12017-04-06T00:00:08  *** abpa has quit IRC
  22017-04-06T00:27:08  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  32017-04-06T00:28:51  <achow101> are the codesigned binary sigs up yet?
  42017-04-06T00:40:05  *** TrazzleDazzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52017-04-06T00:40:19  *** bincap has quit IRC
  62017-04-06T00:40:34  *** chjj has quit IRC
  72017-04-06T00:40:46  *** bincap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  82017-04-06T00:52:26  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  92017-04-06T01:06:15  *** Samdney has quit IRC
 102017-04-06T01:08:34  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 112017-04-06T01:33:27  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
 122017-04-06T01:34:09  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 132017-04-06T01:37:29  *** user__ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 142017-04-06T01:37:43  *** alpalp has quit IRC
 152017-04-06T01:39:14  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 162017-04-06T01:39:14  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 172017-04-06T01:43:21  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 182017-04-06T02:00:10  *** dermoth has quit IRC
 192017-04-06T02:00:47  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202017-04-06T02:12:11  *** kyletorpey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 212017-04-06T02:16:48  *** chjj has quit IRC
 222017-04-06T02:17:23  *** TrazzleDazzle has quit IRC
 232017-04-06T02:24:23  *** kyletorpey has quit IRC
 242017-04-06T02:26:52  *** wasi has quit IRC
 252017-04-06T02:27:54  <Taek> I do not know that a proposal which invalidates hardware optimazation has much chance at success
 262017-04-06T02:29:15  <Taek> Though there are clear reasons for wanting such optimizations disabled, Bitcoin resists contentious changes, and I think the miners would be able to put up enough of a fight to prevent the change
 272017-04-06T02:30:24  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 282017-04-06T02:30:47  <warren> I wouldn't make any assumptions of what is possible.  We are yet to see the extent of outrage from the non-boosted miners and user majority and what could happen.
 292017-04-06T02:31:32  *** talmai has quit IRC
 302017-04-06T02:34:15  *** rgrant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 312017-04-06T02:42:26  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322017-04-06T02:46:49  *** makriath has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 332017-04-06T02:51:54  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 342017-04-06T02:53:48  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 352017-04-06T02:58:48  *** makriath has quit IRC
 362017-04-06T03:04:52  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 372017-04-06T03:19:01  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 382017-04-06T03:19:54  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 392017-04-06T03:20:58  *** alpalp has quit IRC
 402017-04-06T03:33:50  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 412017-04-06T03:54:27  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 422017-04-06T04:01:41  *** rgrant_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432017-04-06T04:02:19  *** talmai has quit IRC
 442017-04-06T04:08:47  *** rgrant_ has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 452017-04-06T04:10:45  *** rgrant has quit IRC
 462017-04-06T04:10:46  *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
 472017-04-06T04:10:46  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
 482017-04-06T04:10:46  *** Creeper has quit IRC
 492017-04-06T04:10:46  *** ChillazZ has quit IRC
 502017-04-06T04:14:07  *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 512017-04-06T04:14:47  *** thann has quit IRC
 522017-04-06T04:15:54  <gmaxwell> Taek: keep in mind that I have not proposed invalidating an 'optimization'-- it still works, just not in a covert manner.
 532017-04-06T04:16:15  <gmaxwell> Taek: also; a strong optimization like this if it cannot be copied will _guarentee_ a mining monopoly eventually.
 542017-04-06T04:16:28  <Taek> acknowledged
 552017-04-06T04:16:31  <gmaxwell> because at equlibrium only the optimized miner will be turning a profit.
 562017-04-06T04:16:40  *** rgrant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 572017-04-06T04:17:58  <Taek> err, maybe I am confused. Does your proposal not reduce the effective hashrate of the hardware you found?
 582017-04-06T04:18:33  <Taek> And, fully on board that there needs to be a level playing field.
 592017-04-06T04:18:42  <sipa> Taek: not if they switch to nversion grinding
 602017-04-06T04:21:04  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612017-04-06T04:25:32  <gmaxwell> Taek: no because the use of it is optional and just impacts the power consumption. (but I suppose it would likely change the hashrate of a _facility_)
 622017-04-06T04:25:46  <gmaxwell> but the optimization could be still used via nversion grinding.
