-05-05T19:52:46  <wumpus> #endmeeting
4962016-05-05T19:52:46  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu May  5 19:52:46 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
4972016-05-05T19:52:46  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-05-05-19.01.html
4982016-05-05T19:52:46  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-05-05-19.01.txt
4992016-05-05T19:52:46  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-05-05-19.01.log.html
5002016-05-05T19:52:47  <jonasschnelli> Japan people work always!
5012016-05-05T19:52:58  <NicolasDorier> jonasschnelli: not this week figure out
5022016-05-05T19:52:59  <BlueMatt> hey, we're early!
5032016-05-05T19:53:03  <NicolasDorier> this is golden week :p
5042016-05-05T19:53:07  <wumpus> yes it's an inconvenient time for japan
5052016-05-05T19:53:56  <morcos> cfields: sorry if you guys have been going over all this GBT stuff already..  i tried looking through the code and BIP PR's but seems like there is a bunch of detailed GBT stuff in there that has pretty much nothing to do with how most miners use it as far as i can tell
5062016-05-05T19:54:33  <morcos> is the problem that miners will replace the coinbase entirely, because the commitment won't actually change if the miners aren't doing witness txs right, so as long as they kept the output, i dont' think they should care
5072016-05-05T19:54:45  <cfields> morcos: np. It's fresh on my mind because i looked at it yesterday/today, otherwise I'd be clueless
5082016-05-05T19:55:10  <sipa> back
5092016-05-05T19:55:15  <jonasschnelli> landed?
5102016-05-05T19:55:26  <cfields> morcos: no, either way, miners will be using what bitcoind provides. We're not talking about modifications here
5112016-05-05T19:55:31  <morcos> sipa: segwit activated on testnet while you were gone.  pretty awesome huh
5122016-05-05T19:55:58  <cfields> (er, "will be using what bitcoind provides" for the sake of this discussion)
5132016-05-05T19:56:11  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5142016-05-05T19:56:21  <sipa> jonasschnelli: yes, sfo
5152016-05-05T19:56:28  <morcos> cfields: yes i understand that we have narrowed the discussion to that case (although since the PR's are not narrowed to that case, they are harder to get through)
5162016-05-05T19:56:52  <sdaftuar> so to clarify: bitcoind will be including a coinbase tx with a valid commitment in response to gbt, right?
5172016-05-05T19:57:34  <sipa> sdaftuar: if there is at least one witness transaction in the block, and there is no commitment already
5182016-05-05T19:57:38  <sipa> (i think)
5192016-05-05T19:57:44  <sdaftuar> sipa: agreed
5202016-05-05T19:57:46  <morcos> what i'm asking is why in that case is it necessary for the miner to be segwit aware?  changing the coinbase doesn't change the commitment, but i'm guessing the problem is that miners override all the coinbase outputs and so that commitment will be lost, and so bitcoind would have to do more work to add it back in and recalc the merkle for the header
5212016-05-05T19:58:28  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5222016-05-05T19:58:30  <gmaxwell> morcos: norma gbt right now has no coinbase transaction in it.
5232016-05-05T19:58:30  <sdaftuar> ^ is morcos' guess here the issue?
5242016-05-05T19:58:46  <gmaxwell> normal*
5252016-05-05T20:00:33  *** BashCo has quit IRC
5262016-05-05T20:01:57  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: ah.  i am just now seeing where that coinbase gets stripped out of the response
5272016-05-05T20:02:34  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
5282016-05-05T20:03:02  <cfields> right, what gmaxwell said. miners insert the coinbase. but old miners don't know to insert the extra txout.
5292016-05-05T20:03:55  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5302016-05-05T20:04:02  <sdaftuar> ok understood now.  so the idea would be to add a mode where CreateNewBlock just doesn't pick witness transactions, which old miners could use?
