12016-12-08T00:05:23 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
22016-12-08T00:09:42 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
32016-12-08T00:17:02 *** ill has quit IRC
42016-12-08T00:18:01 *** ill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
52016-12-08T00:18:36 *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62016-12-08T00:34:11 *** dermoth_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
72016-12-08T00:34:39 *** dermoth has quit IRC
82016-12-08T00:34:41 *** dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
92016-12-08T00:42:27 *** TomMc has quit IRC
102016-12-08T00:59:07 *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112016-12-08T01:12:37 *** abpa has quit IRC
122016-12-08T01:17:01 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132016-12-08T01:21:18 *** NielsvG has quit IRC
142016-12-08T01:22:49 <BlueMatt> morcos: yup, that was my intention
152016-12-08T01:22:55 <BlueMatt> totally just wanted to highlight that bug
162016-12-08T01:28:55 *** btcdrak has quit IRC
172016-12-08T01:32:43 *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182016-12-08T01:33:32 *** NielsvG has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192016-12-08T01:33:32 *** NielsvG has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202016-12-08T01:37:21 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
212016-12-08T01:41:46 *** TomMc has quit IRC
222016-12-08T01:54:00 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232016-12-08T01:55:28 *** molz has quit IRC
242016-12-08T02:04:23 *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252016-12-08T02:09:30 *** TomMc has quit IRC
262016-12-08T03:10:28 *** ensign_ has quit IRC
272016-12-08T03:10:28 *** nsh has quit IRC
282016-12-08T03:12:03 *** Taek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292016-12-08T03:12:08 *** Taek42 has quit IRC
302016-12-08T03:12:45 *** JackH_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312016-12-08T03:13:32 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322016-12-08T03:14:45 *** JackH has quit IRC
332016-12-08T03:15:16 *** abpa has quit IRC
342016-12-08T03:15:17 *** ensign has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
352016-12-08T03:18:17 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362016-12-08T03:18:19 *** mol has quit IRC
372016-12-08T03:18:55 *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382016-12-08T03:27:32 *** murch_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392016-12-08T03:28:07 *** murch has quit IRC
402016-12-08T03:28:36 *** laptop__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
412016-12-08T03:28:36 *** JackH_ has quit IRC
422016-12-08T03:46:01 *** Alopex has quit IRC
432016-12-08T03:47:06 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
442016-12-08T04:05:18 *** JackH_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452016-12-08T04:06:20 *** laptop__ has quit IRC
462016-12-08T04:13:54 *** JackH_ has quit IRC
472016-12-08T04:16:33 *** JackH_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482016-12-08T04:18:41 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492016-12-08T04:22:29 *** alpalp has quit IRC
502016-12-08T04:24:43 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512016-12-08T04:24:44 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522016-12-08T04:34:04 *** alpalp has quit IRC
532016-12-08T04:46:46 *** chris2000 has quit IRC
542016-12-08T04:52:43 *** wasi0 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552016-12-08T04:53:54 *** wasi has quit IRC
562016-12-08T05:07:31 *** Alopex has quit IRC
572016-12-08T05:08:37 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
582016-12-08T05:36:43 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
592016-12-08T05:39:56 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] rebroad opened pull request #9300: Check for oversized getblocktxn message. (master...CheckOversizedGetblocktxns) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9300
602016-12-08T05:56:26 *** Alopex has quit IRC
612016-12-08T05:57:32 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622016-12-08T05:59:31 *** wasi0 is now known as wasi
632016-12-08T06:07:55 *** roidster has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
642016-12-08T06:11:35 *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
652016-12-08T06:13:26 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
662016-12-08T06:25:55 *** laptop__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
672016-12-08T06:27:57 *** JackH_ has quit IRC
682016-12-08T06:31:33 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
692016-12-08T06:41:25 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
702016-12-08T06:51:25 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/09c4fd157c5b...ea33f197ef1e
712016-12-08T06:51:26 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e2184cc Alex Morcos: Reorder RPC tests for running time
722016-12-08T06:51:27 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2a99522 Alex Morcos: remove relaypriority from rpc tests
732016-12-08T06:51:27 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 30b620c Alex Morcos: remove obsolete run-bitcoind-for-test.sh
742016-12-08T06:51:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9276: Some minor testing cleanups (master...rpccleanup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9276
752016-12-08T06:51:58 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ea33f197ef1e...d52ce89bd220
762016-12-08T06:51:58 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b919179 Alex Morcos: remove no longer needed check for premature v2 txs
772016-12-08T06:51:59 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d52ce89 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9299: Remove no longer needed check for premature v2 txs...
782016-12-08T06:52:10 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9299: Remove no longer needed check for premature v2 txs (master...morev2txstuff) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9299
792016-12-08T06:56:04 *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802016-12-08T06:57:40 <gmaxwell> whew, I was going through merge withdraw.
812016-12-08T06:57:41 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
822016-12-08T07:09:53 <wumpus> yes me too
832016-12-08T07:13:41 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d52ce89bd220...2044e37bebc6
842016-12-08T07:13:41 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master df17fe0 Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Qt/RPCConsole: Put column enum in the right places...
852016-12-08T07:13:42 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2044e37 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9266: Bugfix: Qt/RPCConsole: Put column enum in the right places...
862016-12-08T07:13:51 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9266: Bugfix: Qt/RPCConsole: Put column enum in the right places (master...bugfix_datarole) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9266
872016-12-08T07:14:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2044e37bebc6...9851a8461d52
882016-12-08T07:14:39 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 297cc20 Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: layoutAboutToChange signal is called layoutAboutToBeChanged...
892016-12-08T07:14:39 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f36349e Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Remove on_toggleNetworkActiveButton_clicked from RPCConsole...
902016-12-08T07:14:40 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9851a84 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9255: qt: layoutAboutToChange signal is called layoutAboutToBeChanged...
912016-12-08T07:14:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9255: qt: layoutAboutToChange signal is called layoutAboutToBeChanged (master...2016_12_qt_signals_warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9255
922016-12-08T07:29:02 *** roidster has quit IRC
932016-12-08T07:30:21 *** Alopex has quit IRC
942016-12-08T07:31:26 *** Alopex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
952016-12-08T07:38:41 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9851a8461d52...86017842d6ef
962016-12-08T07:38:41 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 819ca3f Pieter Wuille: Remove mapOrphanTransactionsByPrev from DoS_tests...
972016-12-08T07:38:42 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8601784 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9291: Remove mapOrphanTransactionsByPrev from DoS_tests...
982016-12-08T07:38:54 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9291: Remove mapOrphanTransactionsByPrev from DoS_tests (master...reallyoneorphan) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9291
992016-12-08T07:57:14 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1002016-12-08T07:57:51 *** mol has quit IRC
1012016-12-08T07:59:00 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022016-12-08T08:10:38 *** ratoder has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032016-12-08T08:18:10 *** Cory has quit IRC
1042016-12-08T08:27:06 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052016-12-08T08:40:09 *** laptop__ has quit IRC
1062016-12-08T08:40:28 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072016-12-08T08:50:13 *** echonaut9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082016-12-08T08:50:18 *** echonaut has quit IRC
1092016-12-08T09:09:29 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102016-12-08T09:17:21 *** LeMiner2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112016-12-08T09:18:35 *** LeMiner has quit IRC
1122016-12-08T09:18:36 *** LeMiner2 is now known as LeMiner
1132016-12-08T09:18:40 *** harrymm has quit IRC
1142016-12-08T09:34:22 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152016-12-08T09:40:59 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162016-12-08T09:41:26 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1172016-12-08T09:47:35 *** Guest62446 has quit IRC
1182016-12-08T09:47:52 *** ChillazZ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1192016-12-08T09:48:15 *** ChillazZ is now known as Guest80396
1202016-12-08T10:39:40 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212016-12-08T10:39:41 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1222016-12-08T10:39:41 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232016-12-08T10:42:33 *** Atomicat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1242016-12-08T10:58:13 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
1252016-12-08T11:27:40 *** emzy has quit IRC
1262016-12-08T11:29:08 *** emzy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272016-12-08T11:43:51 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282016-12-08T11:45:06 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1292016-12-08T12:08:21 <wumpus> sipa: seed.bitcoin.sipa.be is not returning any results here
1302016-12-08T12:12:09 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0a4aa876230c...e591c1049fe5
1312016-12-08T12:12:10 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.13 4c71fc4 Matt Corallo: Remove duplicate nBlocksEstimate cmp (we already checked IsIBD())...
