12017-01-26T00:03:48 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22017-01-26T00:11:38 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
32017-01-26T00:12:36 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b68f898efa09...f89502306dcf
42017-01-26T00:12:36 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2f10f06 Suhas Daftuar: qa: Increase a sync_blocks timeout in pruning.py
52017-01-26T00:12:37 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f895023 MarcoFalke: Merge #9628: qa: Increase a sync_blocks timeout in pruning.py...
62017-01-26T00:12:55 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9628: qa: Increase a sync_blocks timeout in pruning.py (master...2017-01-longer-pruning-sync) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9628
72017-01-26T00:14:13 *** Saucery has quit IRC
82017-01-26T00:17:38 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92017-01-26T00:42:55 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
102017-01-26T00:49:11 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #9634: Fail in DecodeHexTx if there is extra data at the end (master...upstream-fail-decode-tx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9634
112017-01-26T00:52:35 *** face has quit IRC
122017-01-26T00:52:53 *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132017-01-26T00:54:55 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
142017-01-26T00:57:28 *** abpa has quit IRC
152017-01-26T00:58:15 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
162017-01-26T01:00:05 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
172017-01-26T01:13:15 *** oven has quit IRC
182017-01-26T01:14:15 *** oven has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192017-01-26T01:27:30 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
202017-01-26T01:37:15 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212017-01-26T01:51:05 *** To7 has quit IRC
222017-01-26T02:01:13 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232017-01-26T02:05:57 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
242017-01-26T02:19:20 *** echonaut2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252017-01-26T02:20:49 *** echonaut has quit IRC
262017-01-26T02:55:17 *** nanotube has quit IRC
272017-01-26T03:09:41 *** nanotube has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
282017-01-26T03:28:43 *** moli has quit IRC
292017-01-26T03:33:19 *** Pat_Boy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302017-01-26T03:33:23 *** PatBoy has quit IRC
312017-01-26T03:33:23 *** Pat_Boy is now known as PatBoy
322017-01-26T04:03:51 *** shesek has quit IRC
332017-01-26T04:04:21 *** chris2000 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342017-01-26T04:07:20 *** chris200_ has quit IRC
352017-01-26T04:16:35 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
362017-01-26T04:26:30 *** jtimon has quit IRC
372017-01-26T04:54:22 *** kadoban has quit IRC
382017-01-26T05:01:46 *** paracyst_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392017-01-26T05:02:30 *** paracyst has quit IRC
402017-01-26T05:48:20 <gmaxwell> cfields: re your earlier question-- show me the code. I'm unsure about matt's suggestion because I can read it in ways that wouldn't be good. E.g. if the recieve for a verack unconditionally set fsuccessfullyconnected true then something that veracked without ever going through version could be successfully connected.
412017-01-26T05:48:31 <gmaxwell> assuming that it doesn't do anything stupid, it's fine
422017-01-26T05:48:51 <gmaxwell> and I think it would be fine to clamp down the handshake and require the states be followed as expected...
432017-01-26T05:49:07 <gmaxwell> not just fine but good: I could imagine us having some uninitlized something as a result of getting that wrong.
442017-01-26T05:50:06 <gmaxwell> cfields: but I will gladly review whatever comes up when it comes up.
452017-01-26T05:57:33 *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
462017-01-26T06:20:50 *** cannon-c has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472017-01-26T06:55:05 *** Cory has quit IRC
482017-01-26T06:55:44 *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
492017-01-26T06:55:46 *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
502017-01-26T06:56:58 *** Pasha has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
512017-01-26T06:59:08 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522017-01-26T07:03:52 *** Pasha is now known as Cory
532017-01-26T07:14:27 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
542017-01-26T07:14:27 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552017-01-26T07:18:49 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
562017-01-26T07:26:50 *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
572017-01-26T07:29:07 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
582017-01-26T07:29:08 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
592017-01-26T07:56:41 *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
602017-01-26T07:56:42 *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
612017-01-26T08:07:37 *** BashCo has quit IRC
622017-01-26T08:15:36 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
632017-01-26T08:20:10 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
642017-01-26T08:29:24 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
652017-01-26T08:42:05 *** paveljanik has quit IRC
662017-01-26T08:42:20 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
672017-01-26T08:43:53 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682017-01-26T08:45:47 *** waxwing has quit IRC
692017-01-26T08:47:21 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
702017-01-26T08:56:45 *** devinbit123 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
712017-01-26T08:58:13 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f89502306dcf...3f9f9629cc1e
722017-01-26T08:58:13 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 99464bc Suhas Daftuar: net: Consistently use GetTimeMicros() for inactivity checks...
732017-01-26T08:58:14 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3f9f962 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9606: net: Consistently use GetTimeMicros() for inactivity checks...
742017-01-26T08:58:33 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9606: net: Consistently use GetTimeMicros() for inactivity checks (master...2017-01-net-time-comparisons) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9606
752017-01-26T08:59:58 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
762017-01-26T09:04:32 *** arubi has quit IRC
772017-01-26T09:04:46 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782017-01-26T09:05:06 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
792017-01-26T09:05:58 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
802017-01-26T09:12:30 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
812017-01-26T09:16:10 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
822017-01-26T09:16:11 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3f9f9629cc1e...07421cf2a7cf
832017-01-26T09:16:12 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5a00659 Russell Yanofsky: [wallet] Clarify getbalance help string to explain interaction with bumpfee...
842017-01-26T09:16:13 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 07421cf Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9613: [wallet] Clarify getbalance help string to explain interaction with bumpfee...
852017-01-26T09:16:37 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
862017-01-26T09:16:46 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9613: [wallet] Clarify getbalance help string to explain interaction with bumpfee (master...pr/getbalance-help) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9613
872017-01-26T09:16:56 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9587: Do not shadow local variable named `tx`. (master...20170119_Wshadow_net_processing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9587
882017-01-26T09:20:47 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
892017-01-26T09:22:10 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
902017-01-26T09:31:25 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/10dc58a2aa79...5ac668759ded
912017-01-26T09:31:25 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c36ec71 Cory Fields: depends: qt: disable printer for all platforms, not just osx...
922017-01-26T09:31:26 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5ac6687 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9574: [depends] Fix QT build on OSX...
932017-01-26T09:31:38 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9574: [depends] Fix QT build on OSX (master...fix-osx-depends-build) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9574
942017-01-26T09:32:20 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5ac668759ded...fd7021142a7a
952017-01-26T09:32:20 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8ff8d21 Gregory Maxwell: Send final alert message to older peers after connecting....
962017-01-26T09:32:21 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fd70211 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9594: Send final alert message to older peers after connecting....
972017-01-26T09:32:35 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9594: Send final alert message to older peers after connecting. (master...send_final_alert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9594
982017-01-26T09:42:10 <gmaxwell> hurrah.
992017-01-26T09:47:03 *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
1002017-01-26T09:51:11 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9623: fixing typo in README (master...patch-14) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9623
1012017-01-26T09:53:37 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fd7021142a7a...9b4d2673b775
1022017-01-26T09:53:37 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master de1ae32 Alex Morcos: Exclude RBF txs from fee estimation
1032017-01-26T09:53:38 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9b4d267 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9519: Exclude RBF replacement txs from fee estimation...
