12016-10-17T00:04:01 *** luke-jr has quit IRC
22016-10-17T00:04:21 *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
32016-10-17T00:11:00 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
42016-10-17T01:02:42 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
52016-10-17T01:08:08 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62016-10-17T01:10:45 *** ill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
72016-10-17T01:18:40 *** mkarrer has quit IRC
82016-10-17T01:18:54 *** ill has quit IRC
92016-10-17T01:19:21 *** mkarrer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
102016-10-17T01:25:01 *** Alopex has quit IRC
112016-10-17T01:26:06 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122016-10-17T01:33:49 *** paveljanik has quit IRC
132016-10-17T01:34:17 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142016-10-17T01:34:18 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152016-10-17T01:36:12 *** JackH has quit IRC
162016-10-17T01:39:36 *** temp1234test4321 has quit IRC
172016-10-17T01:47:00 *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182016-10-17T01:58:34 *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
192016-10-17T02:00:08 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202016-10-17T02:22:11 *** ill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212016-10-17T02:30:06 *** Alopex has quit IRC
222016-10-17T02:31:12 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232016-10-17T02:37:08 *** alpalp has quit IRC
242016-10-17T02:55:35 *** fengling has quit IRC
252016-10-17T02:57:25 *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262016-10-17T02:59:10 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272016-10-17T03:01:00 *** ill has quit IRC
282016-10-17T03:17:27 *** Alopex has quit IRC
292016-10-17T03:18:32 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302016-10-17T03:19:38 *** fengling has quit IRC
312016-10-17T03:38:33 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
322016-10-17T03:46:34 *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
332016-10-17T04:04:31 *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342016-10-17T04:15:17 <GitHub180> [bitcoin] pooleja opened pull request #8935: Documentation: Building on Windows with WSL (master...windows_build_docs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8935
352016-10-17T04:42:15 *** wasi has quit IRC
362016-10-17T04:44:57 *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372016-10-17T05:00:03 *** dermoth has quit IRC
382016-10-17T05:00:58 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392016-10-17T05:20:47 *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
402016-10-17T05:29:11 <GitHub13> [bitcoin] rebroad opened pull request #8936: Report NodeId in misbehaving debug (master...NodeIdWhenMisbehaving) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8936
412016-10-17T05:50:44 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422016-10-17T05:51:01 *** harrymm has quit IRC
432016-10-17T05:56:14 *** jol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
442016-10-17T05:57:27 *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452016-10-17T06:08:56 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462016-10-17T06:10:01 *** jol has quit IRC
472016-10-17T06:21:17 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482016-10-17T06:22:11 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
492016-10-17T06:26:04 *** bluerazor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
502016-10-17T07:00:45 *** jeremias1 is now known as jeremias
512016-10-17T07:05:55 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
522016-10-17T07:06:33 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532016-10-17T07:10:34 *** BashCo has quit IRC
542016-10-17T07:19:24 <phantomcircuit> wumpus: in trying to make more of the wallet things private i have run into a problem
552016-10-17T07:19:34 <phantomcircuit> all the things which are private are called by tests
562016-10-17T07:19:43 <phantomcircuit> so i cant just make them private
572016-10-17T07:24:12 *** cdecker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
582016-10-17T07:24:30 <sipa> make them protected, and let the tests work with a subclass
592016-10-17T07:25:10 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
602016-10-17T07:29:13 *** bluerazor has quit IRC
612016-10-17T07:29:47 *** bluerazor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622016-10-17T07:43:32 <phantomcircuit> sipa: that is a good solution
632016-10-17T07:46:03 *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
642016-10-17T07:47:24 *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
652016-10-17T07:49:31 *** _mn3monic has quit IRC
662016-10-17T07:53:01 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
672016-10-17T07:53:15 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682016-10-17T07:56:24 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
692016-10-17T08:02:14 *** bluerazor has quit IRC
702016-10-17T08:05:01 *** Alopex has quit IRC
712016-10-17T08:06:06 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
722016-10-17T08:20:33 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732016-10-17T08:20:34 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
742016-10-17T08:26:33 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
752016-10-17T08:27:48 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
762016-10-17T08:29:19 *** DigiByteDev has quit IRC
772016-10-17T08:31:43 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782016-10-17T08:44:25 *** DigiByteDev has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
792016-10-17T09:02:32 <wumpus> phantomcircuit: +1 on sipa's solution
802016-10-17T09:02:55 <wumpus> we do a similar thing for CAddrMan for a test interface to override the randomness
812016-10-17T09:08:46 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
822016-10-17T09:46:12 *** _mn3monic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
832016-10-17T09:49:54 *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
842016-10-17T09:53:02 *** DigiByteDev has left #bitcoin-core-dev
852016-10-17T09:55:10 *** ill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
862016-10-17T10:04:41 *** ill has quit IRC
872016-10-17T10:12:21 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
882016-10-17T10:12:53 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
892016-10-17T10:14:46 *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
902016-10-17T10:17:05 *** jnewbery has quit IRC
912016-10-17T10:18:00 *** kadoban has quit IRC
922016-10-17T10:26:30 <wumpus> cfields_: hey, I've been trying something weird: to build bitcoin core in the 'termux' environment on my android phone. This is basically just a arm (64 bit in this case) Linux system, with one catch: there is no shell interpreter, or anything useful for that matter in /bin. All the shell utilities are available in the path though.
932016-10-17T10:27:17 <wumpus> cfields_: I have no idea whether this can be realistically gotten to work though, so much assumes that /bin/sh is a shell :)
942016-10-17T10:27:34 <wumpus> cfields_: not a high priority thing though building bitcoin core *on* my phone would be quite awesome
952016-10-17T10:28:49 <wumpus> (I know there's debian chroots which avoid this, but that requires root and don't want to bother rooting right now)
962016-10-17T10:39:19 *** fengling has quit IRC
972016-10-17T11:03:51 *** murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
982016-10-17T11:13:03 <GitHub13> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/49c591037289...0329511b9cd6
992016-10-17T11:13:05 <GitHub13> bitcoin/master 032e883 Matt Corallo: [qa] Send segwit-encoded blocktxn messages in p2p-compactblocks
1002016-10-17T11:13:05 <GitHub13> bitcoin/master a4ad37d Matt Corallo: [qa] Build v4 blocks in p2p-compactblocktests...
1012016-10-17T11:13:06 <GitHub13> bitcoin/master 0329511 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8922: [qa] Send segwit-encoded blocktxn messages in p2p-compactblocks...
1022016-10-17T11:13:15 <GitHub100> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8922: [qa] Send segwit-encoded blocktxn messages in p2p-compactblocks (master...segwitcb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8922
1032016-10-17T11:26:36 <GitHub8> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8937: Define start and end time for segwit deployment (master...bip141start) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8937
1042016-10-17T11:27:36 <GitHub80> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 8 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0329511b9cd6...53133c1c041d
1052016-10-17T11:27:37 <GitHub80> bitcoin/master 3ade2f6 Johnson Lau: Add standard limits for P2WSH with tests
1062016-10-17T11:27:37 <GitHub80> bitcoin/master 4c0c25a Johnson Lau: Require compressed keys in segwit as policy and disable signing with uncompressed keys for segwit scripts
1072016-10-17T11:27:38 <GitHub80> bitcoin/master 9f0397a Johnson Lau: Make test framework produce lowS signatures
1082016-10-17T11:27:44 <GitHub23> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8499: Add several policy limits and disable uncompressed keys for segwit scripts (master...badwitnesscheck) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8499
1092016-10-17T11:30:05 <sipa> petertodd, cdecker, BlueMatt, luke-jr: do your dns seeds support flag filtering?
1102016-10-17T11:30:39 <cdecker> sipa: not yet, was intending to implement it for the longest time
1112016-10-17T11:31:15 <cdecker> Is there a plan to rely on it in future?
1122016-10-17T11:31:26 <sipa> yes, for segwit
1132016-10-17T11:31:43 <cdecker> Ok, then I'll invest some time to support it ^^
1142016-10-17T11:31:52 <sipa> cool!
1152016-10-17T11:32:46 <GitHub27> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/53133c1c041d...c90111314435
1162016-10-17T11:32:47 <GitHub27> bitcoin/master 282abd8 fanquake: [build-aux] Boost_Base serial 27
1172016-10-17T11:32:48 <GitHub27> bitcoin/master 6dd3723 fanquake: Set minimum required Boost to 1.47.0
1182016-10-17T11:32:48 <GitHub27> bitcoin/master c901113 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8920: Set minimum required Boost to 1.47.0...
1192016-10-17T11:32:59 <GitHub135> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8920: Set minimum required Boost to 1.47.0 (master...set-minimum-boost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8920
1202016-10-17T11:37:34 <wumpus> I'm trying to cherry-pick #8499 into #8916 for backporting to 0.13, however I'm running into conflicts in the tests (p2p-segwit.py) - does anyone know if any precursor changes to the RPC tests there that are not in #8916 yet?
1212016-10-17T11:38:50 <wumpus> (big conflicts, not trivial one-liners)
1222016-10-17T11:40:03 <sipa> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py
1232016-10-17T11:41:54 <wumpus> may be better to leave this backport to jl2012
1242016-10-17T11:45:49 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252016-10-17T11:48:43 <sipa> $ ./src/bitcoind
1262016-10-17T11:48:44 <sipa> Error: -daemon is not supported on this operating system
1272016-10-17T11:49:13 <sipa> Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS
1282016-10-17T11:49:34 <wumpus> sipa: you need to clean your tree
1292016-10-17T11:49:39 <sipa> ah
1302016-10-17T11:49:40 <sipa> thanks
1312016-10-17T11:49:46 <wumpus> (or at least rerun autoconf and configure)
1322016-10-17T11:50:22 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8813#issuecomment-250788185
1332016-10-17T11:51:27 <sipa> ah yes, i remember reading that comment
1342016-10-17T11:53:52 *** fengling has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352016-10-17T12:05:51 *** fengling_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362016-10-17T12:08:08 *** fengling_ has quit IRC
1372016-10-17T12:09:21 *** fengling has quit IRC
1382016-10-17T12:10:02 *** fengling_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392016-10-17T12:11:48 <wumpus> never mind on #8499, I was somehow trying to backports the commit in reverse order
1402016-10-17T12:12:00 <wumpus> (testing a new script and all that)
1412016-10-17T12:12:48 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422016-10-17T12:18:12 *** Guyver2__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432016-10-17T12:21:03 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1442016-10-17T12:21:05 *** Guyver2__ is now known as Guyver2
1452016-10-17T12:21:36 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1462016-10-17T12:23:14 <jl2012> wumpus, you want me to make a backport?