1322016-12-08T12:12:10 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.13 ad20cdd Gregory Maxwell: IBD check uses minimumchain work instead of checkpoints....
1332016-12-08T12:12:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/0.13 5b93eee Gregory Maxwell: Remove GetTotalBlocksEstimate and checkpoint tests that test nothing....
1342016-12-08T12:27:23 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352016-12-08T12:30:37 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1362016-12-08T13:09:46 <BlueMatt> wait...wut
1372016-12-08T13:09:49 <BlueMatt> why did that get backported???
1382016-12-08T13:12:49 <wumpus> BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9293 also there was some discussino here earlier
1392016-12-08T13:13:36 <BlueMatt> wumpus: I meant specifically my commit there
1402016-12-08T13:14:03 <BlueMatt> maybe was needed to make the commits apply cleanly
1412016-12-08T13:14:06 <BlueMatt> it just surprised me
1422016-12-08T13:15:13 <wumpus> I wouldn't know that, best to ask gmaxwell
1432016-12-08T13:17:22 <wumpus> but I suppose his reason for grabbing just that commit is that it intersected with #9053 in some way
1442016-12-08T13:17:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9053 | IBD using chainwork instead of height and not using header timestamps by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9053 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1452016-12-08T13:20:53 <BlueMatt> wumpus: yes, that was my guess
1462016-12-08T13:20:54 <BlueMatt> nbd anyway
1472016-12-08T13:21:34 *** dcousens has quit IRC
1482016-12-08T13:28:41 *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492016-12-08T13:42:44 <cfields> fyi, BlueMatt and I won't make it to the meeting today, we're on the other side of the world
1502016-12-08T13:43:48 <cfields> also a bit slow to work through pr comments/review. certainly not ignoring though :)
1512016-12-08T13:44:32 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522016-12-08T14:02:57 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1532016-12-08T14:04:21 *** dcousens has quit IRC
1542016-12-08T14:06:32 *** dcousens has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552016-12-08T14:08:06 *** shockoo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562016-12-08T14:17:13 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572016-12-08T14:31:54 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582016-12-08T14:31:57 <btcdrak> wumpus: #7562 is ready for merge
1592016-12-08T14:31:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7562 | Bump transaction version default to 2 by btcdrak · Pull Request #7562 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1602016-12-08T14:49:33 <morcos> btcdrak: i'm fine with you leaving that commit out, but how coudl that cause those errors?
1612016-12-08T14:50:30 <btcdrak> morcos: It was totally fine locally, Travis threw up and it's just not worth my time fighting with it. Will have another go once merged.
1622016-12-08T14:50:56 <btcdrak> even paveljanik was ok with it locally :/
1632016-12-08T14:50:59 <morcos> weird..
1642016-12-08T14:54:33 *** shockoo has quit IRC
1652016-12-08T15:21:41 *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662016-12-08T15:34:02 *** TomMc has quit IRC
1672016-12-08T15:39:24 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682016-12-08T15:40:22 *** Sosumi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692016-12-08T15:44:43 *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702016-12-08T15:45:51 *** moli has quit IRC
1712016-12-08T15:48:15 *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722016-12-08T15:58:31 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1732016-12-08T15:58:33 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1742016-12-08T16:27:36 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752016-12-08T16:30:59 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
1762016-12-08T16:33:22 <morcos> sipa: this is minor, but i'm curious in loadmempool why you chose to use state.IsValid for reporting # of successes, it's certainly possible for the state to be valid but the tx not be accepted
1772016-12-08T16:49:14 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782016-12-08T16:58:05 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792016-12-08T17:01:59 <morcos> btcdrak: unfortunately it still fails for me locally... since i gave you a weasly non-review of that json test data stuff, i'll see if i can track down the issue . especially weird that it passes travis sometimes
1802016-12-08T17:02:49 <btcdrak> Did we update Univalue at all recently?
1812016-12-08T17:03:08 <btcdrak> I fixed a bug in it which will break those json tests when we sync up
1822016-12-08T17:03:22 *** MarcoFalke_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832016-12-08T17:03:23 <btcdrak> https://github.com/jgarzik/univalue/pull/29
1842016-12-08T17:04:11 <MarcoFalke_> btcdrak: We can do that some time before 0.14, if necessary.
1852016-12-08T17:04:14 <MarcoFalke_> See https://github.com/bitcoin-core/univalue/pull/4
1862016-12-08T17:05:03 <MarcoFalke_> We might want to wait for some of the fixes after testing with the JSONtestSuite
1872016-12-08T17:06:46 <sipa> morcos: re state.IsValid for loadmempool... good point, i just didn't realize that
1882016-12-08T17:12:49 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
1892016-12-08T17:15:03 <morcos> btcdrak: the reason it sometimes passes travis is somethign later changed in master to cause your PR to break
1902016-12-08T17:15:34 <morcos> the merge that travis ran on for the PR that is up there now is an old merge, i think if you locally checkout a new merge it'll probably break for you
1912016-12-08T17:15:48 <btcdrak> morcos: oh, thank you for looking at that. If that can be solved, I'll push the rebased version with your other fix in
1922016-12-08T17:16:17 <btcdrak> oh, ofc, I'm not rebased to master... makes sense now
1932016-12-08T17:18:01 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1942016-12-08T17:18:38 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952016-12-08T17:22:21 <morcos> yeah but ideally travis would be running on your PR merged with master, its not clear to me how that works exactly or why its not the case here
1962016-12-08T17:22:42 <morcos> i don't know the details of when travis decides it needs to rerun the merge
1972016-12-08T17:22:53 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1982016-12-08T17:30:01 <btcdrak> morcos: ok I can replicate it now locally!
1992016-12-08T17:30:23 <btcdrak> at least with something to replicate I can investigate
2002016-12-08T17:36:18 <morcos> btcdrak: maybe something to do with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9100 ?
2012016-12-08T17:39:36 <morcos> btcdrak: oh never mind, i should read the errors more closly
2022016-12-08T17:39:38 <morcos> it's #8837
2032016-12-08T17:39:40 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8837 | allow bitcoin-tx to parse partial transactions by jnewbery · Pull Request #8837 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2042016-12-08T17:39:45 <morcos> there were two new tests added
2052016-12-08T17:41:08 <sipa> morcos: i think the version travis test is always a merge with master at the time of the last push
2062016-12-08T17:43:01 <btcdrak> what happened to #9023 I thought it produced diffs when I reviewed it, now it doesnt.
2072016-12-08T17:43:03 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9023 | Add logging to bitcoin-util-test.py by jnewbery · Pull Request #9023 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2082016-12-08T17:43:49 <morcos> sipa: so it's surprising that bugs like this don't happen more often
2092016-12-08T17:44:30 <morcos> the only reason we caught this is btcdrak tried to do a new push... but if he hadn't, there would have been no merge conflict and it wouldn't have been caught... luckily in this case it resulted in a test failing
2102016-12-08T17:45:09 <morcos> btcdrak: it's definitely 8837 and its a trivial fix fo ryou
2112016-12-08T17:50:33 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122016-12-08T17:52:12 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2132016-12-08T17:57:46 <MarcoFalke_> morcos: We have merge conflicts every couple of weeks. I'd propose to invalidate travis results after 2 or 3 weeks.
