12016-09-08T00:28:43  *** justanotherus3r is now known as justanotheruser
  22016-09-08T00:36:51  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  32016-09-08T00:57:37  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
  42016-09-08T00:58:01  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52016-09-08T01:24:37  *** Lauda has quit IRC
  62016-09-08T01:28:09  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
  72016-09-08T01:32:39  *** Lauda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  82016-09-08T01:38:29  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
  92016-09-08T01:39:56  <veleiro> found the problem. couldnt get the depends build to work, but i removed /usr/local/lib/libboost* and /usr/local/include/boost* and reinstalled libboost-all-dev. thanks for the advice sipa
 102016-09-08T02:08:00  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 112016-09-08T02:10:03  *** Samdney has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 122016-09-08T02:33:26  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 132016-09-08T02:34:31  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142016-09-08T02:39:40  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 152016-09-08T02:54:33  *** dcousens has quit IRC
 162016-09-08T02:56:26  *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 172016-09-08T02:57:44  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 182016-09-08T03:13:07  *** droark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 192016-09-08T03:17:10  *** dcousens has quit IRC
 202016-09-08T03:17:22  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
 212016-09-08T03:21:04  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 222016-09-08T03:36:07  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 232016-09-08T03:37:19  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 242016-09-08T04:17:16  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 252016-09-08T04:18:21  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 262016-09-08T04:35:11  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 272016-09-08T04:36:16  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 282016-09-08T05:11:31  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 292016-09-08T05:12:36  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 302016-09-08T05:22:17  *** Alopex has quit IRC
 312016-09-08T05:23:22  *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322016-09-08T05:32:41  <cfields> jeremyrubin: started reviewing your checkqueue, but the emplacer distracted me. Will pick up where I left off tomorrow.
 332016-09-08T05:50:51  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 342016-09-08T06:35:16  *** kadoban has quit IRC
 352016-09-08T06:38:04  *** arubi_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 362016-09-08T06:41:34  *** arubi has quit IRC
 372016-09-08T06:47:59  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 382016-09-08T06:51:58  *** owowo has quit IRC
 392016-09-08T06:52:17  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 402016-09-08T06:55:30  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
 412016-09-08T07:04:12  *** rubensayshi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 422016-09-08T07:12:00  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432016-09-08T07:34:14  <wumpus> let's try to make cfields network refactor (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8085/files) happen , it's been open so long now, line-wise there's a lot of changes so he keeps having to rebase it
 442016-09-08T07:35:44  <wumpus> /home/user/projects/bitcoin/bitcoin/src/test/addrman_tests.cpp:336:471: warning: stack frame size of 328360 bytes in function 'addrman_tests::addrman_delete::test_method' [-Wframe-larger-than=]    whoa :) luckily only in the tests
 452016-09-08T07:37:58  <sipa> what is a reasonable max frame size?
 462016-09-08T07:38:05  <wumpus> largest in the normal core code is a stack frame size of 67256 bytes in function 'ThreadSocketHandler', which is peculiar but not that bad
 472016-09-08T07:39:03  <wumpus> 64k or so for non-recursive code? most is far below that, even <10kB
 482016-09-08T07:40:34  <wumpus> whopping 'warning: stack frame size of 984520 bytes in function 'net_tests::caddrdb_read::test_method'
 492016-09-08T07:41:46  <sipa> 8654 introduces a 9 kB struct in CTransactionSignatureChecker
 502016-09-08T07:41:55  <wumpus> peanuts
 512016-09-08T07:42:09  <sipa> 984kB sounds like mild overkill, indeex
 522016-09-08T07:42:11  <sipa> indeed
 532016-09-08T07:42:36  <sipa> also, agree on making the net refactor happen
 542016-09-08T07:50:55  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Net factor should happen... I have the PR running since a couple of days...
 552016-09-08T07:51:14  *** moli has quit IRC
 562016-09-08T08:12:31  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 572016-09-08T08:36:19  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 582016-09-08T08:36:23  *** gribble has quit IRC
 592016-09-08T08:44:36  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 602016-09-08T08:59:02  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612016-09-08T09:03:04  *** gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 622016-09-08T09:05:18  *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 632016-09-08T09:13:35  <GitHub87> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ec139a5621a9...ddc308068d69
 642016-09-08T09:13:35  <GitHub87> bitcoin/master f71d4a3 Jeremy Rubin: Minimal fix to slow prevector tests as stopgap measure
 652016-09-08T09:13:36  <GitHub87> bitcoin/master ddc3080 MarcoFalke: Merge #8671: Minimal fix to slow prevector tests as stopgap measure...
 662016-09-08T09:13:50  <GitHub67> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #8671: Minimal fix to slow prevector tests as stopgap measure (master...simple_faster_tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8671
 672016-09-08T09:25:04  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 682016-09-08T09:26:26  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 692016-09-08T09:41:39  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 702016-09-08T09:43:15  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 712016-09-08T10:06:53  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 722016-09-08T10:13:38  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 732016-09-08T10:20:12  *** JackH has quit IRC
 742016-09-08T10:21:08  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 752016-09-08T10:30:04  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 762016-09-08T10:39:58  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772016-09-08T10:45:02  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 782016-09-08T10:53:06  *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 792016-09-08T10:56:48  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 802016-09-08T11:12:12  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 812016-09-08T11:15:07  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 822016-09-08T11:20:14  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 832016-09-08T11:25:36  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 842016-09-08T11:38:19  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 852016-09-08T11:40:47  *** translatoree3 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862016-09-08T11:41:16  <translatoree3> Hello, need help with contributing a translation
 872016-09-08T11:41:54  <translatoree3> I've seen transfix, so translations there get credit on the github bitcoin repo?
 882016-09-08T11:42:04  <translatoree3> I'd like to get credit as I have a github account
 892016-09-08T11:42:54  <translatoree3> is there a way to send a pull request if the Transifex process doesn't give contributor credit on github repo?
 902016-09-08T11:44:56  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912016-09-08T11:58:25  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 922016-09-08T12:01:04  *** blkdb has quit IRC
 932016-09-08T12:01:18  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942016-09-08T12:02:52  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
 952016-09-08T12:04:33  *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962016-09-08T12:05:43  <GitHub24> [bitcoin] bitcoinsSG opened pull request #8683: fix incorrect file name bitcoin.qrc  (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8683
 972016-09-08T12:07:40  *** translatoree3 has quit IRC
 982016-09-08T12:08:16  *** moli has quit IRC
 992016-09-08T12:12:37  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1002016-09-08T12:17:22  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012016-09-08T12:19:53  *** dermoth_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022016-09-08T12:20:17  *** dermoth has quit IRC
1032016-09-08T12:20:19  *** dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
1042016-09-08T12:21:02  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052016-09-08T12:34:05  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062016-09-08T12:36:05  *** MrBTCNor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072016-09-08T12:41:54  *** blkdb has quit IRC
1082016-09-08T12:47:26  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092016-09-08T12:57:45  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102016-09-08T12:59:15  *** vega4 has quit IRC
1112016-09-08T13:11:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
1122016-09-08T13:14:17  *** cryptapus_ has quit IRC
1132016-09-08T13:14:29  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142016-09-08T13:14:29  *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152016-09-08T13:16:25  *** cryptapus_ is now known as cryptapus
1162016-09-08T13:19:07  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172016-09-08T13:19:53  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182016-09-08T13:19:59  *** vega4 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1192016-09-08T13:22:36  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1202016-09-08T13:22:38  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
1212016-09-08T13:23:54  *** blkdb has quit IRC
1222016-09-08T13:24:27  *** veleiro has quit IRC
1232016-09-08T13:25:44  <sipa> cfields: nice work with the network refactor, and sorry for not having the courage earlier to read through 34 commits (it wasn't all that bad)
1242016-09-08T13:31:41  * sipa is slightly annoyed with the introduction of many 'for('s and 'if('s, but seems we're not consistent about that already anyway
1252016-09-08T13:35:30  <cfields> sipa: thanks. np about review. I haven't been pushy about it because it's pretty rough to get through. The next round should be much easier since after this PR it's mostly self-contained
1262016-09-08T13:35:57  <cfields> and yes, sorry about the fors and ifs. I know that one bugs you. That's a habit that I can't seem to get out of
1272016-09-08T13:36:29  <sipa> i realize it's just preference, and i'm sure the existing spaces bother you too :p
1282016-09-08T13:36:29  <cfields> mm, I should get vim to fix that for me
1292016-09-08T13:37:16  <cfields> not at all, they're only reminders that i forgot to space my changes around it (while re-reading post-commit, of course)
1302016-09-08T13:41:41  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312016-09-08T13:59:12  *** Sanakov has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322016-09-08T14:05:38  *** Guyver2_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332016-09-08T14:08:04  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1342016-09-08T14:08:12  *** Guyver2_ is now known as Guyver2
1352016-09-08T14:08:32  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362016-09-08T14:15:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
1372016-09-08T14:17:43  *** assder has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382016-09-08T14:23:29  *** blkdb has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392016-09-08T14:28:18  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
1402016-09-08T14:35:12  *** face_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412016-09-08T14:39:33  *** face_ is now known as face
1422016-09-08T14:48:44  <jeremyrubin> cfields: be sure to look on the latest; I fixed it i beleive
1432016-09-08T14:54:36  *** MrBTCNor has quit IRC
1442016-09-08T14:56:34  <cfields> jeremyrubin: see github comments
1452016-09-08T14:58:56  *** Sanakov has quit IRC
1462016-09-08T15:02:35  <morcos> cfields: i was just trying to review #8660, so this is also a regression caused by https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7946?
1472016-09-08T15:03:11  <jeremyrubin> cfields: yeah you weren't looking at the one i sent you yest
1482016-09-08T15:03:29  <cfields> morcos: aha, probably so
1492016-09-08T15:04:24  <morcos> cfields: i wonder if we need to think a bit more carefully about that pull.  is there anything other than the RPC tests that might be depending on wallets being synced onces cs_main is released
1502016-09-08T15:04:37  <morcos> for instance you could imagine someone using bitcoin core has come to depend on that behavior
1512016-09-08T15:04:54  <morcos> not saying it shouldn't eventually be changed, but seems like something that requires a bit more thought
1522016-09-08T15:05:13  <cfields> morcos: think more about 7946, you mean?
1532016-09-08T15:05:16  <morcos> yeah
1542016-09-08T15:06:11  <jeremyrubin> cfields: oops I'm wrong you were sorry -- i need to fix my github notifs they suck
1552016-09-08T15:06:11  <sipa> morcos: 8660? sure you have the right number?
1562016-09-08T15:06:14  <morcos> what the RPC tests are uncovering is that the wallet can now be out of sync with the blockchain.
1572016-09-08T15:06:16  <cfields> morcos: now that you mention it, i wonder if blocknotify is affected
1582016-09-08T15:06:41  <jeremyrubin> sipa: morcos is referring to the already merged one
1592016-09-08T15:06:42  <morcos> yeoops 8680
1602016-09-08T15:06:49  <jeremyrubin> oops nvm
1612016-09-08T15:07:37  <cfields> ok nm, blocknotify uses the same signal, so the wallet would already be synced there
1622016-09-08T15:07:49  <sipa> cfields: for 8680, isn't it possible to use ping/waitforpong instead?
1632016-09-08T15:08:01  <morcos> sipa: the issues isn't fixing it for the RPC tests
1642016-09-08T15:08:36  <morcos> the issue is whether there are things other than the rpc tests that were relying on wallet always being synced with blockchain once cs_main was released
1652016-09-08T15:09:17  <cfields> sipa: isn't that just punting the problem to "now we assume we're all synced" at a different point?