1042017-01-26T09:53:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9519: Exclude RBF replacement txs from fee estimation (master...excludeRBF) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9519
1052017-01-26T09:55:05 *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062017-01-26T10:13:18 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1072017-01-26T10:16:57 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082017-01-26T10:21:26 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1092017-01-26T10:26:49 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102017-01-26T10:36:39 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
1112017-01-26T10:56:48 *** wvr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122017-01-26T11:05:14 *** chjj has quit IRC
1132017-01-26T11:05:38 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142017-01-26T11:14:18 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1152017-01-26T11:14:24 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162017-01-26T11:26:40 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172017-01-26T11:27:55 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1182017-01-26T11:32:49 *** 7F1AAKHX0 is now known as jeremias
1192017-01-26T11:39:18 *** whphhg has quit IRC
1202017-01-26T11:50:41 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212017-01-26T12:24:46 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #9637: [Qt] fix transaction details output-index to reflect vout index (master...2017/01/qt_vout) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9637
1222017-01-26T12:54:15 *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232017-01-26T13:18:23 *** whphhg has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1242017-01-26T13:24:49 *** shesek has quit IRC
1252017-01-26T13:38:20 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1262017-01-26T13:47:54 *** Sosumi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272017-01-26T13:59:19 *** arubi has quit IRC
1282017-01-26T14:01:48 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292017-01-26T14:10:08 *** cannon-c has quit IRC
1302017-01-26T14:12:58 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312017-01-26T14:36:06 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322017-01-26T14:36:07 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332017-01-26T14:43:51 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342017-01-26T14:47:34 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1352017-01-26T14:55:26 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362017-01-26T14:59:29 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1372017-01-26T15:02:31 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #9638: qa: Actually test assertions in pruning.py (master...Mf1701-qaPruning_try) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9638
1382017-01-26T15:04:17 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
1392017-01-26T15:04:27 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402017-01-26T15:16:10 *** RoyceX has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1412017-01-26T15:19:22 *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
1422017-01-26T15:43:14 *** achow101 has quit IRC
1432017-01-26T15:44:31 *** achow101 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442017-01-26T16:09:18 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
1452017-01-26T16:11:29 *** devinbit123 has quit IRC
1462017-01-26T16:28:53 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472017-01-26T16:42:30 *** arubi has quit IRC
1482017-01-26T16:49:37 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492017-01-26T17:01:10 *** moli has quit IRC
1502017-01-26T17:02:38 *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512017-01-26T17:10:29 *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
1522017-01-26T17:12:27 *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532017-01-26T17:28:20 *** testtesttest has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1542017-01-26T17:55:47 *** paracyst_ has quit IRC
1552017-01-26T17:58:49 *** paracyst has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562017-01-26T18:17:33 *** waxwing has quit IRC
1572017-01-26T18:21:22 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1582017-01-26T18:21:56 *** aalex has quit IRC
1592017-01-26T18:23:54 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
1602017-01-26T18:24:11 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612017-01-26T18:29:05 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1622017-01-26T18:54:17 <instagibbs> meeting in 6 minutes
1632017-01-26T18:54:19 <jtimon> a fast question before the meeting...I did the gitian builds as described in the manual, but didn't sign them yet, it is expected that I create a new gpg key only to sign gitian builds or that I reuse my own?
1642017-01-26T18:54:39 <instagibbs> jtimon, I don't know if there's expectation, but it's pretty common yeah
1652017-01-26T18:54:44 <instagibbs> make a subkey
1662017-01-26T18:55:17 <achow101> jtimon: I don't think it matters. I have been using my own key
1672017-01-26T18:55:17 <wumpus> I just use my own
1682017-01-26T18:55:41 <sipa> I just use my own
1692017-01-26T18:55:46 <instagibbs> wumpus, o_0 crap I recall you using another key that you've signed. Maybe im delusional
1702017-01-26T18:56:16 <achow101> instagibbs: maybe you are thinking of the release key?
1712017-01-26T18:56:24 <instagibbs> ah, that might be it
1722017-01-26T18:56:50 <jtimon> well, my gpg key has 2 subkeys for signing already, but they're in yubikey, not in the VM, I guess I can copy my ~/.gnupg to the VM and then see how I can use the yubikey from the VM, thanks everyone
1732017-01-26T18:56:52 <wumpus> though generally it's best to keep things separated, a subkey sounds like the right thing to do, but I haven't got around to figuring out how that gpg functionality works
1742017-01-26T18:57:12 <instagibbs> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x90C8019E36C2E964 yes the release key
1752017-01-26T18:57:26 <wumpus> yes the releases are signed with a different key, that key only signs releases, not git commits or gitian asserts
1762017-01-26T18:57:26 <achow101> jtimon: you can copy the assert files out and sign them
1772017-01-26T18:57:32 <instagibbs> I had a key on my VM, then managed to lose it, so not really much better :/
1782017-01-26T18:57:53 <wumpus> yes, I do that too, copy the assert files after build and sign them on another machine
1792017-01-26T18:58:10 <instagibbs> achow101, should have thought of that earlier, heh
1802017-01-26T18:58:24 <jtimon> achow101: I guess that's another option, but not running ./bin/gsign --signer $SIGNER --release ${VERSION}-linux --destination ../gitian.sigs/ ../bitcoin/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-linux.yml as in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md#build-and-sign-bitcoin-core-for-linux-windows-and-os-x I assume
1812017-01-26T18:58:42 <instagibbs> does the gsign stuff just point to the right assert file?
1822017-01-26T18:58:59 <instagibbs> ie just copy and do signature like normal, it will validate via gitian script?
1832017-01-26T18:59:40 <wumpus> well you still do gsign, but you pass an option to not do the final gpg stop
1842017-01-26T18:59:46 <achow101> just gpg --detach-sign normally to sign it.
1852017-01-26T18:59:56 <achow101> gsign just makes the assert files AFAIK
1862017-01-26T19:00:10 <MarcoFalke> dingding
1872017-01-26T19:00:12 <sipa> DONG
1882017-01-26T19:00:12 <instagibbs> kk, thanks for explanation, will do for next release
1892017-01-26T19:00:15 <wumpus> I don't know by heart what that option is, it used to be passing a dummy 'true' as gpg parameter
1902017-01-26T19:00:21 <instagibbs> I'll figure it out
1912017-01-26T19:00:21 <wumpus> #startmeeting
1922017-01-26T19:00:21 <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 26 19:00:21 2017 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
1932017-01-26T19:00:21 <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
1942017-01-26T19:00:34 <jonasschnelli> hi
1952017-01-26T19:00:36 <instagibbs> (actually would be a useful optional step in gitian guide)
1962017-01-26T19:00:37 <wumpus> and yes on thesigning side you do gpg --detach-sign, no need for gitian there at all
1972017-01-26T19:00:55 <wumpus> yes the gitian guide mentions signing externally but I'm not sure it says how to do that
1982017-01-26T19:01:28 <wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 instagibbs
1992017-01-26T19:01:45 <instagibbs> oops, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/gitian-building.md#signing-externally
2002017-01-26T19:01:51 <instagibbs> jtimon, ^^ ok now meeting sorry
2012017-01-26T19:01:56 <kanzure> hi.