2142016-12-08T17:58:15 <MarcoFalke_> * silent merge conflicts
2152016-12-08T18:00:11 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2162016-12-08T18:01:56 <morcos> MarcoFalke_: could there be a pre-merge button which reruns travis when wumpus or whoever thinks the PR is ready for merge? i guess it would be annoying to revisit it a second time, and scary to auto-merge if it passes
2172016-12-08T18:02:50 <morcos> maybe someone else could be in charge or pressing the pre-merge button on almost ready to be merged PR's even if it doesn't catch them all, if it catches some and doesn't slow down wumpus, it'll be good
2182016-12-08T18:05:24 <MarcoFalke_> I was more thinking of something automated. for pull in pulls: rerun if travis_result.age > 14 days;
2192016-12-08T18:07:30 <btcdrak> morcos: great. I'll take a look in a bit
2202016-12-08T18:12:59 <morcos> MarcoFalke_: yeah i was just thinking its more useful if its close to actual merge and unnecessary if its not
2212016-12-08T18:16:06 <gmaxwell> it would be helpful if we could figure out the causes of varrious bits of failed dependency tracking, since it also effects users and not just travis.
2222016-12-08T18:16:45 <MarcoFalke_> Would still catch some of the silent merge conflicts. If it is only done pre merge, it would slow down the merge process unnecessarily.
2232016-12-08T18:17:30 <MarcoFalke_> If it passed, it is just wasted time. If it fails, the pull author needs go back anyway.
2242016-12-08T18:18:30 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Because the thing actually being backported eliminated the checkpoint estimate of the number of blocks; so it needed that change of yours that eliminated a call to it. Otherwise the change was trivial and wouldn't have been backported.
2252016-12-08T18:24:52 <morcos> If we're doign a wallet opperation, whats the rule of thumb with whether we open our CWalletDB with fFlushOnClose true or not?
2262016-12-08T18:27:39 <wumpus> depends on whether data loss would lead to funds loss IIRC
2272016-12-08T18:27:48 <morcos> For instance in AbandonTransaction I copied MarkConflicted which doesn't flush on close "for performance reasons" but in retrospect it seems almost everything else does flush on close and maybe is only because MarkConflicted gets called inside a loop
2282016-12-08T18:28:27 <wumpus> in case of doubt, flush on close
2292016-12-08T18:29:43 <morcos> so perhaps in the markconflicted case we should do a specific flush after all the conflicting has been done? (seems more important than abandon anyway)
2302016-12-08T18:31:26 <wumpus> but is it critical? e.g., not just something that could be repeated after starting the client?
2312016-12-08T18:34:47 <wumpus> though I don't think it hurts to do an explicit flush afterwards
2322016-12-08T18:35:33 <morcos> wumpus: i don't know i'm out of my depth...
2332016-12-08T18:35:40 <wumpus> although the wallet is being flushed+consolidated all the time, periodically, by the wallet flush thread if an update has been done - the point of flushonclose is just to do a flush immediately, for critical things
2342016-12-08T18:35:50 <morcos> i'm not sure what how wallet state and chainstate are kept in sync
2352016-12-08T18:36:44 <wumpus> the wallet stores the last position that it is synced to, it will rescan from there on on client start
2362016-12-08T18:38:20 <morcos> yeah ok, thats what i was just seeing, so yeah maybe you're right... it not an issue..
2372016-12-08T18:56:41 *** TomMc has quit IRC
2382016-12-08T19:00:08 <wumpus> meeting time?
2392016-12-08T19:00:14 <jonasschnelli> yes
2402016-12-08T19:00:40 <wumpus> #startmeeting
2412016-12-08T19:00:40 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Dec 8 19:00:40 2016 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
2422016-12-08T19:00:40 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
2432016-12-08T19:01:23 <wumpus> proposed topics?
2442016-12-08T19:02:21 <gmaxwell> #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
2452016-12-08T19:02:24 <instagibbs> here
2462016-12-08T19:02:26 <sdaftuar> hi
2472016-12-08T19:02:28 <btcdrak> sort of here
2482016-12-08T19:02:29 <CodeShark> hello
2492016-12-08T19:03:13 <kanzure> hi.
2502016-12-08T19:03:22 <gmaxwell> I'd like to briefly talk about #9290
2512016-12-08T19:03:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9290 | Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9290 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2522016-12-08T19:03:39 <morcos> i'd like to discuss increasing mempool tx expiry time but nto sure if thats a meeting topic
2532016-12-08T19:04:39 <wumpus> #topic #9290 Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool
2542016-12-08T19:04:41 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9290 | Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9290 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2552016-12-08T19:05:40 <gmaxwell> There was previously a concern expressed (sorry, I forget who); that trying to reaccept to mempool all unconfirmed txn might be a cpu load for some wallet gunked up with unconfirmed transactions. I made this PR anyways, noting that it doesn't apply to abandoned or known conflicted txn, and I don't believe gunked up wallets exist at any real rate-- if they do, then that is its own problem.. and
2562016-12-08T19:05:46 <gmaxwell> they could avoid a performance issue by abandoning. I hope this is convincing but I haven't had feedback on that point.
2572016-12-08T19:06:01 <gmaxwell> Beyond that question, this is a really obvious bugfix for a somewhat embarassing misbehavior.
2582016-12-08T19:06:21 <wumpus> well at least it's now possible to get rid of unconfirmed transactions by abandoning them
2592016-12-08T19:06:30 <morcos> gmaxwell: that was (at least) me, but i made my mark on your PR.. suhas beat me down into being unable to succesfully argue my position
2602016-12-08T19:06:36 <wumpus> there should be no need to have excessive numbers of unconfirmed transactinons
2612016-12-08T19:07:10 <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i agree with the PR and the backport, fwiw
2622016-12-08T19:07:11 <gmaxwell> morcos: hah. I missed the was here. okay thats precisely what I was looking for.
2632016-12-08T19:07:30 <morcos> but as for backporting...
2642016-12-08T19:07:50 <morcos> maybe ok for that one... but i'm not so sure about #9262
2652016-12-08T19:07:55 <gmaxwell> I just felt a little uncomfortable doing something I knew someone had expressed concern with; without making sure that we heard if concerns remained.
2662016-12-08T19:07:59 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9262 | Prefer coins that have fewer ancestors, sanity check txn before ATMP by instagibbs · Pull Request #9262 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2672016-12-08T19:08:30 <morcos> i feel like although these are definitely fixing poor behavior... they're also fairly large changes in behavior and it worries me that in a backport, they wont' get enough testing to be sure they don't raise new issues
2682016-12-08T19:08:35 <morcos> personally i think we backport too much
2692016-12-08T19:08:49 <gmaxwell> Well I think we must backport at least one of 9262 or 9290. If you backport 9290 I think there is less need to backport 9262 and if we only do one I'd prefer it be 9290.
2702016-12-08T19:08:58 <morcos> backports should be for either critical or simple bugs
2712016-12-08T19:09:11 <morcos> gmaxwell: why? that behavior has been like that for several major versions no?
2722016-12-08T19:09:41 <morcos> do we think it is more of an issue now b/c of occasional mempool backlogs?
2732016-12-08T19:09:44 <gmaxwell> The issue that these are collectively fixing are stuck coins in wallets which combined with user error can lead to funds loss. We are currently having resports from multiple users encountering it.
2742016-12-08T19:09:50 <gmaxwell> morcos: ding ding.
2752016-12-08T19:09:50 <luke-jr> backporting all bugfixes is fine if we do RCs IMO; critical/simple criteria mainly makes sense for security stuff
2762016-12-08T19:09:55 <sdaftuar> i think 9290 is simple, and implements the behavior we all thought was already happening
2772016-12-08T19:10:03 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: thats going offtopic but I don't fully agree.