 632017-04-06T04:25:49  <gmaxwell> as sipa says.
 642017-04-06T04:25:59  <gmaxwell> which is better in every respect except it isn't secret.
 652017-04-06T04:26:08  <Taek> and the hardware that exists today is capable of doing the nversion grinding?
 662017-04-06T04:26:11  <gmaxwell> it's more power efficient, it doesn't screw up further enhancements.
 672017-04-06T04:26:45  <gmaxwell> Yes. (also nversion grinding is basically a subset of root grinding, and the obvious constructions of hardware that can root grind can nversion grind)
 682017-04-06T04:27:01  <gmaxwell> obviously someone might do something I didn't anticipate, ... they're free to comment on the proposal.
 692017-04-06T04:27:26  <Taek> okay. Thanks for clearing that up. I think that preserving the hardware advantage is going to be critical to getting the proposal accepted
 702017-04-06T04:28:04  <Taek> not just that, but segwit, etc.
 712017-04-06T04:29:20  <gmaxwell> I'm not confident in that.
 722017-04-06T04:29:51  <Taek> Not confident that preserving the hardware advantage would be greatly beneficial to moving forward segwit?
 732017-04-06T04:31:26  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 742017-04-06T04:32:19  <gmaxwell> I don't think it's relevant for that.
 752017-04-06T04:32:59  <Taek> My understanding right now is that this asic optimization gave very powerful ulterior motives for Bitmain to be politically blocking segwit
 762017-04-06T04:33:26  <Taek> and the rest of the dance has really just been about preserving their 30% advantage
 772017-04-06T04:33:34  <gmaxwell> Yes. Perhaps I misunderstood you...
 782017-04-06T04:34:05  <gmaxwell> I thought you were saying that it was important to block only the segwit incompatible form without blocking it completely. (which is what my proposal works to do because I think it's the right way to handle it)
 792017-04-06T04:34:26  <gmaxwell> I think that blocking the optimization completely would be just as good in terms of permitting the protocol upgrades.
 802017-04-06T04:34:52  <Taek> My worry is that blocking the optimization completely is going to be a long bloody uphill battle
 812017-04-06T04:35:04  <Taek> and, one that I think you could argue is worthwhile
 822017-04-06T04:35:22  <gmaxwell> Well I think that the technique will either be opened or eventually blocked.
 832017-04-06T04:35:44  <gmaxwell> The third option is that bitcoin will fail due to it, which I don't think we'll accept as a community.  But eventually could be a fair while.
 842017-04-06T04:36:17  <gmaxwell> I agree that it might take a while, which is part of why I think its best to seperate the concerns.
 852017-04-06T04:37:02  <gmaxwell> Also, the impact of my proposal is negligible if the optimization isn't really in use so there is really no grounds to say "sure, we put it in our hardware but arn't using it, we promise, no need for this BIP"...
 862017-04-06T04:38:57  <Taek> Miners not benefitting from this optimization certainly have strong motivations to activate the proposal
 872017-04-06T04:39:01  <Taek> that much is going for it
 882017-04-06T04:40:26  <gmaxwell> Yes, and I think users do too. And I think that would also apply to proposals to eliminate the optimization +/- people who are really confused about the economics of mining and don't realize an advantage like that sustained privately pretty much guarentees a mining monopoly.
 892017-04-06T04:42:27  <Taek> Another thought. The community now has an obvious boogeyman. If you wanted to push for something difficult that required consensus, this is probably the best time to do it, leveraging the boogeyman.
 902017-04-06T04:42:56  <Taek> At this point I am trying to figure out what all the options are.
 912017-04-06T04:47:20  <sipa> start over?
 922017-04-06T04:47:38  <Taek> bitcoin2?
 932017-04-06T04:54:00  <midnightmagic> starting over would devolve to design-by-committee
 942017-04-06T04:54:49  <sipa> i'm not being serious of course
 952017-04-06T04:55:28  <sipa> but damn, how i woshed sometimes i'd be working on a system without all this drama and monetary interests
 962017-04-06T04:57:08  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
 972017-04-06T04:58:25  <rabidus> :(
 982017-04-06T05:01:05  <midnightmagic> :)
 992017-04-06T05:14:38  <jeremyrubin> w.r.t. nversion grinding; practically speaking couldn't one just switch nonce and nversion and call it a day?