2022017-01-26T19:01:57 <wumpus> proposed topics?
2032017-01-26T19:02:15 <jtimon> instagibbs: np, got good answers already
2042017-01-26T19:02:33 <sipa> if people don't shoot me for it, i'd like to briefly bring up coding style
2052017-01-26T19:02:40 <wumpus> bleh
2062017-01-26T19:02:57 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072017-01-26T19:03:00 <jtimon> if there's no other topic, I don't see why not
2082017-01-26T19:03:03 <instagibbs> how about just a grazing flesh wound
2092017-01-26T19:03:38 <wumpus> but yes there's no other proposals so go ahead
2102017-01-26T19:03:41 <MarcoFalke> If morcos is around, we could make a short topic on how to get the priority patch merged. (Seems to bit rot fast)
2112017-01-26T19:03:50 <wumpus> #topic coding style
2122017-01-26T19:04:36 <sipa> it seems that we're not really asking people to stick to particular coding style, and that sometimes leads to unclarities "what style should i use here?"
2132017-01-26T19:04:38 <BlueMatt> ugh
2142017-01-26T19:04:40 *** arubi has quit IRC
2152017-01-26T19:04:55 <morcos> i'm here.. i'm happy to worry about that after 0.14
2162017-01-26T19:04:57 <MarcoFalke> just use clang-format-diff.py *hides*
2172017-01-26T19:05:03 <jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke: +1
2182017-01-26T19:05:12 <instagibbs> sipa, I copy the code around me :P
2192017-01-26T19:05:14 <jtimon> the answer is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/.clang-format no?
2202017-01-26T19:05:17 <sipa> and i think that the "mimick the surrounding code" advice we've been following is a bad idea
2212017-01-26T19:05:30 <wumpus> I don't really see the point in spending more energy on this
2222017-01-26T19:05:34 <sipa> it doesn't actually help in making the codebase converge (which i think is goal)
2232017-01-26T19:05:43 <jonasschnelli> I once proposed that, but everyone was against that. A CI check for clang style. We can still accept it... and could be something different then travis.
2242017-01-26T19:05:52 <jtimon> but yeah, since it's not done automatically project wise I often violate it without noticing
2252017-01-26T19:05:54 <MarcoFalke> Just format the diff on every patch and we will converge eventually.
2262017-01-26T19:06:03 <sipa> i'm not suggesting we go fix everything at once
2272017-01-26T19:06:11 <wumpus> I think mimicing the surrounding code is a good thing, usually, as long as you don't introduce really crappy looking lines well I won't hold up merging on a few code style nits
2282017-01-26T19:06:21 <morcos> wumpus: i do think it would be nice if we were at least slowly converging on a common code style... i think we are making small progress.. for instance now i know to always brace my if's and i don't mind if someone points out that i forget it
2292017-01-26T19:06:28 <jtimon> MarcoFalke: IIRC there was a python script to do that automatically
2302017-01-26T19:06:33 <BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: I'm opposed to a CI check for clang style...I'm in favor of a bot which auto-opens a pr which fixes clang style on recently-broken PRs
2312017-01-26T19:06:43 <wumpus> morcos: yes, always using braces makes sense from a security/correctness point of view
2322017-01-26T19:06:43 <MarcoFalke> jtimon: Yes I commited those :)
2332017-01-26T19:06:44 <jtimon> or something similar, but I've never used it
2342017-01-26T19:06:45 <morcos> what is annoying is when you don't know what you're supposed to do, and then something is pointed out to you and you feel like its just a difference in taaste
2352017-01-26T19:07:07 <sipa> right - my goal is to make the codebase converge
2362017-01-26T19:07:10 <wumpus> but some other things, meh
2372017-01-26T19:07:14 <BlueMatt> sipa: yes, that would be nice
2382017-01-26T19:07:21 <wumpus> it usually *is* a difference in taste
2392017-01-26T19:07:24 <sipa> not necessarily fast, and not necessarily to whatever my own personal preference is
2402017-01-26T19:07:31 <jtimon> MarcoFalke: right, so I think if we all use that, as you say we will eventually converge (or be close enough that is not a big deal to do the remaining stuff all at once)
2412017-01-26T19:07:38 <sipa> but i'd like to get an agreement that the goal is converging
2422017-01-26T19:07:50 * BlueMatt votes for coding-style-recent-pr-fixup bog
2432017-01-26T19:07:51 <BlueMatt> bot
2442017-01-26T19:08:04 <wumpus> as I said, I don't really see the point of spending much energy on this. There are tons of real issue
2452017-01-26T19:08:05 <BlueMatt> that way none of us have to think about it, but it still happens :)
2462017-01-26T19:08:16 <morcos> i'm +1 on converging to someone's taste. i don't much care whose, as long as there is an answer that doesn't depend on who you ask
2472017-01-26T19:08:20 <wumpus> I don't want to see even more 'massage around a few characters idly' pulls
2482017-01-26T19:08:29 <jtimon> what about just a check in travis or something?
2492017-01-26T19:08:33 <wumpus> no.
2502017-01-26T19:08:39 <MarcoFalke> jtimon: We don't want travis to fail due to style
2512017-01-26T19:08:39 <paveljanik> I'm in favour of slow non-forced (no-CI) convergence.
2522017-01-26T19:08:47 <wumpus> travis should check correctness
2532017-01-26T19:08:53 <instagibbs> Can we at least have a cultural push towards one? I don't care which.
2542017-01-26T19:08:58 <wumpus> if travis fails due to style, it will always be broken, believe me
2552017-01-26T19:09:00 <sipa> instagibbs: +1
2562017-01-26T19:09:01 <BlueMatt> yes, no travis-says-no-for-garbage-reasons
2572017-01-26T19:09:14 <MarcoFalke> But we might add a non-voting other-than-travis ci, if that is possible?
2582017-01-26T19:09:24 <wumpus> I don't want to block pulls on stupid style issues
2592017-01-26T19:09:32 <BlueMatt> wumpus: yes, very much that
2602017-01-26T19:09:34 <wumpus> there are already enough valid reasons to hold up pulls for months
2612017-01-26T19:09:37 <wumpus> please
2622017-01-26T19:09:41 <wumpus> focus on important stuff
2632017-01-26T19:09:43 <jtimon> wumpus: right, it would be only on style on the newly modified code, but yeah, it seems it could fail when we don't want it to
2642017-01-26T19:10:28 <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
2652017-01-26T19:10:40 <jtimon> anyway, the bot could just nit open prs instead of fixing things by himself
2662017-01-26T19:10:42 <BlueMatt> the only coding style issue I'd be ok with travis complaining about is bad indentation
2672017-01-26T19:10:43 <morcos> sipa, or anyone else that has an opinon on coding style.. if you'd like to get people to move to your style on any specific thing, i think you need to get your request merged to developer-notes
2682017-01-26T19:10:45 <BlueMatt> because that leads to bugs
2692017-01-26T19:10:58 <sipa> maybe what i'm after is being able to ask people (as a non-blocking nit, even) to fix style issue, without it being seen as "forcing your personal opinion"
2702017-01-26T19:11:05 <wumpus> I say if there's use of coding style that is known to introduce bugs (such as unbraced conditionals) there's a point to pointing it out
2712017-01-26T19:11:18 <morcos> if its in there, i think its fair game for pointing out not meeting it... if its not in there.. well come on
2722017-01-26T19:11:27 <BlueMatt> jtimon: people already complain about endless nits when they show up for the first time to contribute...I'm ok with my own prs getting that, but not people trying to do one-offs
2732017-01-26T19:11:30 <sipa> morcos: of course, only for things in the style guide
2742017-01-26T19:11:40 <wumpus> morcos: yes, it should certainly be documented in that file
2752017-01-26T19:11:45 * jtimon wonders if this is the right time to indent CheckTxInputs
2762017-01-26T19:11:58 <wumpus> if it's not in there there's no basis for pointing it out
2772017-01-26T19:12:11 <morcos> we are all talking about NEW code... but jtimon brings up a good point...