2782016-12-08T19:10:11 <morcos> yes, 9290 is pretty simple
2792016-12-08T19:10:39 <gmaxwell> for 9262 if 9290 is in place there is an argument that the default behavior should change (don't refuse to create the failing txn.)
2802016-12-08T19:10:43 <gmaxwell> which is another question.
2812016-12-08T19:10:48 <morcos> i'd feel a bit easier about that one i guess... , and although i have no idea what might go wrong with 9262, you never know
2822016-12-08T19:11:28 <sipa> do we have a patch that deal with ATMP failing in createtransactionm
2832016-12-08T19:11:30 <sipa> ?
2842016-12-08T19:11:37 <gmaxwell> well as is 9262 adds another reason for a send rpc to fail, which is user visible. With 9290 there is a lot less reason for that. I felt that that behavior change was not very sutiable for backport which is why I created 9290.
2852016-12-08T19:11:40 <morcos> yes, if we can briefly dive into that other question... one argument for refusing to create a failing tx is that if you try again you might succeed...
2862016-12-08T19:11:41 <sipa> that would be much less invasive to backport
2872016-12-08T19:11:51 <morcos> but not sure how deterministic the coin selection is
2882016-12-08T19:12:10 <michagogo> o/
2892016-12-08T19:12:27 <gmaxwell> morcos: since unconfirmed coins are a last resort already your odds are not good. with the rest of 9262 in place... your odds are probably nearly zero.
2902016-12-08T19:12:34 <morcos> sipa: 9262 makes it much less likely that you will get to ATMP fail at least for the reason of chains.
2912016-12-08T19:12:55 <sipa> morcos: i know, but it is not fully generic
2922016-12-08T19:13:07 *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932016-12-08T19:13:16 <morcos> gmaxwell: i disagree i think... since it all depends on how many coins you end up using as inputs, which is not a factor in our logic now
2942016-12-08T19:13:18 <instagibbs> fully generic would be something like justCheck ATMP
2952016-12-08T19:13:27 <sipa> morcos: i would be much more confortable with something that deals correctly with an occasional failurr, rather than trying our best to avoid failures
2962016-12-08T19:13:37 <gmaxwell> The mempool chain limit change is transitory, which is why I believe avoid + rebroadcast is the right solution.
2972016-12-08T19:13:53 <morcos> sipa: but as gmaxwell would probably argue, depending ont he reason for your failure you might want to do different things, so its maybe not a simple patch
2982016-12-08T19:14:17 <sipa> morcos: well we can still use whatever logic to avoid the failure
2992016-12-08T19:14:39 <sipa> but knowing that we don't get into hard-to-recover states would give more peace of mind
3002016-12-08T19:14:44 <gmaxwell> morcos: for 9262 I say very low because if it was possible to avoid the failure it likely would have due to the prior selectcoins runs. the only time where a retry would work is where it couldn't be done with low count coins, could be done with midcount coins and the retry gets lucky.
3012016-12-08T19:15:01 <gmaxwell> sipa: transitory failure is not a hard to recover state.
3022016-12-08T19:15:17 <gmaxwell> at least not any worse than "I paid too little fee"
3032016-12-08T19:15:53 <morcos> gmaxwell: no i don't think so.. some of your low count coins may have ancestors with other descendants.. you may choose a lot of low value low count coins, vs just 1 high value one.. etc..
3042016-12-08T19:15:59 <gmaxwell> I believe (someone can correct) that there is now no way to get a failure there except a transitory one. But belt and suspenders could be fine.
3052016-12-08T19:16:09 <sipa> gmaxwell: well at least you'd know your transaction was not broadcast immediately
3062016-12-08T19:16:27 <sipa> gmaxwell: and i'm talking more generically than chain depth limits
3072016-12-08T19:16:35 <morcos> gmaxwell: definitely can get non-transitory failures... i have some wallet that everytime i start the node tries to broadcast a too high fee tx
3082016-12-08T19:16:55 <gmaxwell> sipa: you never really know that, since we have no monitoring to tell if the broadcasts were successful. I think we should seperately track successful broadcasts in the wallet. some lite wallets do this.
3092016-12-08T19:16:55 <sipa> gmaxwell: ATMP is complicated
3102016-12-08T19:17:10 <morcos> if it wasn't ATMP, then it wasn't broadcast
3112016-12-08T19:17:25 <gmaxwell> morcos: yes but it can be ATMP and never broadcast.
3122016-12-08T19:17:28 <sipa> gmaxwell: i mean: since we *can* recover from failure to ATMP, we should
3132016-12-08T19:17:49 <sdaftuar> perhaps a simple backport would be to return the txid of the failed to ATMP transaction back to the RPC caller, once it's been added to the wallet?
3142016-12-08T19:17:51 <MarcoFalke_> I am not against backporting 9290, but if we do, I'd prefer a small section in the release notes. Previously one could just resend the tx and figure out the problem later. Now, it might cause you to fund the same recipient twice.
3152016-12-08T19:17:55 <gmaxwell> sipa: "recover", I don't think I agree. Backing out a send and returning an error is not recovery.
3162016-12-08T19:17:58 <sdaftuar> that seems strictly better than prior behavior
3172016-12-08T19:18:03 <sdaftuar> and after 9290, semi-reasonable
3182016-12-08T19:18:08 <gmaxwell> It just pushes error handling downstream to a caller that likely has none.
3192016-12-08T19:18:29 <sipa> are we sure that every ATMP failure is temporary?
3202016-12-08T19:18:32 <morcos> to bring it back to what we should backport.. i'd say at most 9290 .. and lets concentrate on the more robust fix for 0.14
3212016-12-08T19:18:37 <gmaxwell> MarcoFalke_: I am confused as to what you believe the effect of 9290 is.
3222016-12-08T19:18:45 <instagibbs> sipa, I have some memory of absurd fee issue, but not on hand
3232016-12-08T19:19:24 <gmaxwell> sipa: I believed that was the case, though morcos just pointed out something about a too-high-fee txn.
3242016-12-08T19:19:41 <gmaxwell> I would agree that returning an error on non-temporary failures would be good.
3252016-12-08T19:19:43 <morcos> the high fee code did change, so not sure if that got fixed
3262016-12-08T19:19:46 <sdaftuar> morcos: i disagree with just doing 9290. the rpc situation is a disaster when you get an RPC failure for a created tx
3272016-12-08T19:19:58 <sipa> gmaxwell: sendtoaddress can already fail in various ways before even attempting ATMP (for example, tx too large, insufficient funds, ..) that the caller needs to deal with
3282016-12-08T19:20:18 <morcos> sdaftuar: its been like that forever though! i agree we should fix it, but we shouldn't be just now designing a fix to push out in a backport
3292016-12-08T19:20:23 <morcos> it will not get sufficient testing
3302016-12-08T19:20:48 <gmaxwell> morcos: it hasn't been like that forever because the failures are modulated by network conditions.
3312016-12-08T19:20:56 <MarcoFalke_> gmaxwell: 9290 will put tx in your mempool that previously failed to be accepted while running. We did never do that. (only after restart)
3322016-12-08T19:21:00 <gmaxwell> some people that never built unconfirmed chains are building them now.
3332016-12-08T19:21:47 <morcos> i guess i just think we are close enough to 0.14, that we should concetnrate on a good and well tested fix for that
3342016-12-08T19:22:04 <gmaxwell> MarcoFalke_: We did it at every restart. So you couldn't have counted on the behavior. And you also would have had no way of knowing that it failed on the very first try.
3352016-12-08T19:22:05 <morcos> i'm always worried about unintended consequences of these things
3362016-12-08T19:22:06 <sdaftuar> morcos: what is your objection to my proposal above, of returning the txid of the failed-to-accept-tomempool transaction, that is now in your wallet?