1662016-09-08T15:09:28  <morcos> also ping/waitforpong would happen to work i think with the current architecture, but not necessarily in the future right..
1672016-09-08T15:10:11  <sipa> morcos: i don't think we can get rid of the synchronizing behaviour of ping/pong without breaking half the network software
1682016-09-08T15:11:01  <morcos> sipa: there is a difference between it always synchronizing network behavior and synchronizing other thigns right?  it just happens that the processing of messages happens in the same thread as the wallet syncing code now
1692016-09-08T15:11:08  *** vega4 has quit IRC
1702016-09-08T15:11:31  <morcos> so you couldn't get to the pong until you'd synced the wallets, but that doesn't seem like something that would necessarily always be true
1712016-09-08T15:11:32  *** rubensayshi has quit IRC
1722016-09-08T15:11:36  <sipa> morcos: i see
1732016-09-08T15:11:51  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742016-09-08T15:11:54  <sipa> yes, i think we should prepare for a case where wallet syncing happens entirely in the background
1752016-09-08T15:12:05  <sipa> and can lag behind more than one block
1762016-09-08T15:12:30  *** vega4 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772016-09-08T15:12:31  <sipa> and network synchronizing messages don't change that
1782016-09-08T15:12:33  <cfields> i suppose that's why sdaftuar was thinking more in terms of wait_for_wallet()
1792016-09-08T15:12:57  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1802016-09-08T15:13:03  <morcos> sipa: agreed.  and i think #7946 has forced that issue to be we have to think about that for 0.13.   b/c as far as RPC is concerned the wallet syncing can be happening several blocks behind now.
1812016-09-08T15:13:30  <morcos> sorry, for master, not 0.13.  i'm still behind.  :)
1822016-09-08T15:15:44  <BlueMatt> so what probably should happen, to avoid changing the api, is that any time you call into wallet it blocks until it has a consistent state with current blockchain
1832016-09-08T15:15:48  <cfields> in the event that we start moving towards more async behavior, i think it's only natural to start introducing blocking rpcs
1842016-09-08T15:16:11  <BlueMatt> otherwise you get an inconsistent rpc api - getblockheight will tell you something and then wallet will be behind that
1852016-09-08T15:16:15  <BlueMatt> which is a hugely surprising api change
1862016-09-08T15:16:16  <cfields> heh
1872016-09-08T15:16:27  *** molz has quit IRC
1882016-09-08T15:16:29  <morcos> cfields: i thought you just typed super fast
1892016-09-08T15:16:37  <BlueMatt> moving wallet sync out of main thread is an important goal - and unlocking cs_main for it is a first step
1902016-09-08T15:16:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
1912016-09-08T15:17:19  <BlueMatt> but an api change like that is probaly just not ok
1922016-09-08T15:17:30  <sipa> that does make sense
1932016-09-08T15:17:47  <sipa> just have the wallet rcps wait for sync
1942016-09-08T15:18:05  <morcos> but what exactly should they wait for
1952016-09-08T15:18:26  <BlueMatt> being up-to-date with the chain state at the call entry
1962016-09-08T15:18:29  <morcos> as you're catching up the blockheight could still be increasing i think
1972016-09-08T15:18:33  <BlueMatt> or, maybe, lock cs_main...
1982016-09-08T15:19:03  <cfields> morcos: you'd need to pass in the synced-to-x height to the wallet rpc :(
1992016-09-08T15:20:40  <morcos> i guess what i just described is an existing problem, so maybe thats ok, b/c cs_main is released anyway
2002016-09-08T15:21:15  <BlueMatt> i mean, ok, what makes the rpc consistent? if the rpc request blocks, then its not crazy to make the state returned consistent with where the chainstate was when you entered the rpc, because otherwise the client is multithreaded and thats gonna be broken no matter what we do
2012016-09-08T15:21:20  <cfields> morcos: but, if you've specifically waited for a certain height/hash, and it's blocked/returned until that's hit, then you're at least synced to that height for the next call
2022016-09-08T15:21:33  <cfields> (ignoring invalidate/reconsider, which ruin all of that)
2032016-09-08T15:21:36  <morcos> cfields: yes. agreed. i think we should fix it that much.
2042016-09-08T15:22:26  <cfields> morcos: well, the new rpcs in #8680 do all that we've described here. We could just wrap the old ones around those...
2052016-09-08T15:23:29  <morcos> cfields: yes that sounds right...  i think we need to call getblockheight from the wallet calls and then use your new calls to wait for that
2062016-09-08T15:23:58  <sipa> well the wallet can remember independently up to what block hash it is synced
2072016-09-08T15:24:08  <sipa> which afaik it does not do now
2082016-09-08T15:24:45  <morcos> sipa: i think you want to avoid querying the wallet mid-block
2092016-09-08T15:25:09  <BlueMatt> sipa: oh? I thought it did?
2102016-09-08T15:25:13  <BlueMatt> It used to at least be on-disk, too
2112016-09-08T15:25:21  <sipa> morcos: eh, yes, how does that matter?
2122016-09-08T15:25:30  <sipa> BlueMatt: yes, but that isn't uodated for every block
2132016-09-08T15:26:01  <BlueMatt> ahh, well, ok, lets update it (in memory) for every block :p
2142016-09-08T15:26:05  <sipa> agree
2152016-09-08T15:27:34  <morcos> sipa: if the wallet rpcs aren't synced using cory's mechanism then when you check the wallet you don't know if its in the middle of syncing some next block (that maybe you weren't waiting for)
2162016-09-08T15:27:53  <morcos> but actually, i guess you still don't know that
2172016-09-08T15:27:54  <morcos> shoot
2182016-09-08T15:29:07  <morcos> so maybe we need to lock the wallet around the SyncWithWallets loops?
2192016-09-08T15:30:06  <sipa> hmm?
2202016-09-08T15:30:17  <cfields> brb
2212016-09-08T15:32:11  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
2222016-09-08T15:32:35  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232016-09-08T15:32:53  <morcos> sipa: isn't there nothing that stops a getbalance() call from happening in the middle of a SyncWithWallets() loop for a given blcok
2242016-09-08T15:33:00  <sipa> so i'm not sure the out of syncness matters to external observers... if you used to wait for a block and then later do and RPC query, it has always been possible that yet another block got processed in between
2252016-09-08T15:33:10  <morcos> yes
2262016-09-08T15:33:17  <morcos> but now half of another block could be processed
2272016-09-08T15:33:18  <sipa> what matters is consistency of wallet rpcs with its own state of the chain
2282016-09-08T15:33:22  <morcos> which seems somehow worse
2292016-09-08T15:33:38  <BlueMatt> sipa: its very, very, strange to get a balance response that is valid as of the middle of a block, but will change before the end of the block
2302016-09-08T15:33:43  <BlueMatt> I'm not sure that ever used to be pososible
2312016-09-08T15:33:54  <morcos> it didn't it was protected by cs_main previously
2322016-09-08T15:34:03  <sipa> what is the middle of a block?
2332016-09-08T15:34:11  <sipa> how can the middle of a block be observed?
2342016-09-08T15:34:31  <morcos> don't you just loop through the txs and call SyncWithWallets individually for each one
2352016-09-08T15:34:34  <sipa> the only problem is using main's tip to determine wallet confirmations etc
2362016-09-08T15:34:51  <sipa> the wallet should use its own tip idea to determine confirmations, instead of main's
2372016-09-08T15:34:53  <morcos> why can't you ask for the balance in the rpc thread while you are in the middle of that loop
2382016-09-08T15:35:33  <sipa> i think that's fine; it won't be counted as confirmed until it's done
2392016-09-08T15:35:46  <sipa> (with the change to use the wallet's idea of the tip)
2402016-09-08T15:36:11  <morcos> sipa: its hard to imagine an exact problem, but it just seems an odd change
2412016-09-08T15:36:21  <morcos> whats the downside to locking the wallet around that loop?
2422016-09-08T15:36:34  <sipa> ah, now i understand what you mean
2432016-09-08T15:36:45  <sipa> to prevent a partially updated wallet
2442016-09-08T15:37:01  <sipa> i think that's fine, yes
2452016-09-08T15:37:09  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
2462016-09-08T15:37:19  <sipa> but i think it can be avoided
2472016-09-08T15:37:29  <morcos> now someone just has to remember these ideas we've discussed.  on that note, lunch time.  :)
2482016-09-08T15:37:30  <BlueMatt> indeed, but we should :)
2492016-09-08T15:37:51  <sipa> enjoy nourishment
2502016-09-08T15:42:08  <cfields> back. all fixed? :)
2512016-09-08T15:43:17  <cfields> morcos: lunch thought: i suppose we'll need the same fencing for individual transactions + wallet interactions
2522016-09-08T15:44:38  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2532016-09-08T15:52:16  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542016-09-08T15:54:40  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
2552016-09-08T15:55:09  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2562016-09-08T15:58:22  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572016-09-08T15:58:23  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582016-09-08T16:02:59  *** jannes has quit IRC
2592016-09-08T16:03:18  *** Sosumi has quit IRC
2602016-09-08T16:04:47  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
2612016-09-08T16:13:29  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622016-09-08T16:18:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
2632016-09-08T16:34:28  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642016-09-08T16:39:47  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
2652016-09-08T16:40:25  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662016-09-08T16:51:02  *** vega4 has quit IRC
2672016-09-08T17:11:19  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682016-09-08T17:15:03  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692016-09-08T17:19:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
2702016-09-08T17:22:12  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712016-09-08T17:27:42  *** jtimon has quit IRC
2722016-09-08T17:29:41  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2732016-09-08T17:30:16  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2742016-09-08T18:00:53  <morcos> cfields: how do you mean?
2752016-09-08T18:04:06  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762016-09-08T18:08:02  *** jyap has quit IRC
2772016-09-08T18:11:25  <cfields> morcos: now that i'm poking around, i can't come up with a realistic example
2782016-09-08T18:12:33  <cfields> morcos: i was thinking about cases where the mempool holds a tx that the wallet isn't in sync with yet, where the mempool presence would lead the rpc caller to expect a wallet entry
2792016-09-08T18:16:30  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2802016-09-08T18:19:53  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2812016-09-08T18:21:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
2822016-09-08T18:22:52  <sipa> i believe we've had a related discussion to this before
2832016-09-08T18:23:21  <sipa> about whether or not external notifications should be sent before or after wallet updates
2842016-09-08T18:23:32  <sipa> or something like that
2852016-09-08T18:23:58  <sipa> because in some cases you want the update as soon as possible, but if you're going to use it to trigger a wallet request, the wallet should be updated first
2862016-09-08T18:28:40  <wumpus> probably there should be an external notification for the core as well as the wallet
2872016-09-08T18:29:41  <wumpus> if you want to be updated of the wallet processing some information, you'd listen for the wallet notification, if you want to know as soon as possible after the core rpocessed something you'd listen for the core notification
2882016-09-08T18:30:12  <sipa> yup, agree
2892016-09-08T18:30:31  <sipa> if the wallet is going to be asynchronously updated from the rest, it should have independent notifications too
2902016-09-08T18:30:40  <wumpus> and in the hypothetical case with with multiple wallets you'd want to register for *that* wallet you're interested in
2912016-09-08T18:30:41  <wumpus> right
2922016-09-08T18:30:47  *** jyap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932016-09-08T18:30:47  *** jyap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2942016-09-08T18:31:26  <wumpus> it would make a lot of sense for wallet processing to be asynchronous
2952016-09-08T18:31:49  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
2962016-09-08T18:31:49  <wumpus> and indeed, in that case there's no use in getting a signal after the wallet got the signal
2972016-09-08T18:31:58  <wumpus> it still has to start processing
2982016-09-08T18:32:24  <wumpus> what you need is a notification from the wallet itself that it processed
2992016-09-08T18:32:55  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3002016-09-08T18:37:14  <jonasschnelli> we have one! -walletnotify *duck*
3012016-09-08T18:39:07  <sipa> yes, but we'd also need a notification from the wallet that it processed a block
3022016-09-08T18:40:22  *** Samdney has quit IRC
3032016-09-08T18:41:05  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Maybe an signal short after when the wallet bestblock was updated.