1002017-04-06T05:15:51  <sipa> apart from being a hard fork, sure
1012017-04-06T05:16:03  <jeremyrubin> Is it a hard fork though??
1022017-04-06T05:16:15  <jeremyrubin> I think it's soft...
1032017-04-06T05:16:38  <jeremyrubin> just don't use all the bits in nversion of course
1042017-04-06T05:16:39  <sipa> well as long as you stick to the bip34 rules
1052017-04-06T05:18:37  <jeremyrubin> how does it break bip34?
1062017-04-06T05:18:47  <jeremyrubin> just limit your nonce > 2
1072017-04-06T05:18:54  <jeremyrubin> still plenty of bits
1082017-04-06T05:23:50  <gmaxwell> What do you mean by "switch nonce and nversion"  version griding asicboost requires that you have a couple different first compression runs and many different second compression runs, which are all mutually compatible.
1092017-04-06T05:29:36  *** rgrant has left #bitcoin-core-dev
1102017-04-06T05:57:31  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
1112017-04-06T05:59:55  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1122017-04-06T06:04:35  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132017-04-06T06:34:17  <cfields> an eternity later: gitian builders: v0.14.1rc1 detached sigs pushed
1142017-04-06T06:40:28  *** shesek has quit IRC
1152017-04-06T06:40:35  *** BashCo has quit IRC
1162017-04-06T06:48:58  <gmaxwell> Better nate than lever.
1172017-04-06T06:49:00  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
1182017-04-06T06:49:22  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1192017-04-06T06:49:41  *** CubicEarthh has quit IRC
1202017-04-06T06:50:44  <midnightmagic> oh, we're doing detached sigs for rc candidates now?
1212017-04-06T06:50:53  <wumpus> cfields: thanks!
1222017-04-06T06:50:57  <midnightmagic> okay I'll rebuild. thanks!
1232017-04-06T06:51:07  <wumpus> midnightmagic: we've been doing so for a while
1242017-04-06T06:51:14  <wumpus> to test that part of the process too
1252017-04-06T06:51:30  <wumpus> the last step is very fast though
1262017-04-06T06:51:52  <midnightmagic> I thought it was just on a "when cfields or whoever gets around to it, maybe, but for sure for actual releases" :-)
1272017-04-06T06:52:03  <cfields> wumpus: sorry for delay. I'm out of town and had to use my laptop, which really really didn't want to cooperate
1282017-04-06T06:53:41  <cfields> i think i've learned how to force a tag in the bitcoin repo, though. it seems to be a sure thing as soon as i leave for a few days :)
1292017-04-06T06:53:55  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302017-04-06T07:02:41  <wumpus> cfields: it does seem to always happen in the most inconvenient times for you
1312017-04-06T07:09:28  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322017-04-06T07:16:10  *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332017-04-06T07:33:00  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] mrwhythat opened pull request #10161: [WIP] Support for Tor's Single Onion Service (master...tor-single-onion-service) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10161
1342017-04-06T07:35:42  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10158: Add some more release notes for 0.14.1. (0.14...relnote141) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10158
1352017-04-06T07:36:08  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10157: [0.14] Fix the mempool_packages.py test (0.14...test-0.14.1rc1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10157
1362017-04-06T07:36:21  <gmaxwell> Does someone want to write memory advice release notes?
1372017-04-06T07:36:25  <gmaxwell> we should have those.
1382017-04-06T07:37:57  <sipa> i'll try
1392017-04-06T07:44:00  *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402017-04-06T07:48:47  <warren> gitian is taking forever, will proably have sigs in the morning.