3372016-12-08T19:22:37 <sdaftuar> i think that should be a simple change, and just tells the users what is going on
3382016-12-08T19:22:51 <wumpus> I tend to agree with morcos - better to focus on a good solution for 0.14, then try to rush something for 0.13.2 last minute
3392016-12-08T19:23:09 <gmaxwell> well I don't feel this is rushed. :)
3402016-12-08T19:23:10 <sipa> sdaftuar: if we expect every such failure to be temporary, and start retrying automatically, i agree
3412016-12-08T19:23:19 <morcos> sdaftuar: maybe nothing, but what do users do with it? abandon? (what if they've waited 20 mins and 9290 rebroadcasted it) i don' tknow it just seems .. like a band-aid
3422016-12-08T19:23:34 <CodeShark> fwiw, in all my stuff I've separated the equivalent of "sendtoaddress" into at least two separate calls
3432016-12-08T19:23:37 <wumpus> it's not even merged to master yet, and we're not sure of the consequences
3442016-12-08T19:23:40 <wumpus> so yes it feels rushed
3452016-12-08T19:23:50 <sipa> CodeShark: yes, so do we in the raw tx api
3462016-12-08T19:23:56 <sdaftuar> morcos: right now though users are confused and think their money is gone -- at least this way they can see where it is
3472016-12-08T19:24:04 <morcos> sdaftuar: were you proposing that it looks different than if it did get accepted, or you can't tell from the rpc return value
3482016-12-08T19:24:08 <MarcoFalke_> gmaxwell: The rpc returns an error if it failed on the very first try, no?
3492016-12-08T19:24:09 <sipa> i did not know we did not report a txid if ATMP fails
3502016-12-08T19:24:09 <wumpus> simple fixes and things we're really sure about can be merged+backported last minute
3512016-12-08T19:24:19 <wumpus> but it doesn't look to be the case here, given this discussion already
3522016-12-08T19:24:33 <instagibbs> sipa, it's a very scary and useless message
3532016-12-08T19:24:40 <instagibbs> well, now it propagates more
3542016-12-08T19:24:43 <morcos> it seems to me you'd want to distinguish between it got ATMP and it didn't
3552016-12-08T19:24:43 <instagibbs> but still scary
3562016-12-08T19:24:59 <sipa> well i think we should either delete wallet txs that fail to ATMP at creation time, OR report the txid anyway
3572016-12-08T19:25:16 <sipa> now people think the tx failed, but they're still rebroadcasting it
3582016-12-08T19:25:23 <sdaftuar> sipa: i agree with that, though i'd be nervous about doing the first (delete wallet tx) in a backport
3592016-12-08T19:25:24 <wumpus> yes that makes no sense to the user
3602016-12-08T19:25:31 <sipa> sdaftuar: agree
3612016-12-08T19:25:34 <gmaxwell> sipa: not just that, but it is holding coins up in their wallet.
3622016-12-08T19:25:54 <wumpus> ideally the API should be atomic, either it succeeds or fails, not fails and still make a transaction
3632016-12-08T19:26:09 <sdaftuar> morcos: i agree it'd be better to indicate somehow that the new tx isn't in the mempool,but perhaps we can't change the API like that in a backport... reporting the txid still seems better than current behavior though
3642016-12-08T19:26:18 <sdaftuar> no different than if the tx was acepted and then evicted before relay
3652016-12-08T19:26:20 <gmaxwell> MarcoFalke_: you're right.
3662016-12-08T19:26:24 <wumpus> but it may be too much to fix in a backport in a release that we want out as soon as possible
3672016-12-08T19:26:34 <morcos> sdaftuar: but that doesn't work very well for a tx that'll never go anywhere ...
3682016-12-08T19:26:43 <sipa> can we do rebroadcast + report txid anyway in a backport?
3692016-12-08T19:26:49 <sdaftuar> current behavior is even worse though for a tx that won't go anywhere
3702016-12-08T19:27:01 <sdaftuar> you don't even know what tx to inspect/abandon!
3712016-12-08T19:27:04 <sipa> and for 0.14 consider long chain avoidance + deletion of failed creations?
3722016-12-08T19:27:15 <wumpus> although I'm not entirely sure when we want to do 0.13.2
3732016-12-08T19:27:31 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I want to do 0.13.2
3742016-12-08T19:27:31 <morcos> i mean if we do think this is such a large problem that it HAS to be addressed in a back port... then i'd argue we should include 9262, because at least if that works right, it means all the other functionality we'll backport will get used much less often
3752016-12-08T19:27:43 <wumpus> gmaxwell: I'm asking when, not whether
3762016-12-08T19:27:53 <gmaxwell> morcos: that was my thinking.
3772016-12-08T19:28:02 <sdaftuar> i lean towards backporting 9262, myself
3782016-12-08T19:28:04 <gmaxwell> wumpus: oops, I missed the word when.
3792016-12-08T19:28:28 <morcos> i'd rather have a lot less people asking about rpc calls that look like they work but theres no tx in mempool or random rebroadcasts a day later when parts of the chain confirm
3802016-12-08T19:28:34 <sipa> imho not reporting the txid of a tx that was added to your wallet is the worat bug here
3812016-12-08T19:28:41 <sipa> *worst
3822016-12-08T19:28:43 <sdaftuar> sipa: agree!
3832016-12-08T19:28:45 <jonasschnelli> Agree
3842016-12-08T19:28:55 <jonasschnelli> Reporting the txid seems worth a backport
3852016-12-08T19:29:01 <jonasschnelli> And the API change is accaptable
3862016-12-08T19:29:06 <wumpus> yes
3872016-12-08T19:29:13 <sipa> i don't have much opinion on 9262
3882016-12-08T19:29:15 <gmaxwell> morcos: I am unsure of how much reduction it will get. It will be a reduction, but at least 2 out of 3 people I've directly helped in this condition had no other coins in their wallet, as the wallet was created with a single large lump payment.
3892016-12-08T19:29:25 <CodeShark> then a separate call to check whether it failed to broadcast?
3902016-12-08T19:29:37 <MarcoFalke_> So reporting the txid would hide the fact that ATMP failed?
3912016-12-08T19:29:40 <gmaxwell> the third, however, was making large chains pointlessly and their problem would have been avoided by 9262.
3922016-12-08T19:30:05 <sipa> CodeShark: we can't make people change the way they use the api
3932016-12-08T19:30:13 <sipa> not in the short term
3942016-12-08T19:30:18 <jonasschnelli> 9262 is great. But whats the reason for a backport? Is a wallet function, users can and should upgrade to 0.14?
3952016-12-08T19:30:22 <CodeShark> imho, sendtoaddress should be deprecated in the long run
3962016-12-08T19:30:23 <morcos> realistically speaking what's the date when 13.2 would be out vs 14.0.. and would people be more likely to want 13.2
3972016-12-08T19:30:24 <wumpus> not in a backport at least
3982016-12-08T19:30:30 <CodeShark> but yeah, nearterm compatibility is important
3992016-12-08T19:30:39 <wumpus> CodeShark: we're talking about what to do in a backport
4002016-12-08T19:30:43 <sipa> CodeShark: maybe, but that's totally off topic in this discussion
4012016-12-08T19:30:45 <gmaxwell> My view on what we should eventually do: If a failure is perminante we should fail the send, and not save the txn. If the failure is temporary, we should return the txid and rebroadcast when we can. We should try to avoid creating temporary failures.
4022016-12-08T19:30:48 <wumpus> not what to do in the long run
4032016-12-08T19:30:51 <CodeShark> right
4042016-12-08T19:31:33 <gmaxwell> I was of the view that the case where we will ever create a non-temporary failure now is basically non-existant already.
4052016-12-08T19:31:49 <sipa> gmaxwell: it certainly seems infrequent
4062016-12-08T19:31:51 <gmaxwell> so I haven't given any thought to the 'not save the txn' branch above.
4072016-12-08T19:32:11 <gmaxwell> There may be fringe cases, so belt and suspenders would be good for robustness.