1472016-10-17T12:24:21 <wumpus> jl2012: I was afraid so as the diff looked quite large, but it's no longer necessary
1482016-10-17T12:24:33 <wumpus> it's part of #8916 now
1492016-10-17T12:25:00 <jl2012> if it could be cleanly cherry-picked, that should be fine
1502016-10-17T12:25:27 <wumpus> there was only a trivial two-liner conflict in the tests
1512016-10-17T12:25:55 <jl2012> ok
1522016-10-17T12:25:57 <achow101> Yay! 0.13.1 is almost here! #8937 needs to be added to the milestone
1532016-10-17T12:26:17 <jl2012> let me know if you need any action from me
1542016-10-17T12:26:28 <wumpus> I will, thank you
1552016-10-17T12:36:10 <petertodd> sipa: mine does
1562016-10-17T12:36:49 <sipa> petertodd: oh, i'm confused, you don't even have a mainnet seed
1572016-10-17T12:36:59 <petertodd> sipa: yes, my testnet seed does :)
1582016-10-17T12:38:55 <sipa> interesting, my seeder has 8 IPs that already report NODE_WITNESS
1592016-10-17T12:42:20 <petertodd> sipa: what else are they reporting? I've noticed that some nodes put total garbage in nServices
1602016-10-17T12:43:21 <sipa> i wad about to check, and my laptop battery died
1612016-10-17T12:43:26 <petertodd> ha
1622016-10-17T12:49:25 <sipa> 3 of them are possibly legitimate
1632016-10-17T12:49:45 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642016-10-17T13:09:45 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
1652016-10-17T13:11:51 <BlueMatt> sipa: no, am I supposed to do that?
1662016-10-17T13:12:05 <BlueMatt> sipa: oh, you mean to filter to only give segwit peers?
1672016-10-17T13:23:39 <sipa> yes
1682016-10-17T13:24:30 <sipa> a request for xHEXFLAGS.your.dns.seed gives only peers that report said flags in their result
1692016-10-17T13:24:41 <BlueMatt> oh
1702016-10-17T13:24:43 <BlueMatt> uhhhhh
1712016-10-17T13:24:47 <BlueMatt> hum
1722016-10-17T13:25:05 <sipa> if supported, bitcoin core will ask for x9.your.dns.seed
1732016-10-17T13:25:15 <BlueMatt> that doesnt work with my dnsseed
1742016-10-17T13:25:20 <sipa> (NODE_NETWORK and NODE_WITNESS)
1752016-10-17T13:25:26 <sipa> that's fine, it doesn't have to
1762016-10-17T13:25:34 <BlueMatt> my seed generates a bind zonefile and schleps that off to a bunch of servers
1772016-10-17T13:25:35 <sipa> it's enabled on a per seed basis
1782016-10-17T13:25:45 <BlueMatt> so there is no way for me to reasonably do that
1792016-10-17T13:25:51 <BlueMatt> though i could do it for a small subset of possible flags
1802016-10-17T13:26:03 <sipa> yes, only x9 is needed
1812016-10-17T13:26:23 <BlueMatt> mmm, ok
1822016-10-17T13:26:50 <BlueMatt> give me a few hours
1832016-10-17T13:28:19 <sipa> ha, there isn't *that* much hurry either
1842016-10-17T13:28:43 <BlueMatt> all y'all with dnsseed-server-homogeneousness
1852016-10-17T13:28:48 <BlueMatt> need some diversity :p
1862016-10-17T13:28:55 <sipa> i am not complaining.
1872016-10-17T13:28:58 <sipa> :)
1882016-10-17T13:29:06 <BlueMatt> ehh, 0.13.1rc1 today, should get it done :p
1892016-10-17T13:37:10 *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902016-10-17T13:54:01 *** chauncie has quit IRC
1912016-10-17T14:01:37 <paveljanik> better discussing Oxford comma than FT ;-)
1922016-10-17T14:02:45 <instagibbs> FT? :P
1932016-10-17T14:02:57 <GitHub66> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8916: 0.13.1 backports (0.13...2016_10_backports) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8916
1942016-10-17T14:02:58 <GitHub73> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 22 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4ed26277347c...09bc76de60b7
1952016-10-17T14:02:58 <GitHub73> bitcoin/0.13 0027672 Johnson Lau: Make non-minimal OP_IF/NOTIF argument non-standard for P2WSH...
1962016-10-17T14:02:59 <GitHub73> bitcoin/0.13 3e80ab7 Johnson Lau: Add policy: null signature for failed CHECK(MULTI)SIG...
1972016-10-17T14:03:00 <GitHub73> bitcoin/0.13 7ae6242 Cory Fields: net: fix a few cases where messages were sent rather than dropped upon disconnection...
1982016-10-17T14:04:16 <BlueMatt> instagibbs: flexible transactions - tom zanders shit
1992016-10-17T14:04:59 <instagibbs> Oh, haha.
2002016-10-17T14:06:17 <paveljanik> hmm, removing the Oxford commas can save us 2 (two!) bytes!
2012016-10-17T14:06:38 <paveljanik> imagine all those forks!
2022016-10-17T14:06:52 <instagibbs> I see you've found your scaling bitcoin topic for 2017
2032016-10-17T14:08:28 <paveljanik> the next SB will surely be at the date of my wife' birthday or any similar death-important family date as always :-(
2042016-10-17T14:09:52 <sipa> well at least we'll have a few topics for the next SB, such as segwit, ft, and the oxford comma.
2052016-10-17T14:09:58 <sipa> *ducks*
2062016-10-17T14:10:24 <paveljanik> Can't parse the sentence ;-)
2072016-10-17T14:12:48 <BlueMatt> I think he meant ft, segwit and the oxford comma
2082016-10-17T14:12:57 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092016-10-17T14:14:15 <btcdrak> FTFY: ft, segwit and, the oxford comma
2102016-10-17T14:14:25 <BlueMatt> bip 9 bit 1 has def never been used, right?
2112016-10-17T14:14:33 <BlueMatt> has someone scanned recent block versions?
2122016-10-17T14:15:16 <btcdrak> blocks have only been 0x30000000, 0x20000000, 0x20000001, and 0x30000001
2132016-10-17T14:15:47 <BlueMatt> bit 1 being 0x2, right?
2142016-10-17T14:15:55 <btcdrak> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009/assignments.mediawiki
2152016-10-17T14:16:04 <btcdrak> BlueMatt: yes
2162016-10-17T14:16:07 <sipa> yes
2172016-10-17T14:16:10 <btcdrak> we used bit 0 for CSV
2182016-10-17T14:16:13 <BlueMatt> ok, sounds good
2192016-10-17T14:16:21 <BlueMatt> just figued I'd doube check
2202016-10-17T14:17:04 <instagibbs> just to make sure what about bip109
2212016-10-17T14:17:34 <BlueMatt> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8637#issuecomment-253547659
2222016-10-17T14:18:37 <btcdrak> We can save more bytes on the BIPs by aggregating like Schnorr: BIP141+143+147 = BIP431
2232016-10-17T14:19:43 <sipa> BlueMatt: last use of bit 1 was over 20k blocks ago
2242016-10-17T14:19:51 <BlueMatt> sipa: thanks
2252016-10-17T14:20:12 <sipa> though apparently it has been used with some frequency further back
2262016-10-17T14:20:23 <BlueMatt> heh, funny
2272016-10-17T14:20:27 <sipa> 1128 blocks set bit 1 in the past 50k blocks
2282016-10-17T14:20:28 <btcdrak> sipa bit 1?
2292016-10-17T14:21:11 <instagibbs> BlueMatt, sigh, at a minimum I'd like the debug help for cmpctblocks(sp!?)
2302016-10-17T14:21:27 <BlueMatt> instagibbs: yes, thats why I'm poking sipa :p
2312016-10-17T14:21:28 <instagibbs> cmpctblock
2322016-10-17T14:21:33 <sipa> cmpctblcks, w dnt spprt th s f vwls hr
2332016-10-17T14:21:54 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342016-10-17T14:22:05 <BlueMatt> we dont support the use of vowels here, for those with parse-issues
2352016-10-17T14:22:25 <sipa> i approve of BlueMatt's compact writing decoder
2362016-10-17T14:23:01 <achow101> it would be much more compact if you removed all the spaces
2372016-10-17T14:23:11 <jtimon> wumpus: around?
2382016-10-17T14:23:31 <jtimon> re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8921 "getinfo has been deprecated" when did that happened? for 0.13 or for 0.14 ?
2392016-10-17T14:23:56 <jtimon> ie is there any blocker to remove it already or are we just waiting to do it for 0.15 ?
2402016-10-17T14:24:19 <instagibbs> 0.14
2412016-10-17T14:24:51 <jtimon> instagibbs: I see, so we're in fact waiting for removing it in 0.15, thanks
2422016-10-17T14:25:17 <btcdrak> oh why is getinfo for the chop?
2432016-10-17T14:25:17 <GitHub170> [bitcoin] s-matthew-english opened pull request #8938: update to bitcoin-qt.desktop (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8938
2442016-10-17T14:25:18 <instagibbs> Not sure, just saying it's not deprecated in 0.13.1
2452016-10-17T14:25:26 <achow101> jtimon: apparently it has been deprecated for years
2462016-10-17T14:25:39 <instagibbs> it's a hodgepodge of info you can individually get elsewhere
2472016-10-17T14:25:42 <GitHub167> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/cb8887e87df315dbc6c560149b3a97b704a676aa
2482016-10-17T14:25:42 <GitHub167> bitcoin/0.13 cb8887e Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: periodic translation update
2492016-10-17T14:25:53 <jonasschnelli> getinfo is to general and uses all sorts of locks
2502016-10-17T14:26:12 <GitHub185> [bitcoin] s-matthew-english closed pull request #8938: update to bitcoin-qt.desktop (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8938
2512016-10-17T14:26:23 <jtimon> btcdrak: it has been for a while, at least jun12 2014, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4333#issuecomment-45882887
2522016-10-17T14:26:23 <btcdrak> wow, looks like an RC today
2532016-10-17T14:26:47 <achow101> so if rc is tagged today, then should we hold off on that pre-final alert?
2542016-10-17T14:26:56 <jtimon> jonasschnelli: are there more locks than cs_main ? :p
2552016-10-17T14:27:02 <jonasschnelli> hehe...