2782017-01-26T19:12:26 <sipa> a move-only commit should probably not change style
2792017-01-26T19:12:35 <morcos> for instance i have a couple of recent PR's that add braces without changing indentation....
2802017-01-26T19:12:44 <sipa> about that:
2812017-01-26T19:12:47 <wumpus> eh, indeed, that makes it harder to check whether it's mov only
2822017-01-26T19:12:58 <sipa> git diff -w, git blame -w, git show -w, ...
2832017-01-26T19:13:03 <morcos> i thought thats what people preferred... but i'm happy to add the indentation if people can figure out how to ignore the white space changes
2842017-01-26T19:13:05 <gmaxwell> changing style though should result in the same object files.
2852017-01-26T19:13:16 <sipa> and even github supports whitespace ignoring diffs, add ?w=1 to the URL
2862017-01-26T19:13:18 <wumpus> gmaxwell: definitely
2872017-01-26T19:13:22 <morcos> ok... good wiht me.. i just thought people wanted differently b/c of similar examples in the codebase
2882017-01-26T19:13:24 <BlueMatt> sipa: you meant -b
2892017-01-26T19:13:31 <wumpus> gmaxwell: that means adding/removing no empty lines though
2902017-01-26T19:13:36 <wumpus> gmaxwell: because line numbers
2912017-01-26T19:13:53 <instagibbs> do we have a style guide already?
2922017-01-26T19:13:58 <instagibbs> "if" braces even
2932017-01-26T19:14:00 <wumpus> instagibbs: you don't know?
2942017-01-26T19:14:04 <jtimon> yeah, regarding CheckTxInputs I believe I was asked to wait after moving it for indenting ages ago or something, but yeah, didn't know -w and that's more reason not to wait for anything (specially moves that may never happen)
2952017-01-26T19:14:09 <BlueMatt> wumpus: I think lots of people dont...
2962017-01-26T19:14:11 <gmaxwell> I think we should avoid changing indents spairingly. And then fix it not long after.
2972017-01-26T19:14:13 <sipa> instagibbs: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md
2982017-01-26T19:14:15 <instagibbs> wumpus, I'm here to ask the dumb questions
2992017-01-26T19:15:00 <gmaxwell> the developer nodes style guide isn't much of a style guide (not a complaint), and its more of one recently, but I don't normally consider it the place to go to figure out how to format something. :)
3002017-01-26T19:15:14 <wumpus> BlueMatt: we refer to it in CONTRIBUTING.md, which automatically gets linked if you submit a PR
3012017-01-26T19:15:38 <wumpus> gmaxwell: it's not supposed to have a lot of formatting guidelines, just basic ones
3022017-01-26T19:15:40 <sipa> gmaxwell: i'm perfectly fine restricting my style nits to things that are in that file
3032017-01-26T19:15:40 <BlueMatt> wumpus: I believe only for issues - I've never seen it for PRs
3042017-01-26T19:15:47 <BlueMatt> but, ok, fair
3052017-01-26T19:16:13 <wumpus> it mentions the "always use braces" though
3062017-01-26T19:16:22 <jtimon> right, I believe we should try to avoid style nits that we don't have documented
3072017-01-26T19:16:37 * BlueMatt thinks the endless "add braces here" comments in the past month got kinda annoying for a while
3082017-01-26T19:16:46 <wumpus> definitely. In general please try to not cloud out serious discussion with lots of style nits
3092017-01-26T19:16:54 <BlueMatt> agree with them, but annoying
3102017-01-26T19:16:58 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: thats a very good point
3112017-01-26T19:17:01 <wumpus> BlueMatt: that's my point ^^
3122017-01-26T19:17:04 <jtimon> and by documented I'm fine counting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/.clang-format
3132017-01-26T19:17:10 <BlueMatt> wumpus: yes, just agreeing, I suppose :)
3142017-01-26T19:17:28 <MarcoFalke> We should just raise awareness that there is a script to do the formatting for you.
3152017-01-26T19:17:30 <sipa> yeah, no point in "add braces here" and "and here!" and "and here also!" comments all over the place, i guess
3162017-01-26T19:17:35 <MarcoFalke> No need to spam pull requests
3172017-01-26T19:17:39 <gmaxwell> Peopel should say if it bothers them, but my expirence is that small things like that improve moral in development teams. It's an oppturnity to help each other which is very easy and clear. Not "please totally redesign your patch". :)
3182017-01-26T19:17:52 <gmaxwell> people*
3192017-01-26T19:18:12 <jtimon> MarcoFalke: right, althought the bot that runs the script for you and complains in your PR sounds like a good idea to me
3202017-01-26T19:18:21 <gmaxwell> At least I find it gratifying to go, fixed, fixed, fixed, fixed.. and now the patch is awesome hurray and thanks for your help. :)
3212017-01-26T19:18:27 <sipa> enough said on the topic, as far as i'm concerned
3222017-01-26T19:18:31 <instagibbs> sipa, feel free to propose a "non blocking, non-nitting" style
3232017-01-26T19:18:35 <instagibbs> :P
3242017-01-26T19:18:40 <MarcoFalke> #action PSA Use clang-format-diff.py before submitting a patch, whenever possible.
3252017-01-26T19:18:58 <wumpus> gmaxwell: sure, as long as it's not overly pedantic, and doesn't continue time after time. e.g. you're just about to merge something and a new screenful of style nits appears
3262017-01-26T19:19:08 <gmaxwell> MarcoFalke: is there instructions on that? also does it know about our new brace requirements?
3272017-01-26T19:19:25 <wumpus> morcos: good advice I suppose, should go into CONTRIBUTING.md
3282017-01-26T19:19:30 <sipa> wumpus: so how about treating style always as non-blocking (for the person deciding to merge)
3292017-01-26T19:19:34 <MarcoFalke> #action fix clang-format https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9506#issuecomment-271727718
3302017-01-26T19:19:45 <jtimon> we can always ignore the bot in certain cases if it makes sense
3312017-01-26T19:19:52 <MarcoFalke> gmaxwell: There should be a doc in /contrib/dev-tools, no?