3042016-09-08T18:41:11  <wumpus> right
3052016-09-08T18:42:08  <jonasschnelli> Though this works agains in the opposite direction then the possible plan of decoupling the wallet process.
3062016-09-08T18:42:23  <jonasschnelli> (if the core side is consuming the event)
3072016-09-08T18:42:56  <sipa> parse error
3082016-09-08T18:44:24  <jonasschnelli> In case we want the wallet be capable of running without the validation (utxo-set/mempool) we should be carefully add signals (or lets say additional coupling between those elements)
3092016-09-08T18:44:44  <wumpus> no, the wallet would be emitting the event
3102016-09-08T18:45:00  <jtimon> I'll be afk during the meeting but will read later
3112016-09-08T18:45:02  <wumpus> the core side doesn't subscribe to it or anything
3122016-09-08T18:45:35  <wumpus> 'has wallet processed block' is only something that external clients may care about, maybe the GUI, but certainly not the core
3132016-09-08T18:45:44  <kanzure> this seems to be someone from a law firm talking about "veil of decentralization" and fork types https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aV-k_6nZ8g&t=43m10s
3142016-09-08T18:45:49  <kanzure> oh crud.
3152016-09-08T18:45:50  <jonasschnelli> Ok. Right. This would make sense.
3162016-09-08T18:45:52  <kanzure> please ignore.
3172016-09-08T18:46:28  * kanzure wanders off
3182016-09-08T18:47:43  *** arubi_ has quit IRC
3192016-09-08T18:50:13  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3202016-09-08T18:50:37  *** pmienk_ has quit IRC
3212016-09-08T18:51:25  <GitHub36> [bitcoin] jl2012 opened pull request #8685: Discourage P2WSH with too big script or stack (master...bigp2wsh) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8685
3222016-09-08T18:54:09  *** pmienk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232016-09-08T18:55:52  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
3242016-09-08T18:56:19  *** jcorgan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3252016-09-08T18:58:06  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3262016-09-08T18:59:49  <wumpus> meeting time?
3272016-09-08T18:59:54  <jonasschnelli> ack
3282016-09-08T18:59:58  <wumpus> #startmeeting
3292016-09-08T18:59:58  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Sep  8 18:59:58 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
3302016-09-08T18:59:58  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
3312016-09-08T19:00:09  <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
3322016-09-08T19:00:14  <morcos> here
3332016-09-08T19:00:19  <CodeShark> here
3342016-09-08T19:00:24  <jeremyrubin> here
3352016-09-08T19:00:28  <BlueMatt> topic: sing morcos happy birthday
3362016-09-08T19:00:29  <petertodd> here
3372016-09-08T19:00:30  <btcdrak> here
3382016-09-08T19:00:31  <cfields> thanks, here
3392016-09-08T19:00:33  <kanzure> here
3402016-09-08T19:00:35  <petertodd> BlueMatt: ack!
3412016-09-08T19:00:40  <wumpus> happy birthday morcos
3422016-09-08T19:00:41  <jeremyrubin> leaked PII
3432016-09-08T19:00:46  <btcdrak> gmaxwell you missed jl2012
3442016-09-08T19:00:47  <kanzure> wumpus: no doxxing :)
3452016-09-08T19:00:51  <jeremyrubin> Alex sing your ssn!
3462016-09-08T19:00:52  <petertodd> kanzure: lol
3472016-09-08T19:01:01  <michagogo> Happy birthday!
3482016-09-08T19:01:02  <luke-jr> morcos: happy birthday https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
3492016-09-08T19:01:02  <morcos> thanks
3502016-09-08T19:01:12  <sipa> morcos: congrats
3512016-09-08T19:01:14  <jcorgan> here in spirit only
3522016-09-08T19:01:24  <btcdrak> saved by DCMA filters "The uploader has not made this video available in your country."
3532016-09-08T19:01:25  <jonasschnelli> morcos: hey! happy birthday.
3542016-09-08T19:01:27  <petertodd> kanzure: happy birthday to anyone who considers themselves born on this date
3552016-09-08T19:01:39  <kanzure> much better.
3562016-09-08T19:01:43  <petertodd> btcdrak: the copyright on happy birthday got overturned :)
3572016-09-08T19:01:53  <btcdrak> petertodd: click the link
3582016-09-08T19:02:07  <wumpus> anyone with proposed topics?
3592016-09-08T19:02:08  <petertodd> btcdrak: oh, that's a great song
3602016-09-08T19:02:12  *** cryptapus has quit IRC
3612016-09-08T19:02:27  <sipa> wumpus: just one: we have quite a queue of things for 0.13.1, and i'd like to encourage people to review
3622016-09-08T19:02:31  <BlueMatt> real topic: segwit-cb bip
3632016-09-08T19:02:32  <btcdrak> wumpus: birthday cake
3642016-09-08T19:02:35  <kanzure> not a topic proposal, but i would like to eventually get a resolution on the after_failure weirdness
3652016-09-08T19:03:01  <jonasschnelli> I just wanted to let you know that there will be two hack days on monday and tuesday 10th and 11th of October after the SB conference in Milan.
3662016-09-08T19:03:17  <petertodd> jonasschnelli: I'll be there
3672016-09-08T19:03:30  <gmaxwell> btcdrak: the list was just based the top participants in the past.
3682016-09-08T19:03:30  <jonasschnelli> More info and registration will follow...
3692016-09-08T19:03:33  <wumpus> yes last week there was an ACTION for "Support for compact blocks together with segwit" (#8393), there has been a bit of review activity in last days, what's the status there?
3702016-09-08T19:04:05  <gmaxwell> wumpus: I've been doing some testing. There aren't many segwit transactions on testnet currently. I was going to call for people to create more once I got more testing setup.
3712016-09-08T19:04:06  <sipa> BlueMatt: i haven't reviewed the changes for the bip you suggested - does it require any code changes to the bitcoin core pr?
3722016-09-08T19:04:32  <wumpus> #info jonasschnelli: I just wanted to let you know that there will be two hack days on monday and tuesday 10th and 11th of October after the SB conference in Milan. More info and registration will follow...
3732016-09-08T19:04:40  <BlueMatt> sipa: possibly, two options, though, one minor, one slightly more
3742016-09-08T19:04:45  <btcdrak> maybe we can ask roasbeef to help tx generation there
3752016-09-08T19:04:57  <wumpus> gmaxwell: more segwit transactions would help, yes :)
3762016-09-08T19:05:30  <sipa> can we pick a topic?
3772016-09-08T19:05:45  <wumpus> #link re: queue of things for 0.13.1, link is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestones/0.13.1
3782016-09-08T19:06:15  <wumpus> #topic segwit-cb bip
3792016-09-08T19:06:18  <btcdrak> jl2012: is everything you are working correctly tagged (or not) for 0.13.1?
3802016-09-08T19:06:44  <BlueMatt> so, to quote github issue "The last commit changes the protocol entirely, adding a cmpctack message. This has the advantage that you could implement receiving of some version of compactlocks without implementing sending that encoding, as well as simplifying the protocol slightly (instead of having to check if the current protocol version is higher-priority according to your probably-compile-time list of supported version you know
3812016-09-08T19:06:44  <BlueMatt> which version you're using directly from the ack message) at the expensee of complicating the implementation somewhat (now you have to add support for another message type and special-case version 1). The last commit is definitely not worth it if we dont anticipate adding more than one or so more versions, but might be worth it if we anticipate compact blocks version 4, 5, 6 at some point. I'll bring this up in the IRC meeting later
3822016-09-08T19:06:50  <BlueMatt> today."
3832016-09-08T19:07:11  <BlueMatt> essentially, the current proposal is that you annoucne the set of compact block versions you want at startup (BIP text says before you send any pong or other compact block messages)
3842016-09-08T19:07:22  <BlueMatt> and each sendcmpct announce implies that you are willing to encode to those
3852016-09-08T19:07:33  <jl2012> btcdrak: including those already tagged, I think 8685, 8654 and 8635 are also for 0.13.1
3862016-09-08T19:07:41  <BlueMatt> and you send them in the priority of what you want to receive
3872016-09-08T19:07:58  <BlueMatt> and the version you use to send is the first one you receive from the other side that you also sent
3882016-09-08T19:08:01  <jl2012> at least we may consider to include in 0.13.1
3892016-09-08T19:08:17  <BlueMatt> and you use the highest-priority one the other side also announced to decode
3902016-09-08T19:08:33  <BlueMatt> (comment text from above link https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/423#issuecomment-245629813 )
3912016-09-08T19:08:53  <sipa> i'm not a fan of changing the code again after all testing, but i do agree it's a cleaner solution, and will make things easier for future extensions
3922016-09-08T19:08:55  <BlueMatt> so this is obviously somewhat complicated
3932016-09-08T19:09:16  <BlueMatt> and the solution would be to introduce a cmpctack which you use to pick the one you want to encode to
3942016-09-08T19:09:34  <sipa> cmpctack containing the version you picked?
3952016-09-08T19:09:40  <wumpus> jl2012: (tagged. number of pulls for 0.13.1 does seem to be getting a bit out of hand)
3962016-09-08T19:09:57  <gmaxwell> can we have some discussion about this outside of the meeting, I want to ask some questions but I think it'll be a design rathole right now. :)
3972016-09-08T19:10:02  <BlueMatt> simplifying the which-do-i-use-to-decode code from "for each sendcmpct msg received, is this higher priority than the previously-highest-prirotiy one" to "the one I saw in a sendcmpct"
3982016-09-08T19:10:14  <BlueMatt> in practice the proposed cmpctack is way more code, but a bit simpler
3992016-09-08T19:10:21  <sipa> BlueMatt: ok, i'll review and adapt the pr
4002016-09-08T19:10:32  <BlueMatt> s/""the one I saw in a sendcmpct"/""the one I saw in a cmpctack"/g
4012016-09-08T19:10:32  <sipa> gmaxwell: ok
4022016-09-08T19:10:38  <BlueMatt> I, personally, dont really like the cmpctack idea
4032016-09-08T19:10:52  <sipa> so what alternative do you propose?
4042016-09-08T19:10:52  <sdaftuar> i do like the cmpctack idea!
4052016-09-08T19:10:52  <BlueMatt> certainly if we plan on having lots of versions, it is simpler protocol-wise
4062016-09-08T19:10:56  <jl2012> wumpus: most of mine are pretty trivial. I am no able to do more than that anyway
4072016-09-08T19:11:15  <BlueMatt> if we only ever have version 1 and 2 and maybe like a 3, then the previous proposal seems perfectly ok to me
4082016-09-08T19:11:27  <morcos> My viewpoint is that we suffer a history of technical debt, and we have a chance now while compact blocks are new to kind of clean up the protocol messages with a bit less fuss
4092016-09-08T19:11:36  <sipa> morcos: agree
4102016-09-08T19:11:38  <BlueMatt> sipa: either way I'm proposing to switch the priority order to first-is-highest from last-is-highest
4112016-09-08T19:11:39  <wumpus> jl2012: agreed
4122016-09-08T19:11:42  <morcos> so we shoudl take the added changes now to be happier later with a better design
4132016-09-08T19:11:51  <luke-jr> would it ever make sense to support a per-block encoding? for example, if nodes at some point want to pass blocks along as-is from peer A to other peers when possible
4142016-09-08T19:12:01  <BlueMatt> note that we have to introduce a backwards compatibility hack if we do cmpctack
4152016-09-08T19:12:17  <gmaxwell> I think it's fine to clean things up. But at some point the correct 'upgrade' is to just introduce a seperate mechenism sendcmpt2 and drop the old one, rather than extending.