2562016-10-17T14:27:13 <instagibbs> "Perhaps 0.10 is a good release for killing getinfo :)?" heh
2572016-10-17T14:27:22 <jonasschnelli> "all sorts of locks" mostly means: cs_main and cs_wallet
2582016-10-17T14:28:05 <sipa> we clearly need to add a cs_getinfo first.
2592016-10-17T14:28:59 <jtimon> yeah, not sure if I should wait for 0.15 to remove the "temporal" TestnetToBeDeprecatedFieldRPC or do it directly in #8921, certainly rpcmining can remove its redundant "testnet" field though
2602016-10-17T14:29:13 <btcdrak> sipa: you need to update your BIP PR to amend this as well https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009/assignments.mediawiki
2612016-10-17T14:30:31 <btcdrak> maybe I can just edit it
2622016-10-17T14:32:17 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632016-10-17T14:32:32 <sipa> BlueMatt: your rebase of compact block tweaks differs from my manual version
2642016-10-17T14:32:40 <sipa> - if (mi->second->nHeight >= chainActive.Height() - MAX_CMPCTBLOCK_DEPTH) {
2652016-10-17T14:32:43 <sipa> + if (CanDirectFetch(Params().GetConsensus()) && mi->second->nHeight >= chainActive.Height() - MAX_CMPCTBLOCK_DEPTH) {
2662016-10-17T14:32:48 <BlueMatt> argh
2672016-10-17T14:32:48 <sipa> - LOCK(cs_main);
2682016-10-17T14:32:48 <sipa> + CBlock block;
2692016-10-17T14:32:48 <sipa> + bool fBlockRead = false;
2702016-10-17T14:32:51 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2712016-10-17T14:32:56 <sipa> we want the '+' side of this, right?
2722016-10-17T14:33:04 <BlueMatt> i have no idea, need context
2732016-10-17T14:33:20 <sipa> the '-' side lacks your fix for reduction of locks
2742016-10-17T14:33:22 <BlueMatt> note that my branch includes one commit on top
2752016-10-17T14:33:27 <sipa> ah
2762016-10-17T14:33:34 <BlueMatt> yea, i was suggesting we dont bother with that commit (the cs_main fix)
2772016-10-17T14:33:38 * jtimon sees Params().GetConsensus() being used directly...
2782016-10-17T14:33:43 <BlueMatt> just because it already has acks on the pr
2792016-10-17T14:33:46 <BlueMatt> easy to push it to another pr
2802016-10-17T14:34:12 <sipa> BlueMatt: then there is still a difference
2812016-10-17T14:34:18 <BlueMatt> jtimon: yea, i think sdaftuar point that out to me on fri or so
2822016-10-17T14:34:35 <BlueMatt> should fix
2832016-10-17T14:36:12 <jtimon> BlueMatt: great. I mean, not a big deal, but I grep Params() every time I rebase #7829 git blame would blame you
2842016-10-17T14:36:34 <BlueMatt> jtimon: no, its already passed into that function, so should not call Params()
2852016-10-17T14:36:51 <BlueMatt> sipa: lemme look
2862016-10-17T14:37:28 <sipa> BlueMatt: in response to receiving a getdata MSG_CMPCT_BLOCK, and we're likely in IBD, should we respond with a normal block or not?
2872016-10-17T14:37:37 <BlueMatt> yes
2882016-10-17T14:37:38 <sipa> i don't remember where this patch originates
2892016-10-17T14:37:39 <BlueMatt> normal block
2902016-10-17T14:37:42 <sipa> ok
2912016-10-17T14:38:44 <sipa> rebased
2922016-10-17T14:38:48 <sipa> (using your history)
2932016-10-17T14:38:53 <BlueMatt> kk
2942016-10-17T14:39:34 <BlueMatt> wait, now I'm confused
2952016-10-17T14:39:40 <BlueMatt> i thought we did want the CanDirectFetch?
2962016-10-17T14:39:44 <sipa> indeed
2972016-10-17T14:39:49 <sipa> your version had that, mine does not
2982016-10-17T14:40:00 <BlueMatt> i dont see it on the github diff now?
2992016-10-17T14:40:25 <sipa> presumably because the CanDirectFetch already exists in master, and my patch unintentionally undid it
3002016-10-17T14:40:36 <sipa> while yours leaves it alone
3012016-10-17T14:40:45 <BlueMatt> ahh, ok
3022016-10-17T14:41:21 *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032016-10-17T14:41:44 <sipa> actually, no
3042016-10-17T14:42:08 <BlueMatt> yea, no, it should be on L4877
3052016-10-17T14:42:25 <sipa> i just pushed the wrong branch
3062016-10-17T14:42:27 <sipa> fixed now
3072016-10-17T14:42:29 <BlueMatt> (though, as jtimon points out, it shouldnt call Params(), it should use consensusParams)
3082016-10-17T14:42:36 <sipa> ah
3092016-10-17T14:43:06 <sipa> fixing
3102016-10-17T14:43:11 <BlueMatt> thanks
3112016-10-17T14:43:21 <sipa> jtimon: sorry, wasn't clear to me that we actually already had a consensusParams variable there
3122016-10-17T14:49:39 <GitHub157> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c90111314435...c6b959efcf2d
3132016-10-17T14:49:40 <GitHub157> bitcoin/master f9c23de Pieter Wuille: Define start and end time for segwit deployment
3142016-10-17T14:49:40 <GitHub157> bitcoin/master c6b959e Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8937: Define start and end time for segwit deployment...
3152016-10-17T14:49:52 <GitHub74> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8937: Define start and end time for segwit deployment (master...bip141start) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8937
3162016-10-17T14:50:24 <sipa> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A0.13.1
3172016-10-17T14:50:28 <sipa> > No results matched your search.
3182016-10-17T14:50:31 <sipa> \0/
3192016-10-17T14:50:38 <achow101> \o/
3202016-10-17T14:50:56 <jtimon> sipa: ideally if we don't have it, create it at the top for "my minions" to turn it into a parameter more easily
3212016-10-17T14:51:21 <sipa> jtimon: fixed in #8637
3222016-10-17T14:51:26 * BlueMatt goes to update his node due to preferential peering stuff
3232016-10-17T14:51:26 <jtimon> thanks!
3242016-10-17T14:51:41 <sipa> BlueMatt: how ready is FIBRE for segwit?
3252016-10-17T14:51:47 <BlueMatt> uhhh, uhhhhh
3262016-10-17T14:51:53 <BlueMatt> just needs rebased on master now
3272016-10-17T14:51:56 <sipa> You have 6 weeks.
3282016-10-17T14:52:09 <BlueMatt> I'll do that this week
3292016-10-17T14:52:16 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
3302016-10-17T14:52:16 <sipa> May the blocks be ever in your favor.
3312016-10-17T14:53:17 <GitHub97> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8b66659921e6170831f3a043e9a54fa45776aa68
3322016-10-17T14:53:17 <GitHub97> bitcoin/0.13 8b66659 Pieter Wuille: Define start and end time for segwit deployment...
3332016-10-17T14:53:29 <achow101> rc1 tag now?
3342016-10-17T14:54:02 <btcdrak> achow101: we need release notes yet I think?
3352016-10-17T14:54:09 <sipa> going to update my node to 0.13 branch
3362016-10-17T14:54:20 <instagibbs> cmpctblks twkz, and notes?
3372016-10-17T14:54:39 <sipa> i don't think we need the tweaks in 0.13
3382016-10-17T14:54:51 <instagibbs> ok fine :( I'll just tattoo it on my arm
3392016-10-17T14:54:54 <jtimon> yeah, doesn't 8637 need backporting?
3402016-10-17T14:55:03 <jtimon> oh, ok
3412016-10-17T14:55:37 <achow101> oh, release notes. can't forget about those
3422016-10-17T14:55:51 <instagibbs> Well at this point, I should just proposed we change the debug string to something easier to remember
3432016-10-17T14:56:09 <jtimon> what debug string?
3442016-10-17T14:57:24 <instagibbs> -debug=cmpctblock. I'll stop complaining now :)
3452016-10-17T14:57:45 <wumpus> working on release notes
3462016-10-17T14:57:51 <sipa> you need help?
3472016-10-17T14:58:29 <wumpus> probably; I'll do the list of pulls and authors, but if something needs special mention please submit a pull
3482016-10-17T14:58:53 <BlueMatt> sipa: if i update my dnsseed today do we want that in 0.13?
3492016-10-17T14:59:22 <sipa> BlueMatt: i would say so
3502016-10-17T14:59:35 <wumpus> yes
3512016-10-17T15:00:00 <BlueMatt> argh, ok, I'll prioritize that today
3522016-10-17T15:00:08 <sipa> BlueMatt: you can of course 'trivially' support it by just making x9.* an alias for the normal seed
3532016-10-17T15:00:19 <btcdrak> are petertodd and jonasschnelli's seed working ok yet? they seemed really flakey for a while
3542016-10-17T15:00:21 <sipa> so you can do the actual implementation work later
3552016-10-17T15:00:29 *** davec has quit IRC
3562016-10-17T15:00:40 <BlueMatt> sipa: ok, true, I'll do that and we can add the tag today
3572016-10-17T15:01:47 <sipa> btcdrak: jonasschnelli's seems to work, though it only returns one x9 node
3582016-10-17T15:01:57 <btcdrak> I was just about to say
3592016-10-17T15:02:36 <btcdrak> sipa: yours in only returning 3 x9s
3602016-10-17T15:03:00 <sipa> btcdrak: it knows about 8, though a few are fake
3612016-10-17T15:03:08 <sipa> the result corresponds with my database, though
3622016-10-17T15:03:21 <sipa> so i think we're good
3632016-10-17T15:03:27 <sipa> once 0.13.1 nodes appear, they should be detected
3642016-10-17T15:04:01 <sipa> wumpus: are the release notes for 0.13.1 supposed to be relative to 0.13.0 or 0.12?
3652016-10-17T15:04:54 <sipa> 0.13.0 i suppose, as the file is empty
3662016-10-17T15:05:59 <wumpus> wumpus: 0.13.0
3672016-10-17T15:06:14 <sipa> wumpus: is wumpus talking to himself?
3682016-10-17T15:06:49 *** fengling__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3692016-10-17T15:07:54 <wumpus> release notes are relative to the last minor release in case of a major release, and relative to the previous release on that branch in case of a minor release
3702016-10-17T15:08:18 <wumpus> lol
3712016-10-17T15:08:30 <achow101> what are x9 nodes?