4082016-12-08T19:32:25 <jonasschnelli> hmm.. not saving the tx would mean, the wallet rpc functions depend fully on the mempool policy?
4092016-12-08T19:32:36 <sipa> so rebroadcast + avoid long chains + report txid anyway... all for 0.13.2?
4102016-12-08T19:32:53 <morcos> if its really rare, it might be we just track failures to reaccept and when they hit a cerain number, stop trying and have a way of reproting those txs for manual abandonment
4112016-12-08T19:32:54 <wumpus> when do we want to do 0.13.2?
4122016-12-08T19:33:03 <wumpus> is it some short term thing or januari?
4132016-12-08T19:33:14 <gmaxwell> As far as when 0.13.2 I've personally been spending almost all my recent attention on the remaining things I thought 0.13.2 needed. I had hoped in december.
4142016-12-08T19:33:22 <morcos> sipa: it seems thats what people are arguing for
4152016-12-08T19:33:28 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: +1 month after 0.14?
4162016-12-08T19:33:31 <wumpus> this sounds like it still needs a lot of work and testing and new things
4172016-12-08T19:33:54 <morcos> wumpus: reporting the txid anyway is probably super simple... just a question of thinking about the consequences
4182016-12-08T19:33:55 <sipa> jonasschnelli: a new 0.13 after 0.14 makes little sense
4192016-12-08T19:33:55 <wumpus> cfields also thought it was this week, he felt guilty he couldn't sign it this week :)
4202016-12-08T19:33:59 <gmaxwell> These things (and the open backport PR) are the only things I'm perosnally tracking for 0.13.2 (I made a call in #bitcoin this morning for bugreports against 0.13.1 with an eye towards getting 0.13.2 ready).
4212016-12-08T19:34:05 <morcos> so not unheard of that all these things could be merged into master by tomorrow
4222016-12-08T19:34:27 <wumpus> morcos: they're not even in master yet, I'm not sure of merging so much new stuff into a backport
4232016-12-08T19:35:18 <morcos> wumpus: well neither am i... i personally favor less emphasis on backports.. but i'm saying if we are going to do it, well lets get to it...
4242016-12-08T19:35:20 <wumpus> I really think we should make a choice here and solve the worst problems for 0.13.2 instead of trying to rush everything into it
4252016-12-08T19:35:21 <gmaxwell> I didn't even know about the rebroadcast behavior that 9290 fixed until discussion about this subject. :(
4262016-12-08T19:35:42 <wumpus> could always do a 0.13.3 later
4272016-12-08T19:36:34 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: I think the idea was to do it before 0.14. If after, none of these things are a problem
4282016-12-08T19:36:45 <gmaxwell> This discussion revealed that we also need the return txid anyways change, that is also a serious bug.
4292016-12-08T19:36:45 <morcos> i guess i believe that all or nothing makes sense, simply b/c anything less than the all sipa mentioned still leaves a big problem "rebroadcast + avoid long chains + report txid anyway."
4302016-12-08T19:36:52 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: Yes. Right.
4312016-12-08T19:37:13 <morcos> i would vote nothing, but i recognize i am outvoted
4322016-12-08T19:37:16 <sipa> morcos: i think the long chain avoidance is the least important in that set
4332016-12-08T19:37:18 <wumpus> but does the wallet get enough testing on 0.13.2 to warrant this?
4342016-12-08T19:37:26 <gmaxwell> I do believe we could leave the avoidance out and at least not be buggy in any risky way. Just potentially creating a needlessly bad performance.
4352016-12-08T19:37:30 <wumpus> I sometimes even doubt it gets enough testing on master
4362016-12-08T19:37:48 <MarcoFalke_> The rc1 for 0.13.2 should probably happen in Dec, otherwise it will "overlap" with 0.14
4372016-12-08T19:37:57 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I think wallet sometimes gets more testing on backport than on master.
4382016-12-08T19:38:21 <wumpus> MarcoFalke_: agreed, and people will probably be away lot later this month
4392016-12-08T19:38:38 <luke-jr> I think there'd be value in 0.13.x beyond 0.14, but realistically it won't get enough testing, so if we want a well-tested 0.13.x we should aim for before 0.14
4402016-12-08T19:38:43 <gmaxwell> wumpus: perhaps we should table this and (1) get the things we have open into master. (2) get a return txid fix.
4412016-12-08T19:38:44 <morcos> sipa: my reason for including the avoidance would be to limit the number of people affected by the other two changes.. but i guess i'm not sure how helpful it will be.. sure
4422016-12-08T19:39:47 <morcos> it always worries me when we change the behavior
4432016-12-08T19:40:04 <morcos> it seems people are always dependent on existing behvaior or using the bitcoind in a way we didn't anticipate
4442016-12-08T19:40:11 <CodeShark> why not preserve the current behavior for the existing API call and instead create a new API call that has the desired behavior?
4452016-12-08T19:40:32 <jonasschnelli> CodeShark: bugfix with a new feature? :)
4462016-12-08T19:40:36 <wumpus> gmaxwell: I suppose what is in 0.13.2 right now is already enough for a release? we could do the wallet stuff in a 0.13.3
4472016-12-08T19:40:42 <gmaxwell> Let my summarize the bug and why I think it's important to fix. Right now normal use of the wallet for some users can suffer inexplicible failures due to creating long transactions. These long transactions will look like the send failed, but it will still go into the wallet and _still_ be broadcast later potentially (After a restart). Users lose access to their funds and may falsely believe a
4482016-12-08T19:40:42 <morcos> the avoidance (if its not buggy) just works magic behind the scenes
4492016-12-08T19:40:48 <gmaxwell> wallet is empty. Users may double pay as a result.
4502016-12-08T19:40:56 <MarcoFalke_> CodeShark: We'd end with an new API every release. :)
4512016-12-08T19:41:06 <CodeShark> lol
4522016-12-08T19:41:14 <gmaxwell> These are all serious money losing bugs. And are the most reported issue I've dealt with users for existing software.
4532016-12-08T19:41:16 <wumpus> CodeShark: I think the point is fixing the current behavior
4542016-12-08T19:41:56 <CodeShark> the current behavior is it still stores the transaction in the wallet even if ATMP fails?
4552016-12-08T19:41:57 <sipa> CodeShark: this is all besides the issue. the current behaviour is clearly broken in numerous ways, and it should be fixed
4562016-12-08T19:42:17 <gmaxwell> if not for that, I wouldn't bother with wanting any of this backported.
4572016-12-08T19:42:18 <sipa> CodeShark: new APIs are possible that avoid some of the pitfalls we've learned about in earlier designs
4582016-12-08T19:42:32 <gmaxwell> (not for the fact that people are hitting it and can lose money as a result)
4592016-12-08T19:42:47 <Chris_Stewart_5> gmaxwell: 'long chains of txs' or just large txs for inexplicable failures?
4602016-12-08T19:43:04 <gmaxwell> Chris_Stewart_5: large transactions will not cause the behavior I described.
4612016-12-08T19:43:08 <sipa> CodeShark: yes
4622016-12-08T19:43:20 <MarcoFalke_> Chris_Stewart_5: mempool chains.
4632016-12-08T19:43:22 <jonasschnelli> Agree with gmaxwell: But I think we must at least offer a way how to detect this on the RPC consumer side and mention it in the release nots
4642016-12-08T19:43:23 <gmaxwell> The send mail fail but the failure is clean and won't freeze the users funds and/or send anyways.
4652016-12-08T19:43:34 <jonasschnelli> Reporting txid seems to be the sane way for a backport IMO
4662016-12-08T19:43:54 <gmaxwell> I think reporting the txid is correct too. I agree.
4672016-12-08T19:44:21 <gmaxwell> If its possible that the send will go through we must report the txid. Right now we don't.
4682016-12-08T19:44:33 <luke-jr> another potential way to address this particular case, would be to simply toggle the default of -spendzeroconfchange I think?