4162016-09-08T19:12:25  <sipa> BlueMatt: just say that if no ack is ever sent, it is implicitly for v1
4172016-09-08T19:12:25  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: do we? old CBs will die with segwit anyway..
4182016-09-08T19:13:38  <BlueMatt> sipa: this implies you have to announce sendcmpct version 1
4192016-09-08T19:13:39  <gmaxwell> past some point trying to create a forever design just guarentees technical debt of a different kind. :)
4202016-09-08T19:13:48  <BlueMatt> which the proposal for creating a cmpctack would not do
4212016-09-08T19:14:03  <morcos> we should maybe do as gmaxwell said and discuss after meeting, but i don't think we actually need a hack, you just need to still tell 0.13 nodes that you support v1 and they only understand that by sending them a sendcmpct 1
4222016-09-08T19:14:08  <morcos> but it doesn't hurt to send that to everyone
4232016-09-08T19:14:12  <BlueMatt> alternatively: compact block version 3 can be called something other than compact blocks
4242016-09-08T19:14:15  <BlueMatt> then you can do whatever :P
4252016-09-08T19:14:19  <sipa> BlueMatt: hahaha
4262016-09-08T19:14:27  <sipa> i could live with that too.
4272016-09-08T19:14:29  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yea, thats what I was saying, effectively.
4282016-09-08T19:14:59  <gmaxwell> besides the general framework here has limitations, further latency optinization should basically be a non-goal, because the fiber approach is vastly better in that respect.
4292016-09-08T19:15:12  <BlueMatt> anyway, its taken 15 minutes to explain what the issues are, so maybe decide later, or let other topics go ahead first
4302016-09-08T19:15:39  <wumpus> I don't think any other topics have been (seriously) proposed
4312016-09-08T19:16:15  <wumpus> so go ahead
4322016-09-08T19:16:29  <jl2012> I got to go. See you
4332016-09-08T19:16:38  <morcos> proposed topic: picking a segwit rollout date and announcing this in a wider format
4342016-09-08T19:16:38  <wumpus> see you later jl2012
4352016-09-08T19:16:47  <sipa> jl2012: good night
4362016-09-08T19:16:52  <sipa> BlueMatt: how about just sending sendcmpct2 for v2 :)
4372016-09-08T19:17:00  * sipa hides
4382016-09-08T19:17:16  <gmaxwell> morcos: I think the blocker there was basically having all the things merged in 0.13 branch that we believe would be needed on our end.
4392016-09-08T19:17:18  <BlueMatt> alternatively: version negotiation protocol examples are at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/833dea41c4c757087ef4c35e3b19259ba2f80128/bip-0152.mediawiki#Sample_Version_Implementation and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/0d9b12cf285762e8ff661fe17e3261d014af1581/bip-0152.mediawiki#Sample_Version_Implementation
4402016-09-08T19:17:19  <cfields> topic suggestion: rpc sync assumptions
4412016-09-08T19:17:36  <btcdrak> need review of these backport #8679, should be simple enough
4422016-09-08T19:18:02  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4432016-09-08T19:18:07  <BlueMatt> though I think the second misses the fact that you have to use sendcmpct instead of cmpctack if its version 1
4442016-09-08T19:18:21  <instagibbs_> oh hi. znc bouncer is broke or something.
4452016-09-08T19:18:34  <morcos> gmaxwell: yeah i've been a bit out of touch, and i can see that makes sense..   but i also think it would be nice to give as much warning to the community as possible as to when we are proposing to actually release this
4462016-09-08T19:19:08  <gmaxwell> morcos: yes, a message that says "This will happen soon, our side waiting for X" to give people a chance to raise any concerns would be reasonable, I think.
4472016-09-08T19:19:12  <instagibbs_>  /release/activate/ ?
4482016-09-08T19:19:21  <morcos> instagibbs_: yes, both
4492016-09-08T19:19:25  <CodeShark> we've been giving that message for several weeks already ;)
4502016-09-08T19:19:30  <wumpus> #topic picking a segwit rollout date and announcing this in a wider format
4512016-09-08T19:19:56  <instagibbs_> I've been pointing out the remaining milestone list, but it's a bit opaque for people who aren't actively reviewing stuff
4522016-09-08T19:19:58  <gmaxwell> I went around to soem forks and asked for what their scheduling looked like and the response I got was basically 'after it's deployed in the network'
4532016-09-08T19:20:05  <sipa> we can't propose a rollout date before knowing when we can have 0.13.1 out, and there are quite a few things to work out for that
4542016-09-08T19:20:24  <morcos> sipa: yeah i suppose i agree
4552016-09-08T19:20:26  <CodeShark> I'd rather not pile on additional scheduling issues externally unless we're confident
4562016-09-08T19:20:56  <achow101> is a 0.12.2 backport still happening?
4572016-09-08T19:21:01  <instagibbs_> Would the amount of lead time differ once we've merged all remaining issuess?
4582016-09-08T19:21:07  <wumpus> yes it seems 0.13.1 is a lot more work than expected
4592016-09-08T19:21:17  <wumpus> achow101: I don't think so
4602016-09-08T19:21:51  <btcdrak> achow101: segwit needs compact block relay, so very unlikely.
4612016-09-08T19:22:15  <achow101> ok
4622016-09-08T19:22:17  <luke-jr> "needs"?
4632016-09-08T19:22:22  <wumpus> achow101: getting this into 0.13 in the first place and assuring it is correct is a lot of work, I doubt anyone can pile up the extra work for 0.12
4642016-09-08T19:22:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
4652016-09-08T19:22:51  <BlueMatt> luke-jr: yea, what? segwit doesnt NEED it
4662016-09-08T19:23:00  <instagibbs_> And no one seems to be demanding it, more importantly
4672016-09-08T19:23:05  <BlueMatt> just might be painful if you dont have it
4682016-09-08T19:23:15  <btcdrak> unless you are happy with bigger blocks being relayed without it...
4692016-09-08T19:23:24  <btcdrak> anyway. weeds.
4702016-09-08T19:23:33  <sipa> yes, weeds
4712016-09-08T19:24:07  <instagibbs_> Which PRs need the most attention at this point
4722016-09-08T19:24:07  <gmaxwell> achow101: no we pretty much decided to not do a 0.12. backport over a month ago.
4732016-09-08T19:24:10  <wumpus> weeds?
4742016-09-08T19:24:18  <sipa> wumpus: "we're getting into the weeds"
4752016-09-08T19:24:24  <wumpus> ohh
4762016-09-08T19:24:34  <gmaxwell> achow101: not worth the risk and resource investment, and no one was jumping to do it. From measurements and feedback we've found that virtually no one uses backport releases.
4772016-09-08T19:24:35  <instagibbs_> mfw pieter is explaining English idioms
4782016-09-08T19:24:42  <CodeShark> in the netherlands that might have a different meaning ;)
4792016-09-08T19:24:45  <jonasschnelli> heh
4802016-09-08T19:24:50  <wumpus> yes, 0.12 just isn't a very important topic right now, let's focus on moving forward
4812016-09-08T19:24:56  <wumpus> CodeShark: yes :)
4822016-09-08T19:25:20  <luke-jr> also, if someone really needs 0.12, they can put it behind a 0.13.1 node
4832016-09-08T19:25:21  <wumpus> next topic?
4842016-09-08T19:25:47  <wumpus> #topic rpc sync assumptions
4852016-09-08T19:25:57  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: precisely, and any sw backport would create the disruption people were trying to avoid in staying with an older version.
4862016-09-08T19:26:29  <gmaxwell> wumpus: I don't understand why people thought it was a problem that getbalance could return a "mid block" response.
4872016-09-08T19:26:32  <morcos> just to be clear, the change to reduce cs_main locks is only for 0.14, so we don't have to worry about rpc sync assumptions for 0.13.1 right?
4882016-09-08T19:26:35  <cfields> so, marcos pointed out that the reason that the rpc tests are failing and fix is needed is that we broke some timing assumptions by optimizing some stuff
4892016-09-08T19:27:10  <cfields> so the question is: are those assumptions ok to break (just fix the tests), or are they part of the api?
4902016-09-08T19:27:28  <cfields> wow, re-reading that, that's incredibly vague :)
4912016-09-08T19:27:33  <sipa> morcos: yes
4922016-09-08T19:27:36  <jonasschnelli> Can you make a clear example?
4932016-09-08T19:27:46  <gmaxwell> I think the question should be what do we think the best behavior is. And if the best behavior changes the API, we should do it and document the change.
4942016-09-08T19:27:57  <jeremyrubin> WalletSync expected to occur in test
4952016-09-08T19:28:02  <jonasschnelli> Do we assume the wallet has processed a transaction after getting informed of a blockupdate?
4962016-09-08T19:28:04  <jeremyrubin> *under the lock
4972016-09-08T19:28:08  <luke-jr> does "mid block" include "numbers are being changed, so the value is unlike either the previous OR the next correct value"?
4982016-09-08T19:28:09  <wumpus> gmaxwell: I don't know either, there's no guarantee that blocks are atomically processed by the wallet
4992016-09-08T19:28:25  <sipa> we can make it atomic, as pointed out by morcos earlier
5002016-09-08T19:28:26  <jonasschnelli> s/blockupdate/tipupdate
5012016-09-08T19:28:32  <wumpus> but is it necessary?
5022016-09-08T19:28:32  <morcos> luke-jr: it reflects the full effect of some of the txs in the block but not all
5032016-09-08T19:28:48  <gmaxwell> my understanding is that the tests are doing things like handing a node a block, then instantly checking the wallet, and expecting it to be fully consistent with the block right away. Is this understanding correct?
5042016-09-08T19:28:55  <sipa> my alternative is that we make the wallet aware of the current tip it knows about, and we let confirmations be computed based on that
5052016-09-08T19:29:07  <sipa> that means that mid-block update you can see unconfirmed transactions
5062016-09-08T19:29:12  <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: ex: you do a getblockheight rpc call - under previous versions if you then do a getbalance that balance is up to date to that block, this is no longer true
5072016-09-08T19:29:19  <wumpus> the tests need proper synchronization commands, some of those need to be implemented, I don't think we need to change the whole API for that
5082016-09-08T19:29:24  <morcos> wumpus: well before we get to the atomic block question, there is the question of whether if you wait for the blockchain to be synced to some height, and then query the wallet whether you are getting wallet values of at least that height (mid-block or not)
5092016-09-08T19:29:25  <cfields> gmaxwell: correct. as soon as the height/hash is reflected, they assume the wallet is synced with that height/hash
5102016-09-08T19:29:32  <wumpus> (besides adding those syncronization commands)
5112016-09-08T19:29:54  <jonasschnelli> Can we not just have the wallets bestblock in getwalletinfo and use it for sync with getchaintips?
5122016-09-08T19:29:54  <BlueMatt> sipa: I think mid-block updates is a blatant violation of the "principal of least surprise"
5132016-09-08T19:30:00  <gmaxwell> morcos: okay, I think sipa's suggestion would address that esp with coupled with a way of asking for the wallet's tip.