3722016-10-17T15:09:23 <sipa> achow101: 9 == hex for NODE_NETWORK|NODE_WITNESS
3732016-10-17T15:09:25 *** fengling_ has quit IRC
3742016-10-17T15:09:50 <achow101> i see
3752016-10-17T15:10:04 <BlueMatt> dig x9.dnsseed.bluematt.me
3762016-10-17T15:10:04 <BlueMatt> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
3772016-10-17T15:10:04 <BlueMatt> x9.dnsseed.bluematt.me. 120 IN CNAME dnsseed.bluematt.me.
3782016-10-17T15:10:04 <gribble> Error: "ANSWER" is not a valid command.
3792016-10-17T15:10:08 <BlueMatt> is that sufficient sipa ?
3802016-10-17T15:10:09 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3812016-10-17T15:10:16 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3822016-10-17T15:10:27 <sipa> ack
3832016-10-17T15:10:52 <BlueMatt> if you add it to src, please include a comment noting that this is only active for x9, and someone needs to ping me if they want more
3842016-10-17T15:11:09 <sipa> same for my seeder
3852016-10-17T15:11:17 <sipa> it supports only a few combinations
3862016-10-17T15:11:29 <BlueMatt> ok, should add a comment, then :)
3872016-10-17T15:11:35 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3882016-10-17T15:11:38 <achow101> how do i see what nodes the seeder reports for those nodes?
3892016-10-17T15:11:47 <achow101> for x9
3902016-10-17T15:12:07 <sipa> dig x9.[seedername]
3912016-10-17T15:12:28 <achow101> thnx
3922016-10-17T15:12:49 <GitHub16> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #8939: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1 (master...bips131) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8939
3932016-10-17T15:16:52 <sipa> BlueMatt: send PR?
3942016-10-17T15:22:25 <BlueMatt> sipa: I'ma add lots o comments
3952016-10-17T15:22:53 <sipa> k!
3962016-10-17T15:23:16 <BlueMatt> sipa: which does yours support?
3972016-10-17T15:23:42 <sipa> x1, x5, x9, x13
3982016-10-17T15:24:06 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: which does yours support?
3992016-10-17T15:24:09 <BlueMatt> I assume the same as sipa?
4002016-10-17T15:24:22 <sipa> presumably the same - it's the software default, though it can be configured with a cmdline flag
4012016-10-17T15:25:17 <sipa> so NETWORK, NETWORK|BLOOM, NETWORK|WITNESS, NETWORK|BLOOM|WITNESS.
4022016-10-17T15:26:31 <achow101> does the current master advertise WITNESS?
4032016-10-17T15:26:38 <sipa> yes
4042016-10-17T15:26:51 <sipa> it should!
4052016-10-17T15:27:15 <GitHub145> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #8940: Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me (master...2016-10-dnsseed) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8940
4062016-10-17T15:27:24 <BlueMatt> sipa: ^
4072016-10-17T15:27:42 <achow101> hmm. I don't see my node in the seeders for x9
4082016-10-17T15:28:05 <BlueMatt> achow101: lol, they're not /that/ fast to pick up updates
4092016-10-17T15:28:45 <sipa> achow101: wait a few days
4102016-10-17T15:29:06 <achow101> I've been running builds of master since a very long time ago
4112016-10-17T15:29:46 *** fengling__ has quit IRC
4122016-10-17T15:29:47 <sipa> master only advertizes NODE_WITNESS since the merge of 8937, 40 minutes ago
4132016-10-17T15:29:52 <BlueMatt> achow101: master has only supported it for like the last hour
4142016-10-17T15:30:25 <achow101> oh. I thought it advertised it earlier.
4152016-10-17T15:31:32 <instagibbs> achow101, NODE_WITNESS is only advertised once bip9 parameters have been defined for a chain
4162016-10-17T15:32:05 <achow101> yup. just realized that
4172016-10-17T15:46:05 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4182016-10-17T15:48:05 <sipa> "subver": "/Satoshi:0.13.99(Ereshkigal)/",
4192016-10-17T15:48:09 <sipa> anyone know what that is?
4202016-10-17T15:49:07 <MarcoFalke> just someone setting -uacomment?
4212016-10-17T15:49:50 <sipa> there are multiple nodes reporting that
4222016-10-17T15:49:57 <wumpus> should be only one, mine
4232016-10-17T15:50:01 <sipa> ah
4242016-10-17T15:50:12 <MarcoFalke> Anything holding back 8928?
4252016-10-17T15:50:50 <sipa> wumpus: i have hereby deanonimized your onion address (i have two connections reporting that, one onion one ipv4)
4262016-10-17T15:52:09 <wumpus> good one :-) luckily it's a public node
4272016-10-17T15:53:05 <wumpus> though good point on deanonimization using bitcoin user agents, woudl be something to add as warning to onionscan
4282016-10-17T15:54:43 <wumpus> though one shouldn't have their node listening on both onion and clearnet if the intention is to hide, I hope we mention that in tor.md
4292016-10-17T15:55:20 <sipa> i believe we do
4302016-10-17T15:57:03 <wumpus> MarcoFalke: completely focused on 0.13.1 right now, will look later
4312016-10-17T16:03:35 <wumpus> sipa: I can't find the commit for #8651 (Predeclare PrecomputedTransactionData as struct) in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8679 , am I missing something or was it squashed into another one?
4322016-10-17T16:04:16 <wumpus> (need to manually fix these as they have no Github-Pull header)
4332016-10-17T16:04:58 <sipa> wumpus: seems it was squashed
4342016-10-17T16:05:41 <wumpus> yes, seems to be part of b8c79a057c48c871a5e48bdcdf600fbfe68f656b, thanks
4352016-10-17T16:05:41 *** davec has quit IRC
4362016-10-17T16:06:26 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372016-10-17T16:08:31 <sipa> wumpus: i'll remember to add Github-Pull tags in the future
4382016-10-17T16:08:43 <sipa> wumpus: is there some reference for that in the developer notes?
4392016-10-17T16:09:52 <wumpus> no, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere, it should be
4402016-10-17T16:10:40 <wumpus> I recently wrote my own auto-backport script and there's one by luke-jr floating around, should probably reference at least one of them there then
4412016-10-17T16:12:36 <wumpus> anyhow having to sort a few manually is not a big deal, it's a lot of manual work anyway
4422016-10-17T16:13:40 <MarcoFalke> I like the script by luke-jr. Makes sure the formatting is consistent and it requires less brain power, so less typos.
4432016-10-17T16:14:02 <MarcoFalke> Oh, Is 8939 the last pull before tagging 0.13.1?
4442016-10-17T16:14:36 <BlueMatt> also need #8940
4452016-10-17T16:14:41 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
4462016-10-17T16:14:51 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4472016-10-17T16:14:59 <wumpus> a script does help, it's easy to mistype pull numbers
4482016-10-17T16:15:33 <wumpus> they should have an error correcting digit :)
4492016-10-17T16:16:13 <btcdrak> wumpus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ereshkigal
4502016-10-17T16:16:43 <btcdrak> s/wumpus/sipa/
4512016-10-17T16:17:03 <sipa> btcdrak: i had found that myself, but didnt answer who was running the node :)
4522016-10-17T16:17:23 <btcdrak> pagans
4532016-10-17T16:18:43 <wumpus> releases are still too infrequent to warrant automating a lot of the things, though it would be good for consistency
4542016-10-17T16:19:14 <wumpus> btcdrak: :D
4552016-10-17T16:19:24 <sipa> we need wumpus.sh, though
4562016-10-17T16:20:25 <btcdrak> testnet is running 0.13 now
4572016-10-17T16:20:42 <btcdrak> ^ mining with
4582016-10-17T16:20:50 <sipa> 0.13.1?
4592016-10-17T16:21:05 *** BashCo has quit IRC
4602016-10-17T16:21:33 <btcdrak> yes
4612016-10-17T16:21:43 *** andytoshi has quit IRC
4622016-10-17T16:21:43 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4632016-10-17T16:22:42 <btcdrak> cfields_: any update on cgminer?
4642016-10-17T16:24:29 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4652016-10-17T16:26:08 *** BashCo has quit IRC
4662016-10-17T16:39:30 <btcdrak> proof reading appreciated please https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/235
4672016-10-17T16:40:40 <wumpus> wumpus.sh hah, could at least spawn a few instances in parallel then
4682016-10-17T16:44:28 <sipa> btcdrak: will read
4692016-10-17T16:47:10 <waxwing> btcdrak: "Despite the keyhash formula is same as" should be "Despite the fact that the .. is the same as"
4702016-10-17T16:48:51 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4712016-10-17T16:49:07 <GitHub169> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/7462125724ed3b88de490ab1bc3a4c3bea65fe2d
4722016-10-17T16:49:07 <GitHub169> bitcoin/0.13 7462125 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Fill in changelog and authors in release notes
4732016-10-17T16:51:01 <GitHub124> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/614ef85ff97602c31f471436004210a74f2d8946
4742016-10-17T16:51:02 <GitHub124> bitcoin/0.13 614ef85 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Properly sort authors list
4752016-10-17T16:52:47 <waxwing> btcdrak: i think you intended P2SH-P2WSH here: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/235/files#diff-6db9954f8386d196f3fcdc81537ced87R113
4762016-10-17T16:53:41 <waxwing> well, for some values of 'you'
4772016-10-17T16:54:44 <waxwing> scrip*t*PubKey here: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/235/files#diff-6db9954f8386d196f3fcdc81537ced87R119
4782016-10-17T16:55:44 *** fengling__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4792016-10-17T16:56:31 <waxwing> lines 122-124 'permanent(ly)'
4802016-10-17T16:57:21 <jl2012> waxing: thanks for reviewing. Sorry for many typos. I'll fix later
4812016-10-17T16:57:49 <GitHub61> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c6b959efcf2d...ef3402d9a8cb
4822016-10-17T16:57:49 <GitHub61> bitcoin/master 0941f55 Pieter Wuille: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1
4832016-10-17T16:57:50 <GitHub61> bitcoin/master ef3402d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8939: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1...
4842016-10-17T16:58:03 <GitHub44> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8939: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1 (master...bips131) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8939
4852016-10-17T16:58:37 <waxwing> actually just s/scripPubKey/scriptPubKey/g
4862016-10-17T17:01:14 <BlueMatt> sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8940#discussion_r83682480
4872016-10-17T17:02:35 <GitHub22> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/06d15fbea6fafb714f9576664422615704ad05fb
4882016-10-17T17:02:35 <GitHub22> bitcoin/0.13 06d15fb Pieter Wuille: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1...