3322017-01-26T19:20:13 <wumpus> yes there is documentation on how to use it
3332017-01-26T19:20:26 * wumpus wonders if there is still so much differnce between clang versions, for recent versions
3342017-01-26T19:20:37 <gmaxwell> MarcoFalke: I dunno, never used that tool before. it's not mentioned in contributing.md.
3352017-01-26T19:20:37 <wumpus> I mean in how clang-format formats
3362017-01-26T19:21:04 <jtimon> right, we need to use the same version
3372017-01-26T19:21:11 <gmaxwell> yea, I'm willing to install a specific version of clang for this-- as most of us should be... but just something to keep in mind for random contributors from the interwebs.
3382017-01-26T19:21:16 <MarcoFalke> wumpus: Last time I checked there were no diffs, but it was a year ago or so.
3392017-01-26T19:21:56 <wumpus> gmaxwell: well it's very possible that it stabilized, it's less important for format-patch than when requiring a reformat of the whole source, then it will oscillate :p
3402017-01-26T19:22:02 <MarcoFalke> But it should not matter for 99.9% of the code.
3412017-01-26T19:22:35 *** belcher has quit IRC
3422017-01-26T19:22:36 <wumpus> anyhow, other topics?
3432017-01-26T19:23:16 <sipa> how are we on 0.14 bugs?
3442017-01-26T19:23:45 <gmaxwell> All bugs are features, hurray.
3452017-01-26T19:23:54 <morcos> i have one more that needs tagging 0.14.. and i think sdaftuar has 1-2 coming
3462017-01-26T19:24:13 <wumpus> #topic bug-fixing for 0.14
3472017-01-26T19:24:18 <morcos> they are all kind of minor fixups for bumpfee or replacement type stuff... mostly edge cases.. nothing serious
3482017-01-26T19:24:32 <MarcoFalke> morcos: I think the one you want to tag is more a feature than a bug fix. At some point we need to draw the line and release.
3492017-01-26T19:24:40 <morcos> please tag #9615
3502017-01-26T19:24:43 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9615 | Wallet incremental fee by morcos · Pull Request #9615 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3512017-01-26T19:24:53 <MarcoFalke> But the one that is tagged right now should be merged as bug fix
3522017-01-26T19:25:09 <achow101> I have a bug-fix (I think) for decoderawtx rpc
3532017-01-26T19:25:13 <morcos> MarcoFalke: well its a bug fix b/c if we ever do a release without having a more conservative wallet incremental fee, then we are screwed for ever incrementing it
3542017-01-26T19:25:22 <morcos> this has bit us in the past with dust fees
3552017-01-26T19:25:24 <wumpus> tagged
3562017-01-26T19:25:39 <jtimon> reminder, there's currently 6 open prs for 0.14.0: 9638 9626 9622 9609 9589 9108
3572017-01-26T19:25:39 <morcos> its also really simple
3582017-01-26T19:26:33 <morcos> i also mention in there that i think we should increase the incremental fee... that coudl be a topic.. but i realize people might not want to do it this close to release, but at least worth discussing it as a general idea and why..
3592017-01-26T19:26:47 * BlueMatt is waiting on (needs to review 9609) and then run things in helgrind again...will generate lots of std::atomic changes
3602017-01-26T19:26:54 <BlueMatt> but they should all be minor/trivial
3612017-01-26T19:27:07 <gmaxwell> :-/
3622017-01-26T19:27:12 <morcos> but given that it might already be close to needing to be raised, we have to do 9615
3632017-01-26T19:27:18 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #9370: Fix fundrawtransactions address-reuse problem (master...2016/12/fix_frt_cop) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9370
3642017-01-26T19:27:33 <MarcoFalke> What if we want to increment it to 6000 satoshis in two years, then 0.14 will "fall off" regardless.
3652017-01-26T19:27:53 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: if there are helgrind results I am doubtful that sprinking atomics everywhere is usually the right solution. For some things like flags it can be... but if we're hitting helgrind errors it means we've gotten the locking wrong.
3662017-01-26T19:28:01 <cfields> whoops, lost track of time. here.
3672017-01-26T19:28:09 <MarcoFalke> But I get your point, I just think it is not a blocker. It could also go into 0.14.1
3682017-01-26T19:28:24 <morcos> MarcoFalke: yes.. but that is something we will keep in mind if ever changing the default... is how many old versions will become less than optimal.. i don't know any better way to do it... there is a tradeoff
3692017-01-26T19:28:40 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: shit like CNode::copyStats...should be trivial, is only used in (effectively) debug info, doesnt matter much
3702017-01-26T19:28:49 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: but, yes, otherwise agreed
3712017-01-26T19:28:51 <morcos> but if it goes in 0.14.1 then 0.14.0 could become broken for bumpfee within a few months... that seems bad!
3722017-01-26T19:28:55 <wumpus> gmaxwell: tend to agree, doesn't seem like making everything atomic is the proper way to solve concurrency issues - it just shuts up the warnings, without addressing the root cause
3732017-01-26T19:29:24 <BlueMatt> wumpus: thats why I never did a pile of PRs to do it :p
3742017-01-26T19:29:37 <gmaxwell> morcos: oh incremental is just the thing that bumpfee uses but not the acceptance policy (behind on the naming since the split)
3752017-01-26T19:29:46 <wumpus> that's like putting (unsigned) everywhere to shut up comparisons between signed/unsigned errors without looking at the ranges
3762017-01-26T19:30:16 <MarcoFalke> gmaxwell: Yes, the goal is to split the wallet default and the relay default.
3772017-01-26T19:30:18 <wumpus> BlueMatt: yes for statistics it seems harmless
3782017-01-26T19:30:20 <instagibbs> morcos, I didn't expect people to button-mash bumpfee, but maybe I'm wrong on usage patterns
3792017-01-26T19:30:22 <morcos> gmaxwell: incremental is the policy, #9615 introduces a wallet incremental which is higher than the default incremental to future-proof... not configurable, but maxed with actual incremental
3802017-01-26T19:30:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9615 | Wallet incremental fee by morcos · Pull Request #9615 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3812017-01-26T19:30:40 <gmaxwell> I would agree that bumpfees behavior should be more conservative. (IMO bumpfee should always increase at least multiple of the prior feerate, not just the incremental, in order to give log() bumps at worst)
3822017-01-26T19:30:46 <cfields> wumpus: many are net things that have been around forever (CNodeStats). I have some ideas in mind for fixing them post-0.14, but I think the changes will end up being too big for 0.14
3832017-01-26T19:30:52 <cfields> (re atomics)
3842017-01-26T19:30:55 <instagibbs> In the case of "I just did it, or est feerate is same, I just want higher" this concern seems real
3852017-01-26T19:31:09 <wumpus> cfields: right
3862017-01-26T19:31:26 <morcos> instagibbs: i think its reasonable to expect stuck transaction problems might get considerably worse over the next 6 months... an improved fee estimation is definitely needed... but its certainly possible bumpfee will be important.