5142016-09-08T19:30:10  <wumpus> morcos: well it would make sense for the wallet to track where it is, synchronization-wise, absolutely
5152016-09-08T19:30:22  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: uh then we need to remove unconfirmed transactions too?!
5162016-09-08T19:30:24  <wumpus> morcos:  and for thtat info to be available externally
5172016-09-08T19:30:41  <luke-jr> showing a best-wallet-block would make the whole mid-block state even more broken IMO (what best-block will it show mid-state?)
5182016-09-08T19:30:44  <sipa> BlueMatt: there can always be unconfirmed transactions in the wallet
5192016-09-08T19:30:47  <BlueMatt> and, further, if wallet is allowed to return something that is not up to date with the start of the call, this changes literally our entire api....so now anyone using the rpc has to go re-audit all of their uses of it???
5202016-09-08T19:30:53  <sipa> luke-jr: the previous one
5212016-09-08T19:30:56  <BlueMatt> sipa: huh? I mean things mid-block...am I missing what you said?
5222016-09-08T19:31:01  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: it will update its state when its done processing updates, of course.
5232016-09-08T19:31:03  <morcos> fixing the mid-block thing seems pretty trivial to me, why wouldnt' we just do that
5242016-09-08T19:31:07  <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: the bestblock should only be updated after fully processing? Right?
5252016-09-08T19:31:23  <BlueMatt> sipa: i was under the impression you indicated that you would see txn which come later in that block as unconfirmed, while txn earlier in the block are marked confirmed
5262016-09-08T19:31:28  <gmaxwell> Why are people regarding mid block as a bug?!?
5272016-09-08T19:31:31  <sipa> BlueMatt: no
5282016-09-08T19:31:44  <gmaxwell> at _any_ time a transaction can show up and appear in the wallet, unrelated to any blocks.
5292016-09-08T19:31:51  <morcos> gmaxwell: b/c its not a feature?
5302016-09-08T19:31:57  <sipa> BlueMatt: mid-update you would see the transactions of the new block as unconfirmed
5312016-09-08T19:32:00  <luke-jr> that seems the most obvious behaviour, but if you look at bestblock+balance, I would think them a pair, yet balance might be bestblock+partOfNextBlock in reality?
5322016-09-08T19:32:02  <morcos> i mean does anyone want that
5332016-09-08T19:32:03  <BlueMatt> ahh, yes, ok, so i was just confused....txn which appear in wallet before the block has processed seems reasonable
5342016-09-08T19:32:07  <gmaxwell> Unless you want to remove unconfirmed transactions that will always happen.
5352016-09-08T19:32:27  <sipa> i also don't think there is any problem with grabbing a wallet lock during the update
5362016-09-08T19:32:36  <wumpus> so if changing the balance mid-block is regarded as a bug, that should apply to all other state too: the transaction list, for example. It should hold all updates until it processed the entire block
5372016-09-08T19:32:36  <sipa> which would prevent seeing a mid-update state
5382016-09-08T19:32:42  <sipa> i'm just questioning if it is necessary
5392016-09-08T19:32:56  <gmaxwell> it seems strange to me to hurt concurrency to protect a property that we don't actually have (due to unconfirmed transactions)
5402016-09-08T19:33:01  <wumpus> I don't think using the lock for that is a good thing
5412016-09-08T19:33:21  <wumpus> agree with gmaxwell
5422016-09-08T19:33:23  <jonasschnelli> From the wallet perspective processing doesn't matter, you just want to see confirmations... can slowly appear on a tx list IMO
5432016-09-08T19:33:23  <cfields> wumpus: right, that made me cringe. That seems like a major layer violation
5442016-09-08T19:33:36  <morcos> wumpus: gmaxwell: but can you explain what concurrency we are hurting?
5452016-09-08T19:33:44  <morcos> i'm not suggesting we put cs_main covering those again
5462016-09-08T19:33:49  <wumpus> morcos: you have to hold the lock *all* the time while processing the block
5472016-09-08T19:33:53  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: if it were listing your *confirmed* balance as mid-block, then it would be an issue
5482016-09-08T19:33:54  <sipa> wumpus: no
5492016-09-08T19:34:00  <gmaxwell> Wallet processing shouldn't stall when the node is processing a block, at least not any more than strictly necessary.
5502016-09-08T19:34:01  <BlueMatt> which I believe is what people are worried about
5512016-09-08T19:34:07  <sipa> wumpus: the proposal is to grab cs_wallet during the wallet updating for the block
5522016-09-08T19:34:10  * luke-jr wonders if there's a good way to use listsinceblock
5532016-09-08T19:34:17  <sipa> wumpus: which happens in its entirety after main processes the block
5542016-09-08T19:34:19  <morcos> i'm just suggesting we use cs_wallet or some other lock that prevents a wallet specific call from returning until you are no longer in the middle of a loop that calls SyncWithWallets (on a given block)
5552016-09-08T19:34:36  <sipa> wumpus: cs_main isn't even held at the point
5562016-09-08T19:34:36  <wumpus> sipa: I know, but you'd still be holding the wallet lock longer than necessary
5572016-09-08T19:34:45  <BlueMatt> to be fair, all of this should move onto a background thread in the future anyway
5582016-09-08T19:34:50  <gmaxwell> morcos: so now wallet calls will stall block processing? (when the block processing waits to take that lock?)
5592016-09-08T19:34:50  <wumpus> BlueMatt: agreed on that
5602016-09-08T19:34:59  <sipa> yes, and it may be harder to maining if we parallellize/asynchronize things more
5612016-09-08T19:35:02  <wumpus> wallet block processing should be async at some point
5622016-09-08T19:35:16  <BlueMatt> so this would be a temporary fix that we should consider something which will happen on a background thread...lets not get too focused on blocking block processing with it
5632016-09-08T19:35:22  <sipa> morcos: do you think there is a problem with showing the transactions from the being-processed-block as unconfirmed during the update?
5642016-09-08T19:35:24  <morcos> gmaxwell: hmmm, yes i suppose while thats in the main thread thats a bad idea
5652016-09-08T19:35:36  <jonasschnelli> IMO the wallet should process a copy of the block on its own, own thread
5662016-09-08T19:35:43  <sipa> jonasschnelli: yes yes
5672016-09-08T19:35:47  <CodeShark> ^]
5682016-09-08T19:35:49  <wumpus> sipa: probably it will already be in the wallet as unconfirmed anyhow
5692016-09-08T19:35:50  <sipa> jonasschnelli: i think everyone agrees on that
5702016-09-08T19:35:52  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I'm fine with temporary fixes, I'm just confused as to why anything needs to be fixed here except some unrealistic expectations in the tests.
5712016-09-08T19:36:05  <sipa> gmaxwell: i believe the current situation is broken
5722016-09-08T19:36:20  <gmaxwell> sipa: great. I'd like to understand why.
5732016-09-08T19:36:25  <sipa> mid-update you can see half of the block reflected as confirmed transactions, and miss other transactions from that same block
5742016-09-08T19:36:32  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: two issues: getbalance, by default, shows your *confirmed* balance, so you expect that to be consistent...right now it is not clear (I maybe wrong) that it might not show *half* of your actually confirmed balance
5752016-09-08T19:36:51  <morcos> sipa: i think i need to go look more carefully at what SyncWithWallets does with txs from the block, but for instance, coudl you end up removing a conflicted tx, then showing a balance, without having addd the replacement tx yet.  i think yes, and i think thats would be confusing
5762016-09-08T19:36:53  <gmaxwell> okay, I agree showing confirmed for some and not others is odd. Showing some and not others, however I think is fine, and consistent with the normal behavior.
5772016-09-08T19:37:05  <cfields> let's not focus on the details here. The question at hand (mine, anyway), is whether the blocking behavior from 0.13 is considered part of the api, or if it's ok to deviate. If the answer is the latter, we can just fix the tests and move on.
5782016-09-08T19:37:19  <sipa> cfields: blocking what behaviour?
5792016-09-08T19:37:27  <sipa> 0.13 does not have this change
5802016-09-08T19:37:52  <sipa> cfields: i think there is something that needs to be fixed in master, that is deeper than fixing up tests
5812016-09-08T19:37:56  <sipa> cfields: but it may not be much
5822016-09-08T19:38:11  <cfields> sipa: right, 0.13 doesn't give up the lock
5832016-09-08T19:38:21  <sipa> indeed, 0.13 is totally fine
5842016-09-08T19:38:27  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: second, we are making an API change here, which it seems to me is probably going to break clients: previously if you called getblockheigh, and then getbalance, getbalance will be up-to-date at least as of that block...this is no longer true. I can absolutely see clients having assumed this
5852016-09-08T19:38:29  <wumpus> "okay, I agree showing confirmed for some and not others is odd" absolutely. This would break the assumption that curtip-block which tx was confirmed in is the number of confirmations
5862016-09-08T19:38:37  <gmaxwell> cfields: That the wallet blocks shouldn't be part of the api. Certian consistency properties might reasonably be.  I'm actually dubious that seeing confirmations incrementally is actually a problem.
5872016-09-08T19:38:50  *** instagibbs_ has quit IRC
5882016-09-08T19:38:57  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: no, thats not really true either, since the chain can reorg between those two calls.
5892016-09-08T19:39:07  <cfields> sipa: right. and now master has changed that behavior. So if the behavior is considered to be part of the api, we need to revert it
5902016-09-08T19:39:10  <jonasschnelli> Why can't we not just use SyncWithWallets or mempool and add a SyncBlockWithWallet(blockcopy) for added and removed tips? Process it in a wallet-thread (similar to periodic flushes) and use cs_wallet there?
5912016-09-08T19:39:11  <morcos> ok, how about i write up an issue
5922016-09-08T19:39:20  <cfields> (I don't believe that and I'd -1 it. Just clarifying)
5932016-09-08T19:39:43  <morcos> i don't think we should revert the change
5942016-09-08T19:39:58  <wumpus> we shouldn't revert anything that prevents future paralellization/concurrency
5952016-09-08T19:40:02  *** assder has quit IRC
5962016-09-08T19:40:12  <sipa> i think the step was a step in the right direction, and we should continue it
5972016-09-08T19:40:22  <sipa> but we have time in 0.14 to figure out exactly how
5982016-09-08T19:40:23  <wumpus> if there is a need to 'force everything to wait for thewallet' that's a big -1 from me too
5992016-09-08T19:40:25  <morcos> i think we should make it so that the existing rpc calls returns omething that make sense.  two issues 1) once you've waited for a certain height, that once you ask for balance you get a balance of at least that height 2) whether mid-block updates are ok
6002016-09-08T19:40:29  <gmaxwell> how does this concurrency interact with the wallet's mempool interaction. The wallet cares if tx are in mempool or not, will a wallet look unconfirmed and fallen out of the mempool briefly while it's confirming?
6012016-09-08T19:40:32  <morcos> 1) needs fixing, 2) needs more investigation
6022016-09-08T19:40:55  <cfields> agreed. ok, that answers my question.
6032016-09-08T19:41:03  <morcos> 1) can be fixed with cfields existing code from 8680 without harming any concurrency
6042016-09-08T19:41:04  <sipa> morcos: 1) is easily fixed by reporting the wallet height rather than the core height
6052016-09-08T19:41:10  <jonasschnelli> morcos: isn't 1) and 2) solvable from the wallet side?
6062016-09-08T19:41:17  <wumpus> wallet height and core height are different things
6072016-09-08T19:41:25  <sdaftuar> sipa: yes, but that would be api-breaking right?
6082016-09-08T19:41:29  <wumpus> it has always been possible to confound these, but that has to change
6092016-09-08T19:41:32  <sipa> sdaftuar: i believe not
6102016-09-08T19:41:34  <sdaftuar> i think that's the right idea though
6112016-09-08T19:41:57  <gmaxwell> Well it means that someone might need to look in a different place for the wallet height, no?