4892016-10-17T17:13:22 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.13/doc/release-notes.md#notable-changes I guess the segwit activation needs special mention? Is there any text we can take over from any of the FAQs for this?
4902016-10-17T17:15:20 <GitHub195> [bitcoin] cdecker opened pull request #8941: Marking filter support for cdecker's DNS seed (master...dns-filter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8941
4912016-10-17T17:17:06 <harding> wumpus: I can probably find and adapt something.
4922016-10-17T17:17:27 <wumpus> harding: that'd be awesome
4932016-10-17T17:17:30 <cdecker> sipa: DNS filtering support added :-)
4942016-10-17T17:17:44 <wumpus> cdecker: thanks
4952016-10-17T17:17:47 <sipa> cdecker vs BlueMatt: 1-0
4962016-10-17T17:17:48 <sipa> ;)
4972016-10-17T17:18:08 <cdecker> Didn't know it was a competition
4982016-10-17T17:18:09 <sipa> (just kidding, i'm amazed you both started working on this immediately)
4992016-10-17T17:18:16 <cdecker> But I'll take the point ^^
5002016-10-17T17:18:54 <BlueMatt> wait, do you have your own seeder codebase cdecker?
5012016-10-17T17:19:12 <BlueMatt> sipa: also, have you seen my seeder codebase? good god its horendous
5022016-10-17T17:19:12 <cdecker> Yep, I have implemented my own crawler + dns seed
5032016-10-17T17:19:27 <sipa> BlueMatt: thankfully i don't need to
5042016-10-17T17:19:29 <cdecker> Same here, I'll have to rework it eventually
5052016-10-17T17:19:54 <BlueMatt> I mean I guess its better than the old one...which was based on magicaltux's php half-node and spawned a new process for each node it tested
5062016-10-17T17:19:57 <BlueMatt> :p
5072016-10-17T17:20:10 <sipa> i knew the php part
5082016-10-17T17:20:19 <BlueMatt> also, mysql
5092016-10-17T17:20:19 <sipa> i guess you've learned.
5102016-10-17T17:20:26 <BlueMatt> lol, not really, now its in java :p
5112016-10-17T17:20:37 <wumpus> at least not javascript...
5122016-10-17T17:20:44 <Lightsword> I hear javascript is the new big thing
5132016-10-17T17:20:48 * Lightsword *hides*
5142016-10-17T17:21:15 <sipa> asmjs is almost a decent object format :p
5152016-10-17T17:21:20 <cdecker> Oh yeah we should do crypto in JS :D
5162016-10-17T17:21:38 <BlueMatt> Lightsword: no, you're thinking of BASIC
5172016-10-17T17:22:03 <cdecker> Visual Basic!
5182016-10-17T17:22:15 <BlueMatt> cdecker: no, that was never the new big thing
5192016-10-17T17:22:16 <Lightsword> BlueMatt, I suggest COBOL, I hear itâs what all the banks use so it must be good :P
5202016-10-17T17:22:26 <sipa> can we please not start a flamewar about programming languages? everybody knows that ALGOL was never beaten
5212016-10-17T17:22:39 <cdecker> You're right, it's the rock solid foundation we all built upon
5222016-10-17T17:22:42 <BlueMatt> sipa: its called a "religious" war
5232016-10-17T17:23:08 <sipa> BlueMatt: that'd be emacs vs vi :)
5242016-10-17T17:23:30 <BlueMatt> you forgot the m
5252016-10-17T17:23:32 <BlueMatt> in vim
5262016-10-17T17:23:33 <BlueMatt> :p
5272016-10-17T17:24:15 <sipa> BlueMatt: pff, vim == vi improved
5282016-10-17T17:24:28 <BlueMatt> sipa: ehh, i guess either is better than mcedit :p
5292016-10-17T17:24:43 <sipa> that's right.
5302016-10-17T17:24:54 <sipa> you misspelled "neither"
5312016-10-17T17:25:15 <Lightsword> why not ed? https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.en.html
5322016-10-17T17:25:17 <BlueMatt> cdecker: which flags do you support?
5332016-10-17T17:25:24 <sipa> Lightsword: edlin?
5342016-10-17T17:25:41 <cdecker> The 4 least significant bits
5352016-10-17T17:25:48 <cdecker> Any combination thereof
5362016-10-17T17:26:00 <BlueMatt> argh, you broke my scheme
5372016-10-17T17:26:10 <cdecker> So x5 and x13 are included
5382016-10-17T17:26:23 <BlueMatt> cdecker: so x1 - x13?
5392016-10-17T17:26:31 <sipa> x1-x15
5402016-10-17T17:26:39 <cdecker> Yep
5412016-10-17T17:26:40 <BlueMatt> yea, thats what i said
5422016-10-17T17:26:42 <BlueMatt> x1-x15
5432016-10-17T17:27:04 <GitHub15> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #8942: [doc] 0.13.1: Minor clarification to release notes (0.13...Mf1610-131doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8942
5442016-10-17T17:27:09 <cdecker> Well x0 actually also replies, but is equal to no filter
5452016-10-17T17:27:31 <sipa> i always require NODE_NETWORK, so nothing is equivalent to x1
5462016-10-17T17:28:21 <cdecker> Hm, haven't found a node without that bit set yet, I'm sure someone broke it somewhere xD
5472016-10-17T17:28:40 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ok, merged the two
5482016-10-17T17:28:58 <wumpus> thanks!
5492016-10-17T17:29:05 <GitHub157> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/06d15fbea6fa...498e950daaf3
5502016-10-17T17:29:05 <GitHub157> bitcoin/0.13 fa161e8 MarcoFalke: [doc] 0.13.1: Minor clarification to release notes
5512016-10-17T17:29:05 <GitHub96> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8942: [doc] 0.13.1: Minor clarification to release notes (0.13...Mf1610-131doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8942
5522016-10-17T17:29:06 <GitHub157> bitcoin/0.13 498e950 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8942: [doc] 0.13.1: Minor clarification to release notes...
5532016-10-17T17:29:15 <BlueMatt> cdecker: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8940/commits/dc1edd8c93ec5b17f5de9bd48e3b2276866ec2b1
5542016-10-17T17:29:30 <GitHub85> [bitcoin] cdecker closed pull request #8941: Marking filter support for cdecker's DNS seed (master...dns-filter) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8941
5552016-10-17T17:30:02 <wumpus> this leaves MarcoFalke's remark about sipa's seeder - any explanation why it wouldn't respond to x13?
5562016-10-17T17:30:29 <sipa> hmm
5572016-10-17T17:30:30 <cdecker> Does it reply to x8?
5582016-10-17T17:30:32 <sipa> i just responded
5592016-10-17T17:30:36 <sipa> but i'm confused myself
5602016-10-17T17:30:38 <sipa> let me check
5612016-10-17T17:31:02 <sipa> sigh
5622016-10-17T17:31:15 <sipa> 13 would xd.seed.bitcoin.sipa.be
5632016-10-17T17:31:18 <sipa> not x13
5642016-10-17T17:31:23 * sipa fails at hex
5652016-10-17T17:32:02 <sipa> BlueMatt: ^
5662016-10-17T17:32:31 <BlueMatt> cdecker: so you reply to 0x1 - 0xf, right?
5672016-10-17T17:32:49 <cdecker> Darn, I'm using the decimal representation
5682016-10-17T17:33:04 <sipa> cdecker: no worries, it works for x9 :)
5692016-10-17T17:33:23 <wumpus> heh, it would have been more clear if we had padded to 64 bits
5702016-10-17T17:33:36 <sipa> waste of bandwidth!!!!1
5712016-10-17T17:33:39 <cdecker> So wait, which one is the format to implement? Hex or decimal
5722016-10-17T17:33:44 <wumpus> hex
5732016-10-17T17:33:54 <cdecker> Ok, give me a minute
5742016-10-17T17:34:11 <wumpus> sorry for the confusion, I had forgot too
5752016-10-17T17:34:11 <sipa> ^ not a blocker
5762016-10-17T17:34:29 <BlueMatt> ok, fixed the text to indicate hex everyhwere
5772016-10-17T17:35:01 <cdecker> Fixed and restarted
5782016-10-17T17:38:18 <GitHub190> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ef3402d9a8cb...763828df499f
5792016-10-17T17:38:19 <GitHub190> bitcoin/master 504c72a Matt Corallo: Comment that most dnsseeds only support some service bits combos
5802016-10-17T17:38:20 <GitHub190> bitcoin/master ffb4713 Matt Corallo: Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me
5812016-10-17T17:38:20 <GitHub190> bitcoin/master 2449e12 Christian Decker: My DNS seed supports filtering...
5822016-10-17T17:38:34 <GitHub161> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8940: Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me (master...2016-10-dnsseed) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8940
5832016-10-17T17:38:51 <BlueMatt> phew, back to 100% on 0.13.1
5842016-10-17T17:43:12 *** jnewbery has quit IRC
5852016-10-17T17:44:27 <GitHub87> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/498e950daaf3...5b4192bc4c40
5862016-10-17T17:44:28 <GitHub87> bitcoin/0.13 9aa0c15 Matt Corallo: Comment that most dnsseeds only support some service bits combos...
5872016-10-17T17:44:28 <GitHub87> bitcoin/0.13 3d770a8 Matt Corallo: Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me...
5882016-10-17T17:44:29 <GitHub87> bitcoin/0.13 5b4192b Christian Decker: My DNS seed supports filtering...
5892016-10-17T17:45:49 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
5902016-10-17T17:50:10 *** jdumb1 has quit IRC
5912016-10-17T17:51:25 <GitHub171> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e1169b052991671db1043f432a85b31f9245a4c2
5922016-10-17T17:51:25 <GitHub171> bitcoin/0.13 e1169b0 Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Update release notes for last-minute pulls
5932016-10-17T17:51:55 <wumpus> time to tag 0.13.0rc1? would be a shame to hold it up on the release notes, those can be updates right until -final anyway
5942016-10-17T17:52:01 <wumpus> 0.13.1rc1*
5952016-10-17T17:52:04 <btcdrak> do it!
5962016-10-17T17:52:13 <btcdrak> I just fired up my gitian VM in anticipation
5972016-10-17T17:53:34 <harding> I'll be done it about 5 minutes.