5312016-05-05T20:04:15  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
5322016-05-05T20:04:27  <cfields> if you only give them non-witness tx's, they'll continue to function fine. if they opt-in for the new serialization, no need to filter
5332016-05-05T20:04:33  <cfields> sdaftuar: right.
5342016-05-05T20:04:34  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: right, and that mode would be default unless a special flag was sent.
5352016-05-05T20:04:40  <sdaftuar> got it
5362016-05-05T20:05:03  <gmaxwell> meaning that there is a guarenteed way to deploy with no mining infra updates.
5372016-05-05T20:05:31  <sdaftuar> yep
5382016-05-05T20:05:56  <cfields> but also a false sense of security while testing. so that's why i'd like to have the opt-in ready for miners to turn on asap
5392016-05-05T20:07:10  <morcos> yes this makes sense to me now too.  but INCREDIBLY frustrating.  we have to rewrite the API for minings. it's absurd to have all this consensus critical logic outside of bitcoind by default.
5402016-05-05T20:08:27  <morcos> sdaftuar points out that extra nonce makes that hard to fix
5412016-05-05T20:10:23  <morcos> cfields: so is there a PR that does what you're suggesting?
5422016-05-05T20:10:57  <cfields> morcos: afaik there's no implementation of the BIP yet.
5432016-05-05T20:11:07  <cfields> luke-jr: have you coded something up, or should I jump on it?
5442016-05-05T20:11:16  <cfields> (sorry, proposed BIP changes)
5452016-05-05T20:12:56  <cfields> morcos: to be more specific: the bip changes are PR'd, but the specific segwit case isn't implemented yet afaik
5462016-05-05T20:12:58  <cfields> sec for link
5472016-05-05T20:13:19  <cfields> morcos: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7935
5482016-05-05T20:13:37  <morcos> yeah i saw that, but i meant the code that only selects non witness txs for the block
5492016-05-05T20:14:20  <cfields> i'm assuming no
5502016-05-05T20:23:14  *** MrHodl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5512016-05-05T20:27:23  <GitHub180> [bitcoin] kazcw opened pull request #8011: don't run ThreadMessageHandler at lowered priority (master...priority) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8011
5522016-05-05T20:30:53  <CodeShark> is meeting still underway?
5532016-05-05T20:31:31  <CodeShark> guess not..sorry I couldn't make it
5542016-05-05T20:33:02  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5552016-05-05T20:35:24  *** cloudnthings has quit IRC
5562016-05-05T20:36:25  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5572016-05-05T20:37:31  *** schmidty has quit IRC
5582016-05-05T20:37:54  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
5592016-05-05T20:40:07  <tripleslash> CodeShark: [2016/05/05 14:52:47] <wumpus> #endmeeting
5602016-05-05T20:40:13  <tripleslash> so about 50 minutes ago.
5612016-05-05T20:43:43  <CodeShark> yeah, already read through the scrollback. thx :)
5622016-05-05T20:48:52  *** GAit has quit IRC
5632016-05-05T20:49:29  *** GAit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5642016-05-05T20:52:13  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5652016-05-05T21:00:46  <gmaxwell> morcos: if only someone had suggested that any hardfork would mask out the constant zero bits in PREV in the header so miners could use it as nonce....
5662016-05-05T21:04:05  *** TomMc has quit IRC
5672016-05-05T21:07:18  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5682016-05-05T21:11:56  *** fengling has quit IRC
5692016-05-05T21:17:34  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5702016-05-05T21:29:48  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
5712016-05-05T21:31:10  <instagibbs> BlueMatt, I assume the XOR-adding scheme wraps around mod 2^64
5722016-05-05T21:31:29  <BlueMatt> instagibbs: yes
5732016-05-05T21:31:32  <BlueMatt> wait, no?
5742016-05-05T21:31:35  <BlueMatt> wait, whats your question?
5752016-05-05T21:31:46  <gmaxwell> he's asking if the addition is uint64_t addition, it is.