4692016-12-08T19:44:42 <wumpus> yes, if the transaction is added to the wallet it should be reported
4702016-12-08T19:44:53 <luke-jr> not the best way, but perhaps good enough to solve the critical part of the issue
4712016-12-08T19:45:03 <morcos> I'd rather spend less days arguing about it and more days testing the RC that fixes it... so can someone add the report txid anyway PR and lets merge that, #9262 and #9290 into master
4722016-12-08T19:45:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9262 | Prefer coins that have fewer ancestors, sanity check txn before ATMP by instagibbs · Pull Request #9262 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4732016-12-08T19:45:07 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9290 | Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9290 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4742016-12-08T19:45:09 <gmaxwell> None of the users reporting issues I worked with had been tripped up by the failure to return a txid (at least not that they noticed).
4752016-12-08T19:45:12 <wumpus> and that doesn't sound like a very risky or large change
4762016-12-08T19:45:22 <MarcoFalke_> #action create report txid patch
4772016-12-08T19:45:36 <sipa> MarcoFalke_: already on it
4782016-12-08T19:45:42 <jonasschnelli> sipa: nice!
4792016-12-08T19:45:49 <jonasschnelli> (just wanted to start) :)
4802016-12-08T19:45:59 <morcos> sipa: are you typing one-handed, its taking you a while
4812016-12-08T19:46:29 <sipa> morcos: i just switched to my laptop
4822016-12-08T19:46:31 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: I think szcc=0 is a huge disruptive and surprising change. :(
4832016-12-08T19:46:50 <wumpus> it's throwing out the baby with the bath water too
4842016-12-08T19:47:06 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: but it can't result in losing money (I agree a proper fix would be better though)
4852016-12-08T19:47:14 <gmaxwell> it's almost like "we could make sendtoaddress always fail." :) yes, that would fix the problem.. but..
4862016-12-08T19:47:30 <wumpus> if it is really a critical problem we could consider that
4872016-12-08T19:47:57 <gmaxwell> but I suppose I would consider it if we really felt we couldn't do a better fix soon.
4882016-12-08T19:47:59 <wumpus> I remember we've done that before, in the time of the malleability problem
4892016-12-08T19:48:04 <wumpus> but preferably not, no
4902016-12-08T19:48:40 <gmaxwell> but I think we have a collection of better fixes which (with the txid return) will be more than sufficient.
4912016-12-08T19:48:50 <gmaxwell> so I'd rather not think about szcc=0. :)
4922016-12-08T19:48:54 <luke-jr> k
4932016-12-08T19:49:13 <morcos> actually i guess its not as simple as i thought
4942016-12-08T19:50:08 <gmaxwell> morcos: returning a txid?
4952016-12-08T19:50:10 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #9302: Return txid even if ATMP fails for new transaction (master...failedtxid) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9302
4962016-12-08T19:50:16 <gmaxwell> I believe thats as simple as
4972016-12-08T19:50:35 <gmaxwell> ^ yep, thats the change I imagined.
4982016-12-08T19:50:58 <CodeShark> I never thought sendtoaddress was a reliable call as far as error handling so I sort of stopped thinking about how to do the error handling from the app side - not sure what issues people have had because of this behavior
4992016-12-08T19:51:03 <morcos> ha ha ha
5002016-12-08T19:51:40 <jonasschnelli> sipa: I think you should also change the logprint ("CommitTransaction(): Error: Transaction not valid, %s\n"), but meh, OT.
5012016-12-08T19:51:47 <sdaftuar> jonasschnelli: +1 :)
5022016-12-08T19:51:55 <sipa> jonasschnelli: we don't know if it's not valid
5032016-12-08T19:52:12 <sipa> jonasschnelli: wait, i don't see the change
5042016-12-08T19:52:17 <jonasschnelli> "ATMP failed" or something.
5052016-12-08T19:52:19 <gmaxwell> sipa: maybe that was the point of jonasschnelli's comment
5062016-12-08T19:52:22 <sipa> ah!
5072016-12-08T19:52:35 <sipa> i thought you said "change it TO ..."
5082016-12-08T19:52:59 <morcos> thanks sipa
5092016-12-08T19:53:05 <jonasschnelli> No. Just criticised the current one.
5102016-12-08T19:53:07 <jonasschnelli> Yes. Thanks sipa.
5112016-12-08T19:53:11 <jonasschnelli> Next time please faster
5122016-12-08T19:53:17 <gmaxwell> so: action proposed, 9302, 9290, 9262 and help get them into master.
5132016-12-08T19:53:18 <luke-jr> ._.
5142016-12-08T19:53:42 <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: concur
5152016-12-08T19:53:45 <luke-jr> gmaxwell: sgtm
5162016-12-08T19:54:01 <morcos> gmaxwell: i think thats the stable equilibrium... if 9262 seems dicey we can ditch, but i think its good
5172016-12-08T19:54:04 <morcos> can we briefly discuss tx expiry if no one else has another unrelated topic
5182016-12-08T19:54:18 <gmaxwell> yes, 9262 is the most optional, esp with the first two in.
5192016-12-08T19:54:25 <wumpus> at least 9290 and 9302
5202016-12-08T19:54:35 <gmaxwell> morcos: I would like to discuss expiry.
5212016-12-08T19:54:42 <wumpus> the latter should obv get into master but not sure about 0.13.2
5222016-12-08T19:54:46 <MarcoFalke_> #action 9302, 9290, 9262 for master (and backport), 9262 optional backport
5232016-12-08T19:55:00 <MarcoFalke_> ^fine this way?
5242016-12-08T19:55:08 <wumpus> #topic mempool expiry time increase
5252016-12-08T19:55:16 <instagibbs> I still think preferential coin choosing should go in, even if we drop the abort
5262016-12-08T19:55:17 <wumpus> 5 minutes to go ^^
5272016-12-08T19:55:20 <instagibbs> sorry, continue
5282016-12-08T19:55:23 <morcos> i'd like to raise the time to at least 1 week... although we could use a few more heads thinking about whether there are any issues.. obv after 9290, it doesn't matter as much for gtting yhour own txs confirmed
5292016-12-08T19:55:48 <gmaxwell> instagibbs: I'd like to default the abort to off, with the rest it won't be needed. We can discuss later.
5302016-12-08T19:55:55 <morcos> but i think if we want to be able to fully utilize weekly cycles in the tx volume, then we need to have txs which sit around for a week or more to measure how long it takes them to get confirmed
5312016-12-08T19:56:23 <wumpus> morcos: would it make much of a difference in practice? wouldn't the transactions be evicted due to the mempool limit first?
5322016-12-08T19:56:26 <luke-jr> morcos: I can't think of any reason this wouldn't be okay. (but haven't given it thought before now)
5332016-12-08T19:56:28 <morcos> i'm not really sure that the problems that expiry were meant to protect against are actually any more prevent with 3 days vs say 14
5342016-12-08T19:56:33 <gmaxwell> morcos: I do believe I made the argument for a week way back when on this basis. OTOH, the mempool is simply not large enough to exploit the weekly cycle currently.
5352016-12-08T19:56:56 <wumpus> morcos: apart from that I don't see any problems with it
5362016-12-08T19:57:05 <morcos> wumpus: no.. any tx with fee rate > 1.5 sat / byte gets evicted b/c of 3 day limit and would otherwise get mined within a week (and usually does b/c of rebroadcast)
5372016-12-08T19:57:07 <instagibbs> does the wallet "abort" if it drops from mempool, or does it resubmit
5382016-12-08T19:57:12 <sipa> luke-jr: i think the expectation should be that everything in the mempool leaves it either due to accept/conflict or fee based eviction
5392016-12-08T19:57:12 <instagibbs> I assume resubmits
5402016-12-08T19:57:16 <gmaxwell> My view on the expiration is that it removes high fee cruft that got softforked out but is taking up your mempool.