6122016-09-08T19:42:04  <sipa> sdaftuar: if we make 0.14 report the wallet height,  i believe it will look equivalent to 0.13
6132016-09-08T19:42:09  <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes, it'd need to be a wallet RPC
6142016-09-08T19:42:24  <morcos> sipa: the issue is people probably already use getblockcount and then ask for balances
6152016-09-08T19:42:32  <wumpus> either on getwalletinfo or getwalletblockcount
6162016-09-08T19:42:37  <morcos> but they do that in their code
6172016-09-08T19:42:38  <sipa> morcos: so, make getblockcount by default report the wallet height
6182016-09-08T19:42:46  <wumpus> bah
6192016-09-08T19:42:48  <morcos> that seems like a crazy change
6202016-09-08T19:42:53  <gmaxwell> morcos: thats okay, we would release note that in 0.14. If it's the right behavior to change we shouldn't hesitate to do so here.
6212016-09-08T19:42:58  <sipa> why? it's exactly what we've been doing all the time
6222016-09-08T19:43:02  <wumpus> change getblockcount to a wallet call?!
6232016-09-08T19:43:10  <jonasschnelli> no
6242016-09-08T19:43:13  <sdaftuar> that means you need wallet support to use that rpc?
6252016-09-08T19:43:15  <CodeShark> bad idea
6262016-09-08T19:43:15  <morcos> i think we're getting a bit too worked up
6272016-09-08T19:43:16  <sdaftuar> blech
6282016-09-08T19:43:16  <wumpus> what if there is no wallet built in?
6292016-09-08T19:43:25  <sipa> sigh
6302016-09-08T19:43:26  <jonasschnelli> no blockcount!
6312016-09-08T19:43:26  <gmaxwell> that woudl be kind of odd, but it's 99% of the time used as a wallet call, ... and we have getblockchaininfo....
6322016-09-08T19:43:29  <wumpus> what if there are multiple wallets? ask them all, return the max value?
6332016-09-08T19:43:38  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: certain people have reorg handling code, this api change will not trigger their reorg handling code and will still break clients!
6342016-09-08T19:43:42  <sipa> so deprepcate the RPC
6352016-09-08T19:43:49  <jonasschnelli> Just give out the bestblockhash in getwalletinfo
6362016-09-08T19:43:49  <BlueMatt> it is absolutely not unreasonable for this change to break rpc clients
6372016-09-08T19:43:50  <sipa> and introduce a wallet-specific one and main-specific one
6382016-09-08T19:43:53  <morcos> its easy enough to make wallet balance calls wait on their own until either the wallet reports a height that matches chainactive height or using cfields mechanism, that slows nothing other than that wallet call and solves 1
6392016-09-08T19:44:00  <cfields> why not just have getblockcount block until the block is finished processing (all signals, not wallet specific)? New apis can be async
6402016-09-08T19:44:08  <wumpus> yes, there needs to be a wallet-specific one
6412016-09-08T19:44:12  <sipa> cfields: that's just delaying the problem
6422016-09-08T19:44:20  <BlueMatt> what morcos said
6432016-09-08T19:44:22  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: look, the API is not, should not, and cannot be a suicide pact. We're talking about an change in a major version, and one that would only require minor changes. _WE CAN CHANGE THE API_.
6442016-09-08T19:44:23  <sipa> cfields: because that's no longer possible if the wallet works asynchronously
6452016-09-08T19:44:25  <BlueMatt> just block wallet calls until they are caught up
6462016-09-08T19:44:44  <gmaxwell> Especially in a minor way like "get your height for purpose X this way instead of that"
6472016-09-08T19:44:54  <wumpus> wallet processing blocking wallet calls is OK
6482016-09-08T19:44:55  <BlueMatt> there is a simple solution to this that doesnt require all the users audit their codebase
6492016-09-08T19:44:58  <BlueMatt> that isnt even a big deal
6502016-09-08T19:44:58  <wumpus> wallet processing blocking core calls is not
6512016-09-08T19:45:06  <BlueMatt> but you're arguing we change the api because its simpler?
6522016-09-08T19:45:22  <BlueMatt> just block wallet rpc calls until its caught up at the start of the cs_wallet lock
6532016-09-08T19:45:35  <BlueMatt> yes, wumpus, dont think anyone is arguing for that
6542016-09-08T19:45:36  <gmaxwell> I haven't heard anything suggested that doesn't require having the wallet and block processing block each other.
6552016-09-08T19:45:43  <BlueMatt> noooo
6562016-09-08T19:45:45  <BlueMatt> wait, wut?
6572016-09-08T19:45:45  <morcos> wumpus: yes, see cory's code in 8680, can easily adopt all wallet calls to use that (or ask the wallet for its height but then they might have to poll) and weight until it hits what chainactive was at the start of the call
6582016-09-08T19:46:00  <BlueMatt> the proposal is that rpc calls might block until the wallet has caught up to where main chainstate is
6592016-09-08T19:46:03  <morcos> gmaxwell: yeah i think you're misunderstanding
6602016-09-08T19:46:10  <sipa> morcos: yup... but at some point we'd want to get rid of that too, i think
6612016-09-08T19:46:13  <BlueMatt> the wallet processing can still be in a background thread, or on the main thread, or whatever
6622016-09-08T19:46:17  <wumpus> morcos: yes, that makes sense
6632016-09-08T19:46:19  <gmaxwell> and I think it's insane to degrade concurrency for an obscure property that anyone who wants can retain by using an appropritate call to ask where the wallet is vs where the blockchain is.
6642016-09-08T19:46:20  <BlueMatt> it just has to catch up before the rpc will return
6652016-09-08T19:46:37  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: we arent degregading concurrency except that rpc calls might block, afaict
6662016-09-08T19:46:46  <BlueMatt> and then we're returning more up-to-date info anyway
6672016-09-08T19:46:50  <BlueMatt> so thats not even so bad
6682016-09-08T19:46:57  <morcos> might block but would still return before they would have in 0.13!!!
6692016-09-08T19:47:01  <cfields> BlueMatt: and it only blocks as long sa it would've before
6702016-09-08T19:47:08  <BlueMatt> true
6712016-09-08T19:47:38  <gmaxwell> what was suggested above was the block processing taking the wallet lock; which would bidirectionally block each other.
6722016-09-08T19:47:48  <sipa> gmaxwell: no
6732016-09-08T19:47:52  <morcos> gmaxwell: that was a proposal to solve problem 2 (the mid block)
6742016-09-08T19:47:54  <BlueMatt> that was to a different issue
6752016-09-08T19:47:57  <BlueMatt> there are two issues
6762016-09-08T19:48:01  <BlueMatt> well, potential issues
6772016-09-08T19:48:12  <sipa> the proposal was that _the wallet_ would grab _the wallet lock_ while it was updating its state for a new block
6782016-09-08T19:48:25  <morcos> that problem needs more investigation to determine a) whether it needs solving and b) whether there is a simple solution.  i agree with your objection to my first suggested solution
6792016-09-08T19:49:15  <morcos> sipa: yes but thats only a good idea when thats not running in teh same thread as block processing in the middle of block processing, otherwise some other independent wallet call holds up block processing
6802016-09-08T19:49:17  <sipa> are there other topics? i don't think we need to figure this out completely right now
6812016-09-08T19:49:20  <gmaxwell> morcos: Sounds fine to me.
6822016-09-08T19:49:21  <wumpus> I think it's better to take this outside the meeting. Any other topics?
6832016-09-08T19:49:28  <morcos> wumpus: ha , too late!
6842016-09-08T19:49:48  <wumpus> morcos: heh same idea
6852016-09-08T19:50:00  <cfields> this can be handled with signals btw, no need to grab actual locks. StartProcessing() -> block rpc -> FinishedProcessing() unblock
6862016-09-08T19:50:36  <cfields> yes, later is fine. That got more heated than I expected :)
6872016-09-08T19:50:59  <cfields> though, we still have the question of what to do about the tests.
6882016-09-08T19:51:13  <sipa> morcos: yes, i'm not saying that's what we should or shouldn't do... just clarifying what the idea was
6892016-09-08T19:51:14  <morcos> does 8680 fix the tests or not really?
6902016-09-08T19:51:26  <wumpus> cfields: I think your pull is fine for that, as a temp fix at least
6912016-09-08T19:51:28  <morcos> i think 8680 seems reasonable to me
6922016-09-08T19:51:33  <wumpus> right
6932016-09-08T19:51:39  <sipa> let's merge 8680 to fix the annoyance with the test
6942016-09-08T19:51:42  <cfields> morcos: i believe so, but not 100% because of the nature
6952016-09-08T19:51:47  <sipa> but open a tracker issue to reconsider
6962016-09-08T19:51:52  <cfields> (i'm not 100%, sorry)
6972016-09-08T19:51:53  <wumpus> #action merge  8680 to fix the annoyance with the test
6982016-09-08T19:51:54  <michagogo> <i>8m warning</i>
6992016-09-08T19:52:14  <wumpus> michagogo: looks like we're out of topics sooner than out of time
7002016-09-08T19:52:19  <cfields> ok, I can slim that down to only the rpc used by the tests then
7012016-09-08T19:52:25  <wumpus> cfields: ack
7022016-09-08T19:52:33  <sipa> cfields: thanks
7032016-09-08T19:52:49  <wumpus> #endmeeting
7042016-09-08T19:52:49  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Sep  8 19:52:49 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
7052016-09-08T19:52:49  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-09-08-18.59.html
7062016-09-08T19:52:49  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-09-08-18.59.txt
7072016-09-08T19:52:49  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-09-08-18.59.log.html
7082016-09-08T19:53:11  * michagogo wishes he had more time lately
7092016-09-08T19:53:35  *** instagibbs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7102016-09-08T19:53:42  <michagogo> 2-3 hour commutes are not very fun.
7112016-09-08T19:53:47  <wumpus> michagogo: yes we've been missing you lately!
7122016-09-08T19:54:14  <michagogo> (Where lately = >1 year, I think…)
7132016-09-08T19:54:31  <instagibbs_> michagogo: work from home, your hair will get fuller, and silkier with the reduced stress
7142016-09-08T19:54:37  <MarcoFalke> michagogo: Let someone drive for you and use the time to catch up on stuff.
7152016-09-08T19:54:53  <michagogo> It's a good thing I scripted gitian builds, so at least I can kick those off and let them run at home
7162016-09-08T19:55:06  <michagogo> instagibbs_: unfortunately that's not an option for various reasons
7172016-09-08T19:55:59  <michagogo> MarcoFalke: I wish that were feasible, but I'm provided with free public transportation and don't have a car
7182016-09-08T19:56:05  <phantomcircuit> which pr changed the wallet handling to be background?
7192016-09-08T19:56:11  *** vega4 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7202016-09-08T19:56:18  <gmaxwell> Sorry for contributing to confusion above.  I probably misunderstood people, but it sounded to me that people were saying that the wallet operating non-concurrently was part of the API and that we couldn't change it.  I agree its a minor part of the api but think we must change it.  Making all the blocks 'confirmedness' updates to the wallet atomic seems reasonable to me (though I'm dubious anyt
7212016-09-08T19:56:24  <gmaxwell> hing would actually be broken by that which isn't already broken)
7222016-09-08T19:56:27  <jonasschnelli> phantomcircuit: i guess there is no PR for that?
7232016-09-08T19:56:43  <michagogo> I try to figure out how to get rides whenever I can, but that's not very often
7242016-09-08T19:56:56  <phantomcircuit> jonasschnelli: o.O ?