5982016-10-17T17:54:04 *** fengling__ has quit IRC
5992016-10-17T17:54:05 <wumpus> harding: then we'll wait for you, I need to run pre-release tests anyway
6002016-10-17T17:54:17 <MarcoFalke> Oh I should have started caching for gitian yesterday..
6012016-10-17T17:56:00 <wumpus> its not a competition :p
6022016-10-17T17:57:59 <GitHub18> [bitcoin] harding opened pull request #8943: Release notes: add info about segwit and null dummy soft forks (0.13...notable-change-segwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8943
6032016-10-17T18:02:17 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6042016-10-17T18:08:38 <btcdrak> MarcoFalke: for Travis?
6052016-10-17T18:09:37 <MarcoFalke> btcdrak: gitian will cache the depends dir, so it will run faster if you do it the day before rc1 :P
6062016-10-17T18:13:36 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6072016-10-17T18:20:47 <achow101> MarcoFalke: doesn't the cache persist across builds? When I run the cacheing command again it doesn't actually do anything since everything is already there
6082016-10-17T18:24:17 <MarcoFalke> Yes, it does. But usually some of the depends are bumped, so the compiled and cached ones are no longer valid.
6092016-10-17T18:24:45 <achow101> did we bump any depends this time?
6102016-10-17T18:25:32 <achow101> nvm, we did with boost for windows waking
6112016-10-17T18:26:16 <wumpus> looks like travis is failing on 0.13 brnach
6122016-10-17T18:27:40 <wumpus> linux 64 bits, no clear error https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/168377467
6132016-10-17T18:28:09 <wumpus> "Running test/bitcoin-util-test.py..."
6142016-10-17T18:28:16 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
6152016-10-17T18:28:47 <MarcoFalke> Should we backport the "run prevector tests faster"
6162016-10-17T18:28:50 <MarcoFalke> ?
6172016-10-17T18:28:57 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6182016-10-17T18:29:09 <gmaxwell> wumpus: we'll need to do a lot of release note work for 0.13.1 in any case. It would be stupid to hold it now.
6192016-10-17T18:29:13 <wumpus> well if it's just a problem with the tests I don't care, can fix that at any time later
6202016-10-17T18:29:38 <gmaxwell> wumpus: for example, we need to have a section on miner software compatiblity... and I expect that some of the things we'd list won't be done until after rc1.
6212016-10-17T18:29:42 *** brg444 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6222016-10-17T18:29:47 <MarcoFalke> But we should understand the failure, ideally.
6232016-10-17T18:30:06 <wumpus> gmaxwell: agreed
6242016-10-17T18:30:57 <wumpus> just going to tag now (before I go to bed), if there's any problems we'll just do another rc...
6252016-10-17T18:31:08 <gmaxwell> \O/
6262016-10-17T18:31:21 <gmaxwell> RC's are free, esp when we don't even put up binaries for them. :P
6272016-10-17T18:31:41 <wumpus> it will at least get people to actually test
6282016-10-17T18:31:46 <wumpus> yep
6292016-10-17T18:33:27 <wumpus> * [new tag] v0.13.1rc1 -> v0.13.1rc1
6302016-10-17T18:34:35 <achow101> yay!
6312016-10-17T18:36:35 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
6322016-10-17T18:37:29 <gmaxwell> because of the preferential peering, y'all should upgrade your own nodes ASAP, if you're not on a very current master or on 0.13.1rc1
6332016-10-17T18:39:00 *** fengling__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6342016-10-17T18:40:21 <wumpus> ah yes good point still need to update my own nodes post-f9c23de
6352016-10-17T18:42:20 <btcdrak> upgraded and building
6362016-10-17T18:44:16 <achow101> gmaxwell: cobra merged the alert announcement to bitcoin.org. The date for the alert is set to tomorrow. Should that still happen or should it be pushed back a bit?
6372016-10-17T18:45:24 <gmaxwell> achow101: with 0.13.1rc1 tagged now, I'd like to push it until after the 0.13.1release.
6382016-10-17T18:46:29 *** fengling__ has quit IRC
6392016-10-17T18:46:31 <achow101> I'll make another pr for that. Just set the date to "After 0.13.1 is released" instead of a hard date.
6402016-10-17T18:47:48 <gmaxwell> sorry for adding delays. :)
6412016-10-17T18:49:55 <wumpus> well at least I don't think anyone is waiting for that one :)
6422016-10-17T18:50:09 <wumpus> makes sense to prioritize 0.13.1
6432016-10-17T18:51:20 <gmaxwell> well I don't want to encourage a wave of updating to 0.13.0 now, since we've seen tolerance effects before (people update slower to a release if its sooner to their last upgrade)
6442016-10-17T18:58:02 <BlueMatt> ^ while I get why, this is fucked up...if something comes out really quickly after the last its probably a) an easy, small, update, and b) liekly has security hotfixes
6452016-10-17T19:03:52 <btcdrak> achow101: the alert has actually gone live on the bitcoin.org RSS feeds....
6462016-10-17T19:04:00 <btcdrak> It's just pinged up in Slack for example...
6472016-10-17T19:04:03 <achow101> yes, it has
6482016-10-17T19:04:20 <achow101> that happens when it goes live on bitcoin.org.
6492016-10-17T19:10:47 <sipa> gmaxwell: yup, already upgraded my node, and seen it appear on my fikteree seed
6502016-10-17T19:10:52 <sipa> *filtered
6512016-10-17T19:14:08 <gmaxwell> I'm also seeing a lot of my connection slots eaten up by spynodes. Here is the banlist I've created: http://0bin.net/paste/0Zo6iK2ZFLcryvGp#SQiUU268nld78Z1aMJG4GRwBjXpD4rasRP266adp7-+
6522016-10-17T19:14:15 <achow101> given that we don't want people to upgrade yet, it would probably be a good idea to take down the alert post for now, yes?
6532016-10-17T19:14:46 <gmaxwell> achow101: ugh. yea, I didn't want that with a banner up on bitcoin.org
6542016-10-17T19:15:35 <gmaxwell> achow101: crap.
6552016-10-17T19:15:37 <gmaxwell> damnit.
6562016-10-17T19:16:01 <achow101> wasn't expecting cobra to be so active today
6572016-10-17T19:23:10 <wumpus> gmaxwell: number of connections went from 54 to 14 after applying that banlist :)
6582016-10-17T19:32:19 <kanzure> oh crud, he merged because of the ACK probably
6592016-10-17T19:32:56 <achow101> he merged probably because of the multiple previous ACKs and then we didn't tell him not to merge today
6602016-10-17T19:33:24 *** whphhg has quit IRC
6612016-10-17T19:33:32 *** moli has quit IRC
6622016-10-17T19:34:25 *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6632016-10-17T19:34:50 <achow101> well it's gone now, so that's good (I guess)
6642016-10-17T19:42:25 <sipa> who merged what?
6652016-10-17T19:42:48 <Lauda> Alert key warning on Bitcoin.org
6662016-10-17T19:43:09 <achow101> cobra merged the post about the prefinal alert on bitcoin.org a few minutes after rc1 was tagged
6672016-10-17T19:43:21 <sipa> ah
6682016-10-17T19:46:24 *** fengling__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6692016-10-17T19:52:57 <gmaxwell> hm. /r/bitcoin could set the automoderator to automatically hide posts from non verified submitters for moderator approval that contain the string "Bitcoin.*Core.*releas"
6702016-10-17T19:54:44 *** bsm1175321 has quit IRC
6712016-10-17T19:55:09 *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6722016-10-17T19:59:43 <wumpus> that's kind of smart
6732016-10-17T20:00:33 *** bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
6742016-10-17T20:00:45 <wumpus> avoids the most straightforward attack of someone falsely announcing a release, at least
6752016-10-17T20:03:51 *** brg444 has quit IRC
6762016-10-17T20:14:03 *** fengling__ has quit IRC
6772016-10-17T20:19:16 <BlueMatt> aaaaannnndddd segfault with 0.13.1
6782016-10-17T20:19:44 <achow101> oh?
6792016-10-17T20:20:03 <BlueMatt> lol, feelers broke addnode
6802016-10-17T20:20:28 <BlueMatt> excuse me, not segfault, assert
6812016-10-17T20:21:34 <sipa> BlueMatt: which is why we have rcs :)
6822016-10-17T20:21:52 <BlueMatt> net.cpp: assert(nOutbound <= (MAX_OUTBOUND_CONNECTIONS + MAX_FEELER_CONNECTIONS)); is bogus if you use addnode
6832016-10-17T20:22:09 *** JackH has quit IRC
6842016-10-17T20:23:53 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6852016-10-17T20:28:59 <wumpus> is that just on 0.13.1 or also on master?
6862016-10-17T20:29:18 <wumpus> please don't tell me that we have no tests for addnode, and no one tried it since feeler was merged :(
6872016-10-17T20:29:37 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6882016-10-17T20:29:41 <sipa> i have addnodes
6892016-10-17T20:29:44 <GitHub67> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #8944: Remove bogus assert on number of oubound connections. (master...2016-10-bad-assert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8944
6902016-10-17T20:29:56 <sipa> and i've been running master for a long time
6912016-10-17T20:30:00 <sipa> i see no assert fail
6922016-10-17T20:30:01 <BlueMatt> wumpus: I dont know how anyone could have used addnode after their node has been running and not have hit this
6932016-10-17T20:30:09 <BlueMatt> if they have addnodes in bitcoin.conf they would likely not have
6942016-10-17T20:30:11 <sipa> oh, you mean addnode rpc?
6952016-10-17T20:30:13 <BlueMatt> yes
6962016-10-17T20:30:21 <sipa> yeah, i think you're the only user for that :)
6972016-10-17T20:30:23 <BlueMatt> or an addnode which was offline and then came up after running
6982016-10-17T20:31:22 <BlueMatt> i just wanted to addnode other segwit peers :(
6992016-10-17T20:31:27 <achow101> just tried it on master and I don't see a problem
7002016-10-17T20:31:33 <achow101> It just returns null
7012016-10-17T20:31:36 <BlueMatt> achow101: addnode onetry a few times
7022016-10-17T20:31:38 <BlueMatt> to different nodes
7032016-10-17T20:32:00 <wumpus> is that assertion new?