3872017-01-26T19:31:28 <wumpus> cfields: forgot for a minute that the topic is fixes for 0.14 :)
3882017-01-26T19:31:51 <cfields> wumpus: yes, otherwise i'd be yelling about s/int/atomic_int/ too, for sure :)
3892017-01-26T19:32:14 <morcos> gmaxwell: it by default does a new estimatefee... it just max's that with a multiple of the increment above to make sure it will pass policy
3902017-01-26T19:32:29 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3912017-01-26T19:33:49 <gmaxwell> morcos: right, I think it should also max with a e.g. 10% increase... so that you don't ever have the issue of needing hundreds of bumps to span a plausable range. I'm in the weeds here though.
3922017-01-26T19:33:57 <morcos> this is the first time we're releasing bumpfee... i think we've come up with a lot of minor improvements recently and i know its a lot to keep track of.. but it doesn't make sense to me to release it for the first time with sub-optimal behavior if there are known simple fixes
3932017-01-26T19:35:07 <morcos> gmaxwell: yeah.. maybe.. but that could be an improvement for the future... i just want to make it so the old version doesn't run into a problem where its txs aren't even accepted by peers mempools if we change default policy (which i think should be another topic)
3942017-01-26T19:35:43 <wumpus> well, I'm happy that at least we've merged it for 0.14, makes sense to improve it where possible before the release, if we have clear ideas of course
3952017-01-26T19:35:56 <gmaxwell> (well the observation that a multiplictive increase is necessary and sufficient to span an arbitary range with log() bumps is not a new observation. ... I believe it's mentioned in the RBF FAQ.)
3962017-01-26T19:36:15 <morcos> yes to be clear i'm not opposed to anyone else doing gmaxwell's idea before release.. i jsut want to do at least what i've suggested
3972017-01-26T19:36:36 <gmaxwell> Someone should take a look at what green address and electrum are doing here to see if they've caught anything we've missed-- both have bumping in production. I volunteer to check greenaddress.
3982017-01-26T19:36:47 <morcos> i mean this ties into my other topic
3992017-01-26T19:37:17 <morcos> when i heard petertodd talking about how he just presses bumpfee in a loop (or maybe he does his own version, but in the future other people might just press bumpfee)
4002017-01-26T19:37:34 <morcos> it occurred to me we are allowing WAY too much relay for 1 tx being mined
4012017-01-26T19:38:33 <morcos> so gmaxwell is right that there are 2 ways to improve upon this... 1) raise incremental relay rate required... and 2) make it so the behavior of our own code doesn't cause this ridiculous relay iteration by default if people want to do periodic bumping to get confirmed
4022017-01-26T19:39:04 <gmaxwell> minrelayfee is minrealy fee, replacement is orthorgonal-- you can use X bytes of relay for exposing yourself to Y fee either way.
4032017-01-26T19:39:06 <morcos> i don't know if it's important to do 1 or 2 before 0.14.. i don't care strongly.. but i do think they are probably both needed improvements
4042017-01-26T19:39:33 *** instagibbs has quit IRC
4052017-01-26T19:39:38 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: that is no longer true (I mean it is in principal, but not in code)
4062017-01-26T19:39:51 <BlueMatt> min relay fee is min(minRelayFee, minReplacementFee)
4072017-01-26T19:40:22 *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4082017-01-26T19:40:31 <gmaxwell> the fact that my mempool is sitting at 14MB of data right now suggest the relay fee is not too low, though I wish it were.
4092017-01-26T19:40:49 <morcos> that's only b/c of good behavior
4102017-01-26T19:41:00 <gmaxwell> uh what? the whole security design of RBF is based on the replacement being the actual in-use min-relay fee.
4112017-01-26T19:41:45 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ok, hold on...there is still a min relay fee which is used for bumping, that didnt go away, its just a different CLI flag name now
4122017-01-26T19:41:45 <morcos> so gmaxwell the new design is that incrementalrelayfee is the number that you feel like should be the minimum cost to relay
4132017-01-26T19:41:56 <gmaxwell> morcos: the operative question is would increasing it cut of transactions that would otherwise confirm in a not crazy amount of time. And it would, I think?
4142017-01-26T19:42:01 <morcos> definitely every byte transmitted one way or the other would have to pay at least that
4152017-01-26T19:42:19 <morcos> minrelaytxfee in initparamaterinteraction has to be at least that.. but could optionally be higher
4162017-01-26T19:43:26 <morcos> but my point is that number is actually really really low if you compare it to the "useful" relay rate which is much closer to 50 sat/ byte (as opposed to 1) and allowing somoene to relay 50 times just to keep bumping from 1 to 50, kind of sucks
4172017-01-26T19:44:43 <gmaxwell> I don't see why you're talking about bumping.
4182017-01-26T19:44:45 <morcos> gmaxwell: i mean i guess if we raised it from 1 to 5, then yes some small amount of txs that paid between 2-5 would have to now pay 5... but raising it to 2 would basically harm nothing and cut down on the potential to relay lots and lots of times for fun
4192017-01-26T19:44:48 *** instagibbs_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4202017-01-26T19:45:35 <gmaxwell> They can also relay 50 transactions, the bumping is orthorgonal. I would say 50 that probably won't confirm, even avoiding the fee, but thats not actually true. (or if it's true and I didn't notice, then yes sure we should up the increment)
4212017-01-26T19:45:42 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4222017-01-26T19:46:07 <gmaxwell> okay, I haven't measured carefully, if 2 is the realistic floor what what gets confirmed then thats what the value should be.
4232017-01-26T19:46:28 <morcos> btwn 1-2 might not ever confirm. my best guess is you have 1 chance in 3 ... >2 would i agree eventually confirm
4242017-01-26T19:46:34 *** instagibbs has quit IRC
4252017-01-26T19:46:51 <gmaxwell> sounds like at a very minimum we should make an estimate now of what will realistically confirm and make the wallet do that.
4262017-01-26T19:47:40 <morcos> anyway this is the next topic.. (topic: are we charging adequately for relay) i just wanted to start a discussion about it. i don't feel it has to be changed for 0.14. but the fact that its even a consideration is why i want to future-proof the wallet for 0.14 (the change made in #9615)
4272017-01-26T19:47:42 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9615 | Wallet incremental fee by morcos · Pull Request #9615 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
4282017-01-26T19:48:13 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
4292017-01-26T19:48:29 <wumpus> #topic are we charging adequately for relay?
4302017-01-26T19:48:54 <gmaxwell> morcos: we should change wallet behavior in advance of changing relay behavior.
4312017-01-26T19:49:34 <gmaxwell> so if we think relay behavior should change to 2-3 we should change wallet to that now. these are all insignificant amounts.
4322017-01-26T19:49:56 <morcos> i think we might be done with that topic too... i think greg's point is if someting close to the low end of relay fee can still get confirmed a non-trivial amount of the time.. then relay cost isn't too high. i agree this seems to be true.. maybe we could raise from 1 to 2.. but it seems insufficiently motivated to push through now
4332017-01-26T19:50:34 <gmaxwell> 2s/b is a half cent for a median size txn at $1000/btc.
4342017-01-26T19:50:34 <morcos> gmaxwell: yes... wallet change in 9615 is to pay at least 5 greater than transaction it is replacing... small enough not to hurt but enough to be in advance of future changes
4352017-01-26T19:52:02 * BlueMatt got 0.1 s/b confirmed last weekend pretty easily, so I think it is premature to be discussing bumping it
4362017-01-26T19:52:12 <BlueMatt> (not proposing we lower it, but blocks are very often not full at all)
4372017-01-26T19:52:17 <gmaxwell> as far as what gets confirmed, I think we have hangover legacy of many miners having turned up minrelay fee before there was mempool limiting and before createnewblock was fast.