7252016-09-08T19:57:15  <jonasschnelli> It was just a discussion.
7262016-09-08T19:58:15  *** vega4 has quit IRC
7272016-09-08T19:58:16  <gmaxwell> I don't think "would be an api change" should ever be an argument against something in a major release, and it was kind of worrying me to hear people talking that way... esp. since the current api stinks in a number of minor ways and needs improving. "Would be a rather disruptive API change relative to the benefits" would be a fine argument, but it wasn't what I was hearing, maybe it was implici
7282016-09-08T19:58:22  <gmaxwell> t. Though I think making the wallet and block processing mutually concurrent has a lot of obvious benefits.
7292016-09-08T19:58:22  <morcos> phantomcircuit: 7964 (its not background, it just happens outside of cs_main now)
7302016-09-08T19:58:29  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7312016-09-08T19:59:07  <CodeShark> gmaxwell: if it breaks deployed apps, it's a potential issue - otherwise, it isn't
7322016-09-08T19:59:09  <sipa> gmaxwell: absolutely - i think everything that was proposed would never grab cs_main and cs_wallet at the same time (even though they're in the same thread for now)
7332016-09-08T19:59:39  <morcos> gmaxwell: i think thats a fair summary.   in the future it probably makes sense for someone (like me in this case) to write up a small issue before the meeting, so people aren't trying to read about a somewhat nuanced issue in interlaced realtime chat
7342016-09-08T20:00:28  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I guess it depends from which angle you are looking at it. Current users expect (API) that getblockchaininfo represents the state of the wallet...
7352016-09-08T20:00:35  <jonasschnelli> Which I agree we should keep for 0.13.x
7362016-09-08T20:00:52  <phantomcircuit> morcos: that seems to be something about c++11 consistency
7372016-09-08T20:01:02  <jonasschnelli> But afterwards, I think is a good signal to have own wallet process state calls
7382016-09-08T20:01:36  <CodeShark> I'm in favor of any change that further decouples the wallet from the rest of the app ;)
7392016-09-08T20:01:40  <jonasschnelli> To slowly make people aware of that the wallet might gets more of its own state/processes
7402016-09-08T20:01:51  *** spudowiar has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7412016-09-08T20:02:14  <michagogo> ??? https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/JhPBIVrq/IMG_3841.PNG
7422016-09-08T20:03:07  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: sorry, indeed that was my implied argument
7432016-09-08T20:03:16  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I agree, making an api change is generally fine
7442016-09-08T20:03:28  <BlueMatt> but making one that is pervasive across the entire api for such a minor gain seems insane
7452016-09-08T20:03:49  <BlueMatt> and generally making a massively pervasive change across the entire api isnt ideal unless its easy to explain how to change your clients to work with it
7462016-09-08T20:03:51  <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I think we should keep things for 0.13, sure.  though take care, there is no way to perform multiple RPCs atomically. So if you call getblockchaininfo then interact with the wallet, the world might have changed out from under you, .. in any version. :P
7472016-09-08T20:04:42  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: and, generally, I'd prefer for things like that to have an -wrapentireapitomakeitbackwardscompatible option
7482016-09-08T20:05:02  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: okay, my view is that having the wallet and node be concurrent is not a minor gain. (esp since that also means multiple wallets being concurrent with each other, ultimately)
7492016-09-08T20:05:04  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Indeed. But users expect – in normal non reorg operations – that getblockchaininfo at least reports a height already processed by a wallet
7502016-09-08T20:05:10  <jonasschnelli> *the wallet
7512016-09-08T20:05:18  <sipa> well, one question is where do people "wait" for getblockcount to go up, and then take wallet action based on it?
7522016-09-08T20:05:24  <sipa> i guess we don't know
7532016-09-08T20:05:30  <MarcoFalke> I am fine with breaking the wallet api, but we should make it explicit and not silent.
7542016-09-08T20:05:30  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: oops, sure, I agree this case is a major gain
7552016-09-08T20:05:38  <sipa> but it seems much more something unit tests do, because they now exactly what is going to happen
7562016-09-08T20:05:42  <MarcoFalke> Eg. include the blockhash/height in every wallet call
7572016-09-08T20:05:44  <BlueMatt> if it werent also trivial to keep the api consistent I might have a different view
7582016-09-08T20:05:45  <cfields> gmaxwell: to be clear, I don't think the concern (from me, anyway) was "is this an api change", so I suppose I framed the question very poorly. The concern was more "did we break reasonable assumptions by making this more async?"
7592016-09-08T20:05:55  <jonasschnelli> I guess the problem really apperars when you listen to notifications (ZMQ)
7602016-09-08T20:06:01  <sipa> jonasschnelli: it does not
7612016-09-08T20:06:20  <jonasschnelli> Right.. we face the problem during the RPC tests...
7622016-09-08T20:06:32  <kanzure> if the wallet does its own block processing, that might be interesting, it could even consume the same notifications as third-party apps would be expected to (like zeromq or rpc communication)
7632016-09-08T20:06:35  <sipa> we can control when the notification is sent out
7642016-09-08T20:06:43  <jonasschnelli> But I guess you will run more often into this concurrency issues when calling RPC off a ZMQ not.
7652016-09-08T20:06:44  <morcos> phantomcircuit: oops.  7946
7662016-09-08T20:07:05  <sipa> i think it may be the case that the only ones affected by the asynchronicity is unit tests
7672016-09-08T20:07:06  <phantomcircuit> morcos: ty
7682016-09-08T20:07:25  <sipa> (that's independent from the partial update thing, which we can fix in various other ways)
7692016-09-08T20:07:30  *** pmienk has quit IRC
7702016-09-08T20:08:00  <kanzure> wait why would anyone wait for getblockcount to go up...? there is no conceivable reason i could see to do that.
7712016-09-08T20:08:21  <sipa> "i do X, and i wait for Y to happen" is something you can't do in production env
7722016-09-08T20:08:42  <kanzure> we are talking about syncing two separate processes that are supposedly monitoring a blockchain right?
7732016-09-08T20:08:59  <sipa> no
7742016-09-08T20:09:06  <gmaxwell> cfields: basically the tests failing proved its an API change, maybe not an important one, but absolutely a change.
7752016-09-08T20:09:17  <sipa> we're even talking about something that happens entirely within one thread :)
7762016-09-08T20:09:22  <cfields> kanzure: quick example: tracking how many confirmations your txs have and displaying on your site
7772016-09-08T20:09:45  <kanzure> cfields: that would make sense to me, but sipa is talking about one thread?
7782016-09-08T20:09:55  <cfields> not saying it's wise, but I can imagine that happening in the wild
7792016-09-08T20:10:13  <phantomcircuit> kanzure: you need more imagination
7802016-09-08T20:10:18  <sipa> kanzure: oh, ignoring the external process of course
7812016-09-08T20:10:23  <phantomcircuit> listsinceblock
7822016-09-08T20:10:27  <kanzure> i have recently spent a bunch of time writing and validating software that does blockchain syncing between two stores where one is considered truthy and the other is considered a laggard
7832016-09-08T20:10:29  <sipa> kanzure: but all wallet updates and main updates happen within one thread in core
7842016-09-08T20:10:49  <kanzure> listsinceblock is also something you shouldn't use. you should instead compute the most recent common block and then get the list of different blocks that your laggy side needs to consider.
7852016-09-08T20:11:16  <phantomcircuit> kanzure: listsinceblock is the thing people (not me) have been suggesting for years
7862016-09-08T20:11:17  <kanzure> looking at a block counter is backwards because it could go up and down
7872016-09-08T20:11:33  <kanzure> and treating it as a monotonic clock is what i would expect most application developers to do heh
7882016-09-08T20:12:25  <kanzure> i didn't look at the origiating issue that brought up this topic, so i'm sure my context is wrong here
7892016-09-08T20:12:34  <kanzure> here is a toy i was writing a few days ago https://gist.github.com/kanzure/2fa531afaf03fddd6568eb0212ac8c4c
7902016-09-08T20:13:41  <phantomcircuit> kanzure: wallet processing of blocks is put into the background, wallet rpc calls can then return results reflecting a partial processing of a block
7912016-09-08T20:13:51  <CodeShark> fully async json-over-websockets API: https://github.com/ciphrex/CoinSocket ;)
7922016-09-08T20:13:56  <phantomcircuit> ie tx a/b are both in block c but only a shows in the rpc calls
7932016-09-08T20:14:05  <kanzure> btw when people above are talking about "unit tests" they mean the rpc tests right?
7942016-09-08T20:14:12  <sipa> kanzure: yes
7952016-09-08T20:14:25  *** cryptapus_afk is now known as cryptapus
7962016-09-08T20:14:28  <cfields> kanzure: unit tests in bitcoind-speak :)
7972016-09-08T20:15:02  <kanzure> re: async, then yes i would suggest using zeromq notifications in the testing framework to get information about internal state or for how long to wait (instead of sleeps etc)
7982016-09-08T20:15:11  <phantomcircuit> kanzure: they're talking about the functional tests
7992016-09-08T20:15:15  <phantomcircuit> not the unit tests
8002016-09-08T20:16:04  *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8012016-09-08T20:17:03  <cfields> kanzure: the question isn't about how to get the info, it's about what the caller expects. you can query for the current height, then call into the wallet and expect to see tx's from that height, only to find that they haven't been processed yet.
8022016-09-08T20:17:41  <kanzure> right... so you could naively sleep to wait for the wallet to be done, or you can query the wallet state (instead of chain height of the non-wallet components)
8032016-09-08T20:17:48  <cfields> so who's wrong? the rpc for returning a height without fully processing? or the user for expecting them to be in sync?
8042016-09-08T20:18:10  <kanzure> er in this case isn't the rpc test also the user?
8052016-09-08T20:18:52  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8062016-09-08T20:18:53  <sipa> so i believe there is a slight difference between normal users and the rpc tests
8072016-09-08T20:18:54  <cfields> yea, i was just phrasing more generally
8082016-09-08T20:19:14  <sipa> in that rpc tests control the entire world, and use more simplistic means to measure progress
8092016-09-08T20:19:35  <cfields> sipa: yes. i doubt many rpc users/scripts are hammering on block-height in tightish loops :)
8102016-09-08T20:19:38  <cfields> hope not, anyway
8112016-09-08T20:19:39  <kanzure> so- for example- imagine you are operating a lot of bitcoin infrastructure. you do a bunch of per-block processing. when you are running functional/integration tests, you can't run your test checks immediately after issuing a command because things take a while. so when do you expect to run? well you setup a hook and you ask your infrastructure to ping your tester as soon as the data's available, or you poll for some internal state.
8122016-09-08T20:20:10  <kanzure> (and polling is considered not ideal)
8132016-09-08T20:20:51  <sipa> and non-polling methods exist
8142016-09-08T20:21:00  <sipa> we have -walletnotify for exactly this
8152016-09-08T20:21:58  <kanzure> walletnotify should certainly be used by the rpc tests
8162016-09-08T20:22:26  <sipa> this raises another point: walletnotify should probably fire after all of a block's transactions are processed
8172016-09-08T20:23:04  <kanzure> i would like zeromq notifications and -*notify notifications to be unified somehow, and eventually have much more distinct notifications for different events going on
8182016-09-08T20:23:16  <kanzure> changing walletnotify behavior and when it fires is sort of unkind to the users that rely on its existing behavior :)
8192016-09-08T20:23:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
8202016-09-08T20:23:57  <cfields> kanzure: and #8680 introduces blocking calls. So you could "./bitcoin-cli waitfornewblock && ./dosomething.sh", which would essentially be blocknotify. Obviously the same could be done for wallet stuff
8212016-09-08T20:24:00  <CodeShark> I would like all pub/sub stuff in a separate layer ;)
8222016-09-08T20:24:28  <CodeShark> especially if it requires deep knowledge of account structure
8232016-09-08T20:24:43  <kanzure> i feel like users are going to not understand how to use waitfornewblock. how are you going to stop them from treating that as a monotonic counter for each new lbock...?