7042016-10-17T20:32:04 <BlueMatt> yes
7052016-10-17T20:32:17 <BlueMatt> blame on 0.13.1 shows it as from 2611ad79a5d53e2ce1535b342a9b72c2888a6c3f
7062016-10-17T20:32:18 *** d_t has quit IRC
7072016-10-17T20:32:23 <BlueMatt> which is feelers
7082016-10-17T20:32:53 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7092016-10-17T20:32:58 <achow101> oh. I think I see now. It just crashed on me after I did it a few times
7102016-10-17T20:33:01 <sipa> i don't understand why addnode breaks that assertion
7112016-10-17T20:33:15 <sipa> i'd say something is broken with addnode then
7122016-10-17T20:33:20 <BlueMatt> because addnode will result in you having $ADDNODE_COUNT + $ORIGINAL_OUTBOUND_COUNT outbound peers
7132016-10-17T20:33:33 <BlueMatt> the addnode peers are not marked fInbound (because they are not inbound0
7142016-10-17T20:33:34 <BlueMatt> )
7152016-10-17T20:33:50 <wumpus> I think it used to be the case that addnode wouldn't allow you to create more outbound connections than allowed
7162016-10-17T20:33:55 <sipa> addnode doesn't respect the max outgoing connection count?
7172016-10-17T20:34:05 <BlueMatt> sipa: no it doesnt
7182016-10-17T20:34:06 <BlueMatt> why would it
7192016-10-17T20:34:09 <wumpus> I don't think an assertion is the right way to enforce that, though
7202016-10-17T20:34:11 <sipa> didn't we fix that?
7212016-10-17T20:34:12 <BlueMatt> wumpus: im rather confident that is not the case
7222016-10-17T20:34:32 <wumpus> BlueMatt: so addnode allowes you to create, say, 100 outgoing connections?
7232016-10-17T20:34:37 <BlueMatt> yes
7242016-10-17T20:34:39 <wumpus> blegh
7252016-10-17T20:34:48 <BlueMatt> it would be massively surprising behavior for it not to
7262016-10-17T20:34:53 <wumpus> that limit exists for a reason
7272016-10-17T20:34:57 <BlueMatt> what if I want to peer with the 10 other nodes that I run?
7282016-10-17T20:35:03 <sipa> ThreadOpenAddedConnections uses semOutbound
7292016-10-17T20:35:14 <sipa> ah, no
7302016-10-17T20:35:22 <sipa> it does, but doesn't check the result
7312016-10-17T20:35:53 <sipa> i remember
7322016-10-17T20:36:52 <wumpus> BlueMatt: yes with that reasoning it makes some sense
7332016-10-17T20:37:05 <wumpus> though I don't htink anyone but you was understanding this implication
7342016-10-17T20:37:17 <BlueMatt> addnode does, however, result in your node making fewer other outbound connections, which i think is (mostly) reasonable
7352016-10-17T20:37:27 <BlueMatt> though it might be nice to lower-bound that (to, say, 2 or 3)
7362016-10-17T20:37:39 <BlueMatt> because you might addnode yourself into a sybil
7372016-10-17T20:37:48 <BlueMatt> where you only connect outbound to yourself
7382016-10-17T20:38:06 <sipa> or always treat the outgoing connections as using a connection slot, unless the peer knows you specifically (whitelist/bip150/...)
7392016-10-17T20:38:45 <BlueMatt> hey, my node found a segwit peer of its own volition
7402016-10-17T20:38:50 <BlueMatt> well, unless that person addnode'd me
7412016-10-17T20:39:12 <sipa> addnode=eu.ng.bitcoinrelaynetwork.org
7422016-10-17T20:39:13 <sipa> addnode=nns4r54x3lfbrkq5.onion
7432016-10-17T20:39:13 <sipa> addnode=t3x2266jvxpwwwzq.onion
7442016-10-17T20:39:13 <sipa> addnode=192.99.46.190
7452016-10-17T20:39:20 <sipa> are you any of those?
7462016-10-17T20:39:37 <BlueMatt> dig +short public-seed.bluematt.me
7472016-10-17T20:39:37 <BlueMatt> 198.251.83.19
7482016-10-17T20:39:38 <BlueMatt> no
7492016-10-17T20:40:48 <Lightsword> is there any way to do âbitcoin-cli getblocktemplateâ with segwit active?
7502016-10-17T20:42:41 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
7512016-10-17T20:43:41 <sipa> Lightsword: you need to pass some extra parameter to indicate the miner supports segwit
7522016-10-17T20:43:56 <Lightsword> sipa, how do I do that with bitcoin-cli?
7532016-10-17T20:45:27 <sipa> $ ./bitcoin-cli -testnet getblocktemplate '{"rules":["segwit"]}'
7542016-10-17T20:46:17 <wumpus> seems that's not documented in the help for the request
7552016-10-17T20:46:44 <wumpus> just 'capabilities' and 'mode'; 'rules' is only shown as a reply field
7562016-10-17T20:46:57 <sipa> indeed
7572016-10-17T20:47:07 <sipa> though the help text does refer to https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki#getblocktemplate_changes
7582016-10-17T20:47:15 <Lightsword> would it make sense to just have bitcoin-cli pass the segwit rules by default?
7592016-10-17T20:47:20 <Lightsword> so that scripts donât get broken
7602016-10-17T20:47:30 <Lightsword> since nobody is actually going to mine using bitcoin-cli
7612016-10-17T20:47:34 <sipa> Lightsword: it's intended to break things
7622016-10-17T20:47:46 <sipa> as clients need to explicitly make changes to support segwit
7632016-10-17T20:48:01 <Lightsword> intended to break bitcoin-cli? yes I know it breaks clients intentionally
7642016-10-17T20:48:48 <btcdrak> wumpus: I see your asserts in the gitian.sigs repo but not signatures.
7652016-10-17T20:49:00 <sipa> well it should equally break those scripts, right? even if they're not used for mining directly, if they're not modified, some things may silently break when segwit activates
7662016-10-17T20:49:35 <sipa> but we should update the help output
7672016-10-17T20:50:25 <wumpus> btcdrak: eh yes, added
7682016-10-17T20:50:27 <Lightsword> sipa, I assume most would just use it for checking if a transaction is going to be mined next block
7692016-10-17T20:55:33 *** achow101_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7702016-10-17T21:01:03 <BlueMatt> I complained about this months ago
7712016-10-17T21:03:04 <BlueMatt> well, a month ago
7722016-10-17T21:04:05 <wumpus> connected to four witness nodes already
7732016-10-17T21:04:34 <BlueMatt> dig +short x9.dnsseed.bluematt.me | wc -l
7742016-10-17T21:04:34 <BlueMatt> 7
7752016-10-17T21:06:53 <GitHub170> [bitcoin] Michagogo opened pull request #8947: Add historical release notes for v0.13.0 (0.13...0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8947
7762016-10-17T21:07:38 <michagogo> Er, wait a sec
7772016-10-17T21:07:56 <michagogo> master's historical release notes for 0.13.0 don't match release-notes.md in the v0.13.0 tag
7782016-10-17T21:08:00 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7792016-10-17T21:08:08 <michagogo> -- #8072 `1b87e5b` Travis: 'make check' in parallel and verbose (theuni)
7802016-10-17T21:08:08 <michagogo> +- #8072 `1b87e5b` Travis: 'make check' in parallel and verbose (MarcoFalke)
7812016-10-17T21:08:18 <BlueMatt> heh
7822016-10-17T21:09:12 <wumpus> that happens, some people update the release notes on master
7832016-10-17T21:09:31 <wumpus> it's too late to update them on the tag so they update the historical release notes, I also find that curious, but meh
7842016-10-17T21:10:12 <BlueMatt> clearly MarcoFalke and cfields_ are in a commit-count feud
7852016-10-17T21:10:30 <cfields_> eh?
7862016-10-17T21:11:20 <btcdrak> ha
7872016-10-17T21:11:20 <gmaxwell> Lightsword: there is some risk that some genius is mining using system('bitcoin-cli getblocktemplate').
7882016-10-17T21:11:54 <gmaxwell> I don't know how great that risk is... but one thing I've learned is to not underestimate the liklyhood of someone doing something crazy, so long as it works.
7892016-10-17T21:12:08 *** fengling__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
7902016-10-17T21:12:35 <cfields_> gmaxwell: agreed. That sounds like exactly something someone might do as a quick hack, then forgets to clean up and it ends up in production
7912016-10-17T21:12:53 <wumpus> also passing arguments automatically from -cli is going to confuse people
7922016-10-17T21:13:06 <MarcoFalke> michagogo: The diff should be inversed :P
7932016-10-17T21:13:09 <Lightsword> gmaxwell, that sounds very unlikely since most pools are based off of open source software and none does that
7942016-10-17T21:13:59 <sipa> Lightsword: how about we add an RPC to just list what txids would be mined?
7952016-10-17T21:14:07 <wumpus> the bitcoin-cli API has been kept as close to the RPC API as used by other languages as possible, the only difference is the 'parse this as string or not' bit
7962016-10-17T21:14:09 <sipa> BlueMatt: complained about what?
7972016-10-17T21:14:11 <gmaxwell> Lightsword: most hashpower has previously been doing things that no open source software does...
7982016-10-17T21:14:20 <cfields_> Lightsword: i haven't had a single pool willing to let me poke at their production code...
7992016-10-17T21:14:59 <Lightsword> sipa, that would be better since full transactions arenât needed most of the time when using cli
8002016-10-17T21:15:07 <BlueMatt> sipa: lack of getblocktemplate documentation in rpc help
8012016-10-17T21:15:36 <wumpus> BlueMatt: you should have created an issue like I just did
8022016-10-17T21:15:43 <BlueMatt> this is true
8032016-10-17T21:15:43 <gmaxwell> I'd love an RPC that would let me ask for a block of an arbritary weight limit. ... and also only returns the ids, and some extra fields like the total amount of fees.
8042016-10-17T21:16:11 <Lightsword> cfields_, kano.is is essentially the open source stock ckpool, mine is a minor patchset(most of my changes are webif related)
8052016-10-17T21:16:40 <Lightsword> cfields_, btc.com should be open source
8062016-10-17T21:16:50 <Lightsword> https://github.com/btccom/btcpool
8072016-10-17T21:18:01 <Lightsword> gmaxwell, btc.com pool software there is a public example of a how the stratum based validationless mining software works
8082016-10-17T21:18:11 <Lightsword> https://github.com/btccom/btcpool/tree/master/src/poolwatcher
8092016-10-17T21:19:12 <sipa> wumpus, MarcoFalke: ha, 3 identical issues simultabeously
8102016-10-17T21:19:29 <MarcoFalke> heh
8112016-10-17T21:19:42 <Lightsword> btw the btc.com pool software is based off of bitcoin core(an old version 0.8.something)
8122016-10-17T21:20:21 <wumpus> lol
8132016-10-17T21:20:46 <sipa> Lightsword: wah
8142016-10-17T21:21:10 <BlueMatt> whyyyyy
8152016-10-17T21:21:10 <Lightsword> very heavially modified of course
8162016-10-17T21:21:16 *** fengling__ has quit IRC
8172016-10-17T21:21:49 <achow101_> I wonder how that will react to an alert..