4382017-01-26T19:54:29 <gmaxwell> So it may be prudent to first rename the arguments to cause people to reconsider or go back to the defaults... before concluding that 1s/b will not confirm. doubly so with the fact that segwit may well put the fee behavior back in a disfunctional state (though perhaps thats also an argument to increase the default minimum relay fee in advance of it.)
4392017-01-26T19:54:57 *** emzy has quit IRC
4402017-01-26T19:55:15 <instagibbs_> 5 minutes
4412017-01-26T19:55:47 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: thats fair
4422017-01-26T19:55:55 <BlueMatt> I'm not against renaming the relay fee options
4432017-01-26T19:56:23 *** emzy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4442017-01-26T19:56:31 <morcos> There is basically no reason to use minrelaytxfee at all anymore...
4452017-01-26T19:56:44 <morcos> in fact in my remove priority PR i make it so you can set it to 0
4462017-01-26T19:57:04 <wumpus> no conceptual problems with ti, but it's too late to make option changes for 0.14
4472017-01-26T19:57:16 <morcos> but incrementalrelayfee controls cost of relay and blockmintxfee controls orphan risk
4482017-01-26T19:57:42 <morcos> so we can just advise in the 0.14 release notes that it is not a necessary DoS protection to set minrelaytxfee at all any more
4492017-01-26T19:57:50 <gmaxwell> I doubt its much correlated with orphan risk at all now due to Fibre and BIP152.
4502017-01-26T19:57:52 <morcos> (not to mention mempool limiting and the mempool min fee)
4512017-01-26T19:57:57 <instagibbs_> People will have to intervene to turn on walletrbf, I don't think a default tweak is a bridge too far as well.
4522017-01-26T19:58:24 <gmaxwell> Lets announce in the release notes that the option will be renamed, and encourage people to remove it.
4532017-01-26T19:58:28 <BlueMatt> if you're using FIBRE (some pools still arent), there is 0 correlation....
4542017-01-26T19:58:38 <wumpus> +1 gmaxwell
4552017-01-26T19:58:44 <morcos> gmaxwell: sounds good.
4562017-01-26T19:59:31 *** emzy has quit IRC
4572017-01-26T19:59:31 *** emzy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4582017-01-26T19:59:54 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: not for 0.14 but someone really ought to implement the createnewblock tweak to skip very recently recieved low fee txn.. which does have a relationship to orphan risk. I think doing something fairly dumb would still be a big improvement.
4592017-01-26T19:59:55 <wumpus> #endmeeting
4602017-01-26T19:59:55 <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Jan 26 19:59:55 2017 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
4612017-01-26T19:59:55 <lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-26-19.00.html
4622017-01-26T19:59:55 <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-26-19.00.txt
4632017-01-26T19:59:55 <lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-26-19.00.log.html
4642017-01-26T20:01:11 <instagibbs_> gmaxwell: do you think this is part of the unseen transactions that CB misses from mempool?
4652017-01-26T20:01:31 <sipa> i assume so
4662017-01-26T20:02:22 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, i think we've talked about this before...needs to happen
4672017-01-26T20:02:32 <gmaxwell> instagibbs_: oh absolutely, with the extra pool there should only be two remaining sources of misses-- things that just didn't propagate yet (those), and miners with 'priority service'.
4682017-01-26T20:02:33 <morcos> gmaxwell: -blockrecenttxminfee ?
4692017-01-26T20:02:41 <morcos> I would like a baker's dozen min fees
4702017-01-26T20:02:52 <instagibbs_> gmaxwell: yes OOB was my other thought
4712017-01-26T20:02:58 <instagibbs_> wasn't sure of proportion
4722017-01-26T20:03:23 <instagibbs_> high fee not prop vs low fee not prop vs low fee + OOB
4732017-01-26T20:03:27 <sipa> or a conversion factor between time and feerate... higher fee things may be worth taking a slight propagation risk for
4742017-01-26T20:03:32 <gmaxwell> morcos: sounds fine to me. could be set pretty high, my perspective is that the only reason to not deny very recent txn completely is that someone may notice themselves missing a large fee and feel regret. :)
4752017-01-26T20:04:21 <gmaxwell> I collected data for that, measuring the mempool consistency between a node in europe, califorina, and au. Somewhere I have graphs.
4762017-01-26T20:04:36 <instagibbs_> miners may be willing to miss out on a single reasonble fee tx, but maybe not a 150BTC one ;)
4772017-01-26T20:04:44 <gmaxwell> instagibbs_: dunno the propotion but we can't do anything about OOB.
4782017-01-26T20:05:26 <sdaftuar> we could prefill the compact block
4792017-01-26T20:05:58 <gmaxwell> yea, I don't want to create an incentive to go rip out or deactivate a good feature because you missed a 1BTC fee. anyways, I did math on a orphaning mediated rational setting and came up with some number that was significantly higher than typical fees at the time, but I think actually lower than typical fees now.
4802017-01-26T20:06:54 <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: yes, 0.15 feature, we needed extra in first-- since the best scheme I'm aware of for prefill is to use what missed on transmission to you... it was important to get your own logic as smart as possible first.
4812017-01-26T20:07:28 <sdaftuar> sure, makes sense
4822017-01-26T20:07:59 <sdaftuar> these createnewblock changes are just hard to reason about without real-world data on the various tradeoffs
4832017-01-26T20:08:56 <gmaxwell> well I collected data that IIRC basically said everyone was consistent after about 10 seconds. I don't even think never including transactions until you've had them for 10 seconds would be bad... except for the risk that it might enrage someone due to missing a high fee txn.
4842017-01-26T20:09:52 <gmaxwell> so my thought was just having a dumb limit, ignore txn newer to you than ten seconds unless the fee rate is 'high'. ten seconds is an insigificant enough delay to mostly not care about it.
4852017-01-26T20:10:02 <gmaxwell> new measurements should be performned I guess.
4862017-01-26T20:10:22 <sdaftuar> ok, maybe that is simple enough to just do then
4872017-01-26T20:10:39 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4882017-01-26T20:10:46 *** arubi has quit IRC
4892017-01-26T20:10:46 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4902017-01-26T20:10:57 <sdaftuar> my initial thought was, maybe we should include a small recent medium fee tx that we can prefill without eg using more packets on the wire for the compact block
4912017-01-26T20:11:04 <sdaftuar> but taht's definitely too complicated :)
4922017-01-26T20:11:21 <gmaxwell> yea, and who cares that you delay a typical fee by ten seconds? you'll include another typical fee instead. :)
4932017-01-26T20:11:25 <sdaftuar> right
4942017-01-26T20:11:33 <instagibbs_> gmaxwell: is your thought to also prefill(after complete misses) the extra pool hits if space allowed?