8242016-09-08T20:26:51  <cfields> kanzure: that's a hack, hidden for users, just for tests. It's a pretty bad idea to take action on an event so vague :)
8252016-09-08T20:26:59  <kanzure> btw i (sheepishly) made a one-line proposal about throwing a component into bitcoind to keep track of external application state, specifically to store a range or diff-set of blocks that an external application should be aware about, and then the implementation proposal would be "please integrate against this" and we give the user an endpoint for saying "my application has processed the latest diff-workload x".  but this might be too ...
8262016-09-08T20:27:05  <kanzure> ... kitchen-sinky.
8272016-09-08T20:27:08  <kanzure> oh it's for testing. hm.
8282016-09-08T20:27:30  <cfields> i was just using it as an example of an async approach.
8292016-09-08T20:29:53  <kanzure> (the "diff-workload x" is specifically referring to a set of new blocks some of hwich might override previous blocks the other application was aware about. this makes the interface explicitly expose a concept of reorgs.)
8302016-09-08T20:30:18  <kanzure> CodeShark: in your link i'm not seeing any tests for that library...
8312016-09-08T20:30:46  <CodeShark> the whole thing needs to be repackaged
8322016-09-08T20:32:00  <CodeShark> just giving it as an example of how I think an API should work
8332016-09-08T20:32:31  <kanzure> cfields: fwiw once i switched to notifications inside my own tests (for some external infrastructure) re: bitcoind integration, everything went much faster and i had much more information about failures. far less timeouts too.
8342016-09-08T20:32:31  <cfields> kanzure: what would bitcoind do with the knowledge that the application is done processing?
8352016-09-08T20:32:36  <sipa> can we talk about solutions instead of vague design concerns?
8362016-09-08T20:33:05  <kanzure> cfields: nothing. it's for the benefit of the application. once bitcoind is informed about the application's new state, it can discard the old diff information. that's about all it would do...
8372016-09-08T20:34:42  <CodeShark> two subscription layers - one low level, the other much higher level
8382016-09-08T20:35:05  <CodeShark> the low level layer only gives you basic events like new tip or new tx
8392016-09-08T20:35:06  *** sipa has left #bitcoin-core-dev
8402016-09-08T20:35:27  <CodeShark> dunno why sipa doesn't like to discuss architecture :(
8412016-09-08T20:36:05  <CodeShark> it
8422016-09-08T20:36:20  <CodeShark> it's a serious problem for the ecosystem right now that there's no good way for people to build apps
8432016-09-08T20:36:41  *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
8442016-09-08T20:37:27  *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8452016-09-08T20:40:58  <cfields> sipa: the more I think about it, the more I think that there needs to be a wallet rpc for getbalanceat(height)
8462016-09-08T20:41:33  <cfields> i can't think of anything that doesn't introduce more problems except for explicit/atomic calls
8472016-09-08T20:41:44  <kanzure> should be a blockhash not a height
8482016-09-08T20:42:10  <cfields> sure
8492016-09-08T20:43:24  <sipa> cfields: that makes sense
8502016-09-08T20:43:38  <cfields> I think the reason today's discussion devolved so quickly is because "getblockcount" is impossible to define, because there's no global height. So the only fix is to ensure that we're asking a specific interface a specific question. Then there's no way of being out of sync because you've specified your constraints
8512016-09-08T20:43:58  * sipa goes for a walk, without phonr
8522016-09-08T20:44:03  <sipa> be back in a while
8532016-09-08T20:44:08  <cfields> cya
8542016-09-08T20:45:00  <CodeShark> cfields: right
8552016-09-08T20:46:15  <CodeShark> there's no such thing as "what's the current state of the network?"
8562016-09-08T20:46:18  <cfields> then it's just a matter of how to handle the api. returning "come back later", blocking until there's an answer, or some callback mechanism.
8572016-09-08T20:47:51  <cfields> arguably if you need a callback, you should be using a different interface. as kanzure suggested above. I'm of the opinion that blocking is the way to go because that lets the user chain his own callback
8582016-09-08T20:48:25  <kanzure> blocking in what context? rpc ?
8592016-09-08T20:48:29  <CodeShark> depends on what model you're after - I think async is generally cleaner but requires a bit more clientside framework
8602016-09-08T20:49:03  <cfields> kanzure: yes, rpc blocks for a specified time (or forever) and returns when it has an answer, or timeout, or shutdown
8612016-09-08T20:49:32  <kanzure> oh. i've had so may issues with rpc socket timeouts that i haven't traced down yet that i would recommend not considering that direction heh.
8622016-09-08T20:49:43  <kanzure> (but also i haven't been able to make good reports about these problems, so they don't really count.)
8632016-09-08T20:50:18  <cfields> kanzure: heh, i was actually surprised i didn't bump into those during testing. good to know :)
8642016-09-08T20:50:37  <kanzure> well i think what i was doing could be considered "torture testing" and weird stuff, so.... yeah..
8652016-09-08T20:51:28  <kanzure> to some degree aren't we already tracking peer state on the p2p layer? e.g. like which chains the peers seem to be following lately?
8662016-09-08T20:51:47  <kanzure> or is that purely a function of the banning behavior heh
8672016-09-08T20:53:19  <cfields> lately?
8682016-09-08T20:53:28  <kanzure> (by virtue that you could ban everyone feeding you unhelpful data, as opposed to tracking which blocks you think peers have already)
8692016-09-08T20:54:37  <kanzure> nevermind. just an abstract thought, it's not important, i was thinking that "peer communication" is sometimes similar to "application communication" but more one-way. anyway, just a minor distraction.
8702016-09-08T20:56:43  <cfields> we keep tabs on what they shouldn't be sending, but i don't remember to what extent
8712016-09-08T20:59:02  <CodeShark> a peer can query for inventory at any time regardless of whether it is in agreement with the node's best chain
8722016-09-08T20:59:14  *** instagibbs_ has quit IRC
8732016-09-08T20:59:26  *** e4xit_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8742016-09-08T21:00:10  <CodeShark> I think peers get sent invs whenever there are tip changes regardless
8752016-09-08T21:00:59  *** e4xit has quit IRC
8762016-09-08T21:01:00  *** e4xit_ is now known as e4xit
8772016-09-08T21:15:00  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
8782016-09-08T21:20:21  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8792016-09-08T21:25:06  *** fengling has quit IRC
8802016-09-08T21:29:39  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
8812016-09-08T21:53:11  <gmaxwell> "(and polling is considered not ideal)
8822016-09-08T21:53:13  <gmaxwell> "
8832016-09-08T21:53:41  <gmaxwell> This bugs me. Polling is highly reliable. And we're taking about things that have inherent latencies in real of seconds to tends of minutes.
8842016-09-08T21:54:34  <phantomcircuit> polling is the correct way to interact with the wallet
8852016-09-08T21:54:37  <gmaxwell> I do not know why people eschew polling as often as they do... there are contexts where its exactly the right tool and keeping track of a wallet state is likely one of them.
8862016-09-08T21:54:41  <phantomcircuit> if you're not polling you're doing it wrong
8872016-09-08T22:03:40  *** spudowiar has quit IRC
8882016-09-08T22:08:45  <kanzure> well one trivial example is in scenarios where you have long-term polling, you will miss the update and spend extra time waiting
8892016-09-08T22:08:56  <kanzure> this is apparent in scenarios with, say, exponential backoff
8902016-09-08T22:11:25  <phantomcircuit> kanzure, call listtransactions
8912016-09-08T22:11:37  <phantomcircuit> does the list contain a transaction you have previously seen?
8922016-09-08T22:11:42  <kanzure> instead of hoping you catch wallet state transitions by polling, what about just having the wallet notify you directly of each change event? then you consume the feed/queue of events.
8932016-09-08T22:11:43  <phantomcircuit> yes? great do nothing
8942016-09-08T22:11:52  <phantomcircuit> no? increase the list size
8952016-09-08T22:12:19  <phantomcircuit> handle reorgs? need to call the blockchain things and do a bunch of work
8962016-09-08T22:12:45  <kanzure> which application are you imagining for listtransactions in particular?
8972016-09-08T22:12:59  *** da2ce7_ has quit IRC
8982016-09-08T22:13:16  <phantomcircuit> anything which needs to know that a payment has been made
8992016-09-08T22:13:40  <kanzure> i don't know what the behavior of listtransactions is. how does it behave when a transaction has been removed from your chaintip..?
9002016-09-08T22:14:14  *** da2ce7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9012016-09-08T22:15:00  <phantomcircuit> kanzure: it's buried in the list and has -1 confirmations
9022016-09-08T22:15:40  <kanzure> for how long...? it occurs to me that listtransactions is probably a wallet-specific rpc command and that's why i know so little about it.
9032016-09-08T22:17:11  <kanzure> getting notified when a transaction is about to be permanently removed from that list sonuds like a useful thing, but you could probably infer that detail from polling regularly and knowing the lifecycle i guess.
9042016-09-08T22:17:34  <phantomcircuit> kanzure, listtransactions only shows you transactions in your wallet
9052016-09-08T22:17:53  <phantomcircuit> nothing is ever removed from the list there's just a parameter which truncates the list
9062016-09-08T22:18:11  <phantomcircuit> listtransactions "*" 4294967295
9072016-09-08T22:18:21  <phantomcircuit> will give you all the transactions your wallet has ever seen
9082016-09-08T22:19:23  <kanzure> incremental updates and messaging would not require so much data transfer all at once. :)
9092016-09-08T22:19:47  <phantomcircuit> kanzure, messaging is unreliable
9102016-09-08T22:19:53  <phantomcircuit> polling is inherently reliable
9112016-09-08T22:19:54  <phantomcircuit> fin
9122016-09-08T22:20:33  <sipa> we shouldn't make assumptions about how people use the api
9132016-09-08T22:21:51  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9142016-09-08T22:23:54  <kanzure> my above concerns are mostly about polling interval
9152016-09-08T22:26:46  *** fengling has quit IRC
9162016-09-08T22:34:42  <kanzure> and blockheight can't be a heartbeat
9172016-09-08T22:52:22  *** TomMc has quit IRC
9182016-09-08T22:53:53  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
9192016-09-08T22:54:13  <BlueMatt> sipa: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commit/96cef326f9184aefd1c562f64a21298a15f0adde simplifies the total diff from master to be more readable, to me...it matches the bip, but another way to look at it is that you have two booleans: which version of compact blocks they want (which you use to send to them) and whether they will send us segwit cmpctblocks...you simply introduce the the do-they-support-v2 bool as an additional
9202016-09-08T22:54:13  <BlueMatt> check before requesting cmpcblocks and otherwise dont need the complicated other semantics
9212016-09-08T22:54:57  <BlueMatt> (warning: mostly untested...it compiles, though :p)
9222016-09-08T23:02:48  <BlueMatt> ehh, nvm, need to fix a bug there, but I'm tired so will do it later/tomorrow
9232016-09-08T23:06:46  *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9242016-09-08T23:17:21  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9252016-09-08T23:23:32  *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9262016-09-08T23:23:40  *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9272016-09-08T23:26:52  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
9282016-09-08T23:28:26  *** fengling has quit IRC
9292016-09-08T23:37:00  *** TomMc has quit IRC
9302016-09-08T23:40:26  *** jtimon has quit IRC