8182016-10-17T21:22:10 <gmaxwell> achow101_: 0.8 didn't do anything with the alerts except display them and relay them.
8192016-10-17T21:22:21 <Lightsword> that part was all stripped out
8202016-10-17T21:22:35 <Lightsword> I think itâs mostly just the serialization stuff that was kept
8212016-10-17T21:22:48 <sipa> ah, ok
8222016-10-17T21:23:10 <Lightsword> by based off of I mean, took lots of code from 0.8 and built a real pool around it
8232016-10-17T21:25:15 <michagogo> MarcoFalke: is this better?
8242016-10-17T21:25:35 <michagogo> (fixed it myself, then went to the PR page and saw something about you requesting changes... what does that mean?)
8252016-10-17T21:26:24 <michagogo> Oh, this is that upgraded review thing GH launched a while back
8262016-10-17T21:26:36 <michagogo> I forgot about that, haven't seen it in action yet
8272016-10-17T21:26:48 <michagogo> Looks like I broke it with my --amend :-/
8282016-10-17T21:29:29 * MarcoFalke Your review was dismissed successfully.
8292016-10-17T21:30:45 *** cdecker has quit IRC
8302016-10-17T21:35:37 *** knightdk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8312016-10-17T21:38:48 *** achow101_ has quit IRC
8322016-10-17T21:41:18 <michagogo> Can someone remind me: was there a process for trivial PRs?
8332016-10-17T21:41:26 <michagogo> Some other branch/fork or something?
8342016-10-17T21:41:46 <michagogo> (I feel like there was, but I don't remember where/what)
8352016-10-17T21:42:08 <wumpus> there was in the past, but there is no longer
8362016-10-17T21:42:40 <sipa> gmaxwell: sounds useful
8372016-10-17T21:50:36 *** d_t has quit IRC
8382016-10-17T21:52:46 *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8392016-10-17T21:55:32 *** knightdk has quit IRC
8402016-10-17T21:56:25 *** moli has quit IRC
8412016-10-17T21:57:26 <gmaxwell> why is my 0.13.1rc checkout claiming to be Bitcoin version v0.13.0.0-e1169b0 ? did we not bump the version?
8422016-10-17T22:00:56 <BlueMatt> yes
8432016-10-17T22:02:20 <gmaxwell> I wonder if we need to add a 'witnessconnections" to getnetworkinfo?
8442016-10-17T22:02:43 <gmaxwell> it's going to be a pita to support people who are witness partitioned when right not checking for it requires inspecting all of the getpeerinfo output.
8452016-10-17T22:06:14 <michagogo> wumpus: so just a regular PR?
8462016-10-17T22:06:58 <wumpus> gmaxwell: if you do, at least add a connection # per service bit, instead of special-casing witness
8472016-10-17T22:08:09 <wumpus> michagogo: sure
8482016-10-17T22:08:28 <wumpus> yes, we forgot to bump the version
8492016-10-17T22:09:51 <gmaxwell> wumpus: okay, though witness is special due to preferential connection and block fetching restrictions.
8502016-10-17T22:10:11 <gmaxwell> With segwit active, a node with witness connection 0 is really no less partitioned from the network than one with connections 0.
8512016-10-17T22:10:11 <wumpus> yes, many more may be special in the future
8522016-10-17T22:10:16 <gmaxwell> True.
8532016-10-17T22:10:52 <wumpus> it will look like a bad design decision in the future to special-case anything now, no matter how important it looks, trust me
8542016-10-17T22:11:00 <michagogo> Okay, sigs up: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gitian.sigs/pull/407
8552016-10-17T22:11:00 <gmaxwell> uh hm. so another peer that I updated, shows Bitcoin version v0.13.1rc1
8562016-10-17T22:11:06 <gmaxwell> s/peer/node/
8572016-10-17T22:11:41 <gmaxwell> now I am mystifie.d
8582016-10-17T22:11:45 <wumpus> just a map of {version_bit: count} histogram would work, you could leave out those that are 0
8592016-10-17T22:12:12 <gmaxwell> alternatively letting getpeerinfo take a mask like the dnsseeds would also work.
8602016-10-17T22:12:39 <wumpus> yes
8612016-10-17T22:13:48 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
8622016-10-17T22:15:46 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8632016-10-17T22:17:07 <GitHub131> [bitcoin] Michagogo opened pull request #8948: [TRIVIAL] reorder Windows gitian build order to match Linux (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8948
8642016-10-17T22:17:11 <GitHub81> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a5cef7b0777f13ac83312759ebf576c9d773599f
8652016-10-17T22:17:12 <GitHub81> bitcoin/0.13 a5cef7b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Bump version to 0.13.1
8662016-10-17T22:19:31 <wumpus> gmaxwell: if it reports v0.13.1rc1 it must hav gotten the tag version from git, there is no other way it can know it is an rc
8672016-10-17T22:19:51 <wumpus> (or that it is 0.13.1 without ^)
8682016-10-17T22:20:01 *** fengling__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8692016-10-17T22:20:03 <gmaxwell> yea, it must have gotten it from git.
8702016-10-17T22:21:11 <michagogo> (Release notes are still in flux, right? I see there are references to it being 0.13.x...)
8712016-10-17T22:21:27 <wumpus> michagogo: release notes can be updated until -final
8722016-10-17T22:21:51 <wumpus> michagogo: (or, according to some people, even after that as 'historical release notes' in master...)
8732016-10-17T22:22:35 <michagogo> Should I assume the .x in the header will be fixed as part of a cleanup before final tag? Or should I PR that myself?
8742016-10-17T22:22:54 <wumpus> probably better to not assume anything and just do it yourself
8752016-10-17T22:23:35 <wumpus> although you should check harding 's pull, he may have already changed some things
8762016-10-17T22:25:02 <michagogo> Ah, yep
8772016-10-17T22:25:04 <michagogo> He got it
8782016-10-17T22:25:13 <michagogo> Good call
8792016-10-17T22:25:23 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8802016-10-17T22:26:33 <gmaxwell> Found another tidbit for SW deployment guide: do not addnode= or connect= yourself to only non-witness peers...
8812016-10-17T22:27:24 <BlueMatt> oh, yea, that'd be bad
8822016-10-17T22:28:39 <GitHub152> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a5cef7b0777f...c418c0550db3
8832016-10-17T22:28:40 <GitHub47> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8943: Release notes: add info about segwit and null dummy soft forks (0.13...notable-change-segwit) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8943
8842016-10-17T22:28:41 <GitHub152> bitcoin/0.13 5f9c7b0 David A. Harding: Release notes: add info about segwit and null dummy soft forks...
8852016-10-17T22:28:41 <GitHub152> bitcoin/0.13 2de93f0 David A. Harding: Relase notes: correct segwit activation point
8862016-10-17T22:28:41 <GitHub152> bitcoin/0.13 bf86073 David A. Harding: Release notes: correct segwit signalling period start conditions...
8872016-10-17T22:29:06 *** fengling__ has quit IRC
8882016-10-17T22:30:12 *** cryptapus has quit IRC
8892016-10-17T22:31:29 <wumpus> would it make sense to add a alert condition when only connected to non-witness peers?
8902016-10-17T22:31:47 <BlueMatt> yes
8912016-10-17T22:31:57 <BlueMatt> though this is default for most nodes until the network upgrades
8922016-10-17T22:32:00 <BlueMatt> so that would suck :/
8932016-10-17T22:32:30 <wumpus> I guess it should only trigger when it actually becomes a concern, e.g. segwit about to activate
8942016-10-17T22:33:03 <wumpus> not right after installing 0.13.1
8952016-10-17T22:33:04 <BlueMatt> yea, i mean gate it on locked-in state
8962016-10-17T22:34:00 <wumpus> though I wonder if it'll still be a common problem at that point
8972016-10-17T22:34:38 <wumpus> if people haven't upgraded to 0.13.1+ en masse by then there's another problem
8982016-10-17T22:34:43 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
8992016-10-17T22:41:13 <BlueMatt> i would not be surprised if we see increasing sybil attacks over the coming month(s)
9002016-10-17T22:43:28 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9012016-10-17T22:44:31 *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
9022016-10-17T22:46:05 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
9032016-10-17T22:46:21 *** molz has quit IRC
9042016-10-17T22:48:08 <gmaxwell> right now its very easy to end up in this state. I'm going to open a PR to improve it some for discussion.
9052016-10-17T22:48:22 <gmaxwell> (just waiting for tests to run before opening it)
9062016-10-17T22:49:16 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9072016-10-17T22:52:11 *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9082016-10-17T22:53:54 <michagogo> achow101: Interesting. I have LXC set up and it seems to work for me
9092016-10-17T22:54:05 <michagogo> In what way does it fail for you?
9102016-10-17T22:55:38 *** mol has quit IRC
9112016-10-17T23:03:03 *** PRab_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9122016-10-17T23:03:36 *** PRab has quit IRC
9132016-10-17T23:03:36 *** PRab_ is now known as PRab
9142016-10-17T23:04:23 *** [b__b] has quit IRC
9152016-10-17T23:04:43 *** [b__b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9162016-10-17T23:09:36 *** jtimon has quit IRC
9172016-10-17T23:19:34 <GitHub89> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #8949: Be more agressive in getting connections to peers with relevant services. (master...more_agressive_witness_connect) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8949
9182016-10-17T23:21:07 *** tulip has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9192016-10-17T23:23:41 *** belcher has quit IRC
9202016-10-17T23:24:14 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9212016-10-17T23:27:24 *** belcher has quit IRC
9222016-10-17T23:33:13 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9232016-10-17T23:33:18 <tulip> the v0.13.1rc1 tag doesn't have the subver updated, but the 0.13 branch does; confused me for a second.
9242016-10-17T23:43:21 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9252016-10-17T23:43:22 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
9262016-10-17T23:49:53 *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
9272016-10-17T23:52:47 *** alpalp has quit IRC