5762016-05-05T21:31:58  <BlueMatt> instagibbs: please suggest better wording
5772016-05-05T21:32:17  <BlueMatt> instagibbs: its this: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/blob/udp/src/blockencodings.cpp#L37
5782016-05-05T21:33:53  <instagibbs> wasn't too confusing, but it wasn't stated in the bip
5792016-05-05T21:34:12  <instagibbs> (I'm also prejudiced from previous conversations so better to ask here)
5802016-05-05T21:34:18  <gmaxwell> I have a constructive proof that this scheme is not optimal but I don't think anyone cares.
5812016-05-05T21:36:54  <BlueMatt> yea, I'm not convinced its worth caring, and optimal versions are much more expensive
5822016-05-05T21:37:02  <BlueMatt> considering we're running that on so many txn, I'd prefer not.....
5832016-05-05T21:38:40  <gmaxwell> In an optimal scheme, for any to txids A and B, there should be a salt input C that makes them collide. If there is no such C, then someone trying to create collisions could avoid the pair A,B, and thus increase their success rate.  For this scheme, if A and B share the same even/oddness in each 64 bit word, then no C can make them collide. QED.
5842016-05-05T21:38:53  <gmaxwell> Yes, I don't think it matters but it's useful to know that this exists.
5852016-05-05T21:40:13  <instagibbs> just mentioning uint8 in the definition would be best, ill continue reading post family business
5862016-05-05T21:40:30  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5872016-05-05T21:43:13  <roasbeef> nickler: Yeah, the test coverage on my PR leaves much to be desired. Most of the lingering TODO’s are related to increasing test coverage across the various packages (txscript+blockchain especially).
5882016-05-05T21:43:55  <roasbeef> nickler: Once I get the tests in, I’ll be restructuring the commits as they’ve started to sprawl a bit as I’ve fixed bugs, tweaked API’s, etc. I’ve been busy with other non-bitcoin stuff (this whole graduating thing), but hope to get the PR to it’s final form (insert Frieza meme ;) ) in the next week or two.
5892016-05-05T21:45:30  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
5902016-05-05T21:55:26  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
5912016-05-05T22:24:04  *** sipa has quit IRC
5922016-05-05T22:24:10  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5932016-05-05T22:24:35  *** sipa is now known as Guest89961
5942016-05-05T22:38:08  *** pedrobranco has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5952016-05-05T22:42:36  *** pedrobranco has quit IRC
5962016-05-05T22:42:36  *** assder has quit IRC
5972016-05-05T22:47:40  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5982016-05-05T22:50:02  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
5992016-05-05T22:54:09  *** TomMc has quit IRC
6002016-05-05T23:06:16  <nickler> roasbeef: sounds great! My comment was not meant to be judging; the idea was to exchange tests between multiple implementations if possible. Let me know when you've worked on the PR again. Good luck with your graduating thing.
6012016-05-05T23:09:52  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6022016-05-05T23:14:36  *** fengling has quit IRC
6032016-05-05T23:15:34  *** murch has quit IRC
6042016-05-05T23:17:36  <warren> A popular RPM package of Bitcoin uses this patch: https://togami.com/~warren/temp/2016/bitcoin-0.12.0-destchange.patch
6052016-05-05T23:17:45  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
6062016-05-05T23:18:09  <warren> To get rid of this patch what should we upstream?  Matt's guess was to add an optional parameter to an RPC
6072016-05-05T23:19:02  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
6082016-05-05T23:23:32  <roasbeef> nickler: No worries, I took no offense :). Great, I think there's a lot of value in exchanging tests across implementations. I plan to port over core's new json script, sighash and transaction tests to btcd. I'll contribute any additional cases I add upstream to core.
6092016-05-05T23:30:27  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6102016-05-05T23:34:25  <GitHub80> [bitcoin] Tyler-Hardin opened pull request #8012: Qt: Delay user confirmation of send (master...send-delay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8012