5412016-12-08T19:57:24 <morcos> gmaxwell: its way more than big enough for a week cycle
5422016-12-08T19:57:32 <morcos> b/c remember it only has to hodl backlog
5432016-12-08T19:57:33 <sipa> luke-jr: expiration is for things that somehow linger much longer
5442016-12-08T19:57:58 <morcos> gmaxwell: yeah, but if thats actually happening 3 days is way too long, and is breaking yoru fee estimates already
5452016-12-08T19:58:09 <gmaxwell> morcos: okay point so long as it is at least as big as the daily cycle, txn can persist through the week.
5462016-12-08T19:58:12 <luke-jr> hmm
5472016-12-08T19:58:14 <wumpus> instagibbs: abort right now, the idea of #9290 is to change that and make it reaccept on rebroadcast
5482016-12-08T19:58:16 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9290 | Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9290 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5492016-12-08T19:58:50 <morcos> ok, i'd propose 14 days, so we don't have this problem again... and lets just think about whether anyone can think of any problems with it
5502016-12-08T19:58:50 <gmaxwell> morcos: in terms of fee estimates, we can address that by using a narrower filter... e.g. only consider transactions which are structurally similar to our own.. but a seperate topic.
5512016-12-08T19:59:08 <gmaxwell> also the expiration hardly works now in any case.
5522016-12-08T19:59:13 <sdaftuar> there's one other advantage of 3 days versusu a week, which is being able to double-spend a too-low-fee tx. after fee bumping, i think this reason largely goes away
5532016-12-08T19:59:20 <morcos> i don't think we can really take advantage of it until we change fee estimates... but i'd rather have more of the network behaving similarilyh
5542016-12-08T19:59:28 <morcos> and after 9290
5552016-12-08T19:59:30 <gmaxwell> if you are connectable there are 'helpful' parties that connect and spam you with a zillion old txn.
5562016-12-08T19:59:32 <instagibbs> morcos, that's too weeks of nodes not accepting fee bumps if you mess up and don't do bip125 (not sure how big an issue that is but still)
5572016-12-08T19:59:32 <morcos> you have a tiny windo
5582016-12-08T19:59:32 <sdaftuar> morcos: good point
5592016-12-08T19:59:50 <instagibbs> even with manual bumping*
5602016-12-08T20:00:02 <gmaxwell> instagibbs: I think it doesn't matter for replacement.
5612016-12-08T20:00:11 <morcos> instagibbs: but after 9290 your tx comes again anyway, you just lose the information that its old
5622016-12-08T20:00:19 <gmaxwell> Right now replacement of non-replacable transactions works even a day later fine, due to restarts and fullrbf miners.
5632016-12-08T20:00:21 <luke-jr> instagibbs: if the fee is that excessively small though, it will get bumped out by non-conflicting transactions sooner probably
5642016-12-08T20:00:22 <morcos> i want to retain that information
5652016-12-08T20:00:35 <gmaxwell> instagibbs: also what luke said.
5662016-12-08T20:00:46 <morcos> nothing with a fee rate > 1.5 sat / byte as ever been evicted due to low fee rate
5672016-12-08T20:00:50 <gmaxwell> morcos: does it need to be 14 days or is 7 sufficient to exploit the weekly cycle?
5682016-12-08T20:01:15 <morcos> i don't know... maybe 7.. but maybe you need more data points that are older than that to know things that don't get confirmed in 7 days
5692016-12-08T20:01:18 <morcos> which is kind of importnat
5702016-12-08T20:01:27 <gmaxwell> oh I see, for the estimator.
5712016-12-08T20:01:38 *** JackH has quit IRC
5722016-12-08T20:02:02 <sipa> very short announcement: github now supports listing reviewers for your PR... always feel free to list me
5732016-12-08T20:02:04 <morcos> anyway, all i wanted to do is raise the topic, so other people cna think of potential problems
5742016-12-08T20:02:15 <gmaxwell> morcos: OKAY!
5752016-12-08T20:02:27 <gmaxwell> morcos: just open an PR and set sipa as the reviewer. Done.
5762016-12-08T20:02:43 <wumpus> #endmeeting
5772016-12-08T20:02:43 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Dec 8 20:02:43 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
5782016-12-08T20:02:43 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-12-08-19.00.html
5792016-12-08T20:02:43 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-12-08-19.00.txt
5802016-12-08T20:02:43 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-12-08-19.00.log.html
5812016-12-08T20:04:06 <gmaxwell> instagibbs: I think of the 9262 "failure" case as a lot like spendzeroconfchange-- basically we replace a messy error with an even worse error but one which is cleaner to deal with.
5822016-12-08T20:04:17 <gmaxwell> (at least assuming the rebroadcast and txid return problems are solved)
5832016-12-08T20:04:29 <instagibbs> sure, I don't mind if there's something better in place removing it or turning it off by default
5842016-12-08T20:05:08 <Chris_Stewart_5> what does the acronym ATMP stand for?
5852016-12-08T20:05:13 <instagibbs> AcceptToMemoryPool
5862016-12-08T20:05:14 <gmaxwell> instagibbs: I think a proper mental model is that ignoring out of funds conditions-- which are likely "handled" by running getbalance before the send--, callers have no error handling on sendtoaddress.
5872016-12-08T20:05:20 <Chris_Stewart_5> ah, thanks instagibbs
5882016-12-08T20:06:26 <btcdrak> Can I scrounge some urgent review for https://github.com/bitcoin/libblkmaker/pull/6 please. It's required for some downstream miners for segwit.
5892016-12-08T20:06:40 <gmaxwell> or another way of thinking about it: Users will have no error handling for an error condition which isn't either Obvious (out of funds) or Very easily encountered in practice (also out of funds)... even fairly advanced users will not handle errors unless we either have an error simulator that returns them or very clear documentation which says "here are all the errors you will have to handle".
5902016-12-08T20:07:41 <gmaxwell> So given that I think we should assume the best handling users commonly have for sendtoaddress failure of "stop the world, something unexpected happened."
5912016-12-08T20:10:46 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5922016-12-08T20:12:27 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
5932016-12-08T20:17:12 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5942016-12-08T20:19:36 <btcdrak> morcos: ok I think I fixed that PR. Fingers crossed on Travis.
5952016-12-08T20:26:18 <morcos> btcdrak: i guess we won't be in favor of any soft forks that depend on tx version again
5962016-12-08T20:35:23 *** bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
5972016-12-08T20:45:25 *** jtimon has quit IRC
5982016-12-08T20:47:27 <btcdrak> morcos: I wouldnt say that necessarily, it's just we never did and were relying of default values.
5992016-12-08T20:49:12 <btcdrak> It reminds me that one shouldn't use API defaults for versioning.
6002016-12-08T21:00:56 *** Sosumi has quit IRC
6012016-12-08T21:01:55 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6022016-12-08T21:28:15 *** aalex__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6032016-12-08T21:31:53 *** aalex_ has quit IRC
6042016-12-08T21:51:31 *** paracyst has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6052016-12-08T22:52:33 *** droark has quit IRC
6062016-12-08T22:53:34 *** MarcoFalke_ has quit IRC
6072016-12-08T22:57:24 *** molz has quit IRC
6082016-12-08T22:57:26 *** MarcoFalke_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6092016-12-08T22:58:27 *** TomMc has quit IRC
6102016-12-08T22:59:24 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6112016-12-08T23:03:18 *** molz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6122016-12-08T23:06:26 *** moli has quit IRC
6132016-12-08T23:07:54 *** aalex_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6142016-12-08T23:10:49 *** TomMc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6152016-12-08T23:11:29 *** aalex__ has quit IRC
6162016-12-08T23:12:13 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
6172016-12-08T23:49:36 *** koha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6182016-12-08T23:57:09 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
6192016-12-08T23:59:08 *** MarcoFalke_ has quit IRC