4952017-01-26T20:12:14 *** arubi has quit IRC
4962017-01-26T20:12:17 <gmaxwell> instagibbs_: no, I would propose we see how many we missed, if it's too many do no prefill. If it's not, prefill only our misses... assumption is that the peers mempool is the same as ours.
4972017-01-26T20:12:47 <instagibbs_> you're also assuming there that extra pool is same(maybe right)
4982017-01-26T20:12:48 <gmaxwell> if we missed too many, assumption is they're going to take a RTT regardless, don't waste bandwidth on prefill that the're going to get three copies of.
4992017-01-26T20:13:13 <gmaxwell> instagibbs_: I am. well extra pool unlike mempool is actually convergent.. (or at least ignoring its size limit it is)
5002017-01-26T20:13:38 <gmaxwell> e.g. given time extra pools become more similar while due to rbf-acceptance-threshold and doublespends the mempool is not.
5012017-01-26T20:13:45 <morcos> wait, so it won't count as a miss if it was in our extrapool right
5022017-01-26T20:13:57 <gmaxwell> Yes.
5032017-01-26T20:13:59 <instagibbs_> correct
5042017-01-26T20:14:30 <gmaxwell> We could expirement with things but "peer is the same as us" is a really good first approximation that will be hard to beat.
5052017-01-26T20:15:27 <gmaxwell> it's also important to not overdo the prefill: the prefill is in the same message as the CB so any size added to the prefill adds delay to the CB even if the peer could perform a prefill-less reconstruction.
5062017-01-26T20:15:29 <sdaftuar> huh, i hadn't thought about extrapool convergence before. will it really converge, given that we don't relay the things in it? or are you saying that extrapool+mempool taken together should converge?
5072017-01-26T20:15:55 <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: extrapool+mempool will converge where mempool alone will not.
5082017-01-26T20:16:04 <instagibbs_> sdaftuar: you relayed them in the past tho
5092017-01-26T20:16:10 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5102017-01-26T20:16:11 <sdaftuar> instagibbs_: not orphans
5112017-01-26T20:16:24 <gmaxwell> Subject to all sorts of messy bits of reality...
5122017-01-26T20:16:39 <instagibbs_> sdaftuar: mm yes
5132017-01-26T20:16:43 <gmaxwell> but once you have a conflict in your mempool you'll never accept the alternative no matter how many times it gets given to you.
5142017-01-26T20:17:06 <instagibbs_> that's an arg to prefil orphans
5152017-01-26T20:17:27 <gmaxwell> extrapool isn't like that. :) "Give me your tired, your poor,
5162017-01-26T20:17:28 <gmaxwell> Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
5172017-01-26T20:17:31 <instagibbs_> but maybe same peers are passing to you, *shrug*
5182017-01-26T20:18:58 <gmaxwell> in any case before BIP152 spec was done, I tested prefill based on misses and it cut the rount trip rate by a ton... but it was on a dumb test network. debug=mempool logs enough to let you make the measurement with existing nodes.
5192017-01-26T20:19:06 *** buddhaghosa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5202017-01-26T20:19:32 <gmaxwell> e.g. if there are IIRC <5 missing it logs the missed txids. so you can compare that on a pair of nodes to see how many RT it would eliminate.
5212017-01-26T20:20:46 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: that was with an infinte extrapool, no?
5222017-01-26T20:20:55 <BlueMatt> (well, effectively infinite by looking back through debug.log)
5232017-01-26T20:21:46 <instagibbs_> how do you specify two debug flags, mempool and cmpctblock?
5242017-01-26T20:21:49 <instagibbs_> btw
5252017-01-26T20:21:55 <instagibbs_> without doing debug=1
5262017-01-26T20:22:08 <sipa> -debug=mempool -debug=cmpctblock ?
5272017-01-26T20:22:11 <BlueMatt> -debug=mempool -debug=cmpctblock
5282017-01-26T20:22:15 <sipa> same as with all multiarg
5292017-01-26T20:22:35 <BlueMatt> it is confusing that some of our args are multiarg some of them are replace-last-arg
5302017-01-26T20:23:05 <instagibbs_> oh mapmultiArgs, yes
5312017-01-26T20:23:15 <instagibbs_> should have tried
5322017-01-26T20:25:05 *** jtimon has quit IRC
5332017-01-26T20:27:34 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yes.
5342017-01-26T20:37:15 *** instagibbs_ has quit IRC
5352017-01-26T20:58:37 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #9640: Bumpfee: bugfixes for error handling and feerate calculation (master...2017-01-bumpfee-error-cleanup) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9640
5362017-01-26T21:04:00 *** Kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5372017-01-26T21:04:12 *** Sosumi has quit IRC
5382017-01-26T21:26:07 *** MarcoFalke has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5392017-01-26T21:28:08 *** chjj has quit IRC
5402017-01-26T21:38:13 *** waxwing has quit IRC
5412017-01-26T21:57:22 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5422017-01-26T21:57:36 *** aguycalled has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5432017-01-26T22:06:29 *** Kexkey has quit IRC
5442017-01-26T22:14:40 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5452017-01-26T22:23:09 *** shesek has quit IRC
5462017-01-26T22:29:05 *** wvr has quit IRC
5472017-01-26T22:37:05 *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5482017-01-26T22:54:06 *** ptk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5492017-01-26T22:54:41 <ptk> hi
5502017-01-26T22:55:41 <ptk> can you help me?
5512017-01-26T22:55:51 <ptk> # Build the library and install to our prefix cd db-4.8.30.NC/build_unix/ # Note: Do a static build so that it can be embedded into the executable, instead of having to find a .so at runtime ../dist/configure --enable-cxx --disable-shared --with-pic --prefix=$BDB_PREFIX make install
5522017-01-26T22:55:58 <ptk> This don't work
5532017-01-26T22:56:14 <ptk> Ask me for the doc
5542017-01-26T23:02:32 <ptk> #join inversores
5552017-01-26T23:02:36 *** ptk has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5562017-01-26T23:30:56 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5572017-01-26T23:34:32 <jtimon> mhmm, reading https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/0.14.0-Release-notes#opt-into-full-rbf-when-sending
5582017-01-26T23:34:51 <jtimon> I thought full RBF was the original version without opt-in or anything
5592017-01-26T23:35:05 *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5602017-01-26T23:42:23 <luke-jr> indeed, that should be rephrased
5612017-01-26T23:45:12 <sipa> jtimon, luke-jr: agree it may be confusing, but that's the name that has always been used (see BIP 125, even)
5622017-01-26T23:45:45 <luke-jr> sipa: is it any worse if we leave off "full"?
5632017-01-26T23:46:30 <sipa> it's full RBF as opposed to condition RBF (which is only replacing things when all outputs are maintained)
5642017-01-26T23:46:30 <jtimon> oh, I see
5652017-01-26T23:46:30 <sipa> luke-jr: i think we can drop the 'full', yes
5662017-01-26T23:46:30 <sipa> just pointing out the history behind it
5672017-01-26T23:47:35 <jtimon> yeah, thanks, and ack on dropping the full, it may confuse someone else and it reads well without it
5682017-01-26T23:50:06 <gmaxwell> need to stop saying RBF and just start saying BIP125 replacable. So much more clear. :P
5692017-01-26T23:51:56 <jtimon> right