1412017-04-06T07:52:00  *** Elenora has quit IRC
1422017-04-06T08:09:09  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
1432017-04-06T08:10:47  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442017-04-06T08:34:26  *** bincap has quit IRC
1452017-04-06T08:37:08  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462017-04-06T08:40:11  *** bincap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472017-04-06T08:43:20  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
1482017-04-06T08:46:06  *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492017-04-06T08:47:27  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
1502017-04-06T08:47:45  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512017-04-06T08:49:59  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522017-04-06T08:53:56  *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
1532017-04-06T09:03:40  *** bincap has quit IRC
1542017-04-06T09:47:10  *** belcher_ has quit IRC
1552017-04-06T09:48:58  *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562017-04-06T09:55:14  *** belcher_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572017-04-06T09:55:37  *** belcher_ is now known as Guest38904
1582017-04-06T09:58:00  *** chjj has quit IRC
1592017-04-06T10:03:24  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1602017-04-06T10:11:04  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612017-04-06T10:20:25  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1622017-04-06T10:31:08  *** CubicEarthh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632017-04-06T10:41:09  *** CubicEarthh has quit IRC
1642017-04-06T10:48:07  *** ryankung has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652017-04-06T11:07:42  *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662017-04-06T11:11:10  *** BashCo has quit IRC
1672017-04-06T11:12:18  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682017-04-06T11:37:27  *** davec has quit IRC
1692017-04-06T11:49:51  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702017-04-06T11:54:03  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712017-04-06T11:56:44  *** NielsvG has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722017-04-06T12:07:02  *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
1732017-04-06T12:07:58  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742017-04-06T12:14:34  *** talmai has quit IRC
1752017-04-06T12:38:48  *** condomitti has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1762017-04-06T12:42:48  *** ryankung has quit IRC
1772017-04-06T12:49:55  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782017-04-06T12:52:00  *** bincap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792017-04-06T13:09:17  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
1802017-04-06T13:17:04  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812017-04-06T13:22:07  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
1822017-04-06T13:25:05  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832017-04-06T13:38:06  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1842017-04-06T14:11:38  *** CodeShark has quit IRC
1852017-04-06T14:11:38  *** mariorz has quit IRC
1862017-04-06T14:12:08  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
1872017-04-06T14:12:40  *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882017-04-06T14:13:26  *** sugarpuff has quit IRC
1892017-04-06T14:14:50  *** sugarpuff has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902017-04-06T14:14:52  *** lejitz has quit IRC
1912017-04-06T14:15:49  *** mariorz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1922017-04-06T14:17:02  *** cfields has quit IRC
1932017-04-06T14:17:08  *** cfields has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942017-04-06T14:21:11  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1952017-04-06T14:29:45  *** fremenWalking has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1962017-04-06T14:35:57  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1972017-04-06T14:41:08  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
1982017-04-06T14:43:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10162: [trivial] Log calls to getblocktemplate (master...loggetblocktemplatecalls) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10162
1992017-04-06T14:47:59  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2002017-04-06T14:48:56  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012017-04-06T14:59:22  *** rgrant has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2022017-04-06T15:00:14  *** riemann has quit IRC
2032017-04-06T15:06:30  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042017-04-06T15:22:41  *** davec has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052017-04-06T15:29:52  *** sturles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062017-04-06T15:49:34  *** n1ce has quit IRC
2072017-04-06T15:49:41  *** fremenWalking has quit IRC
2082017-04-06T15:50:29  *** fremenWalking has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092017-04-06T16:13:26  *** lejitz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102017-04-06T16:32:41  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
2112017-04-06T16:36:33  *** fremenWalking has quit IRC
2122017-04-06T16:57:00  *** fremenWalking has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2132017-04-06T17:10:57  *** harrymm has quit IRC
2142017-04-06T17:19:31  *** bincap has quit IRC
2152017-04-06T17:19:53  *** bincap has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162017-04-06T17:21:46  *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172017-04-06T17:56:10  *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
2182017-04-06T17:58:06  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
2192017-04-06T18:01:55  *** instagibbs has quit IRC
2202017-04-06T18:07:31  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212017-04-06T18:09:56  *** jtimon has quit IRC
2222017-04-06T18:18:14  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232017-04-06T18:19:29  *** CubicEarthh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242017-04-06T18:20:09  *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252017-04-06T18:27:05  *** face has quit IRC
2262017-04-06T18:29:29  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272017-04-06T18:36:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c7e73eafa139...8c28670e92b6
2282017-04-06T18:36:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 19e36bb Wladimir J. van der Laan: Add fs.cpp/h
2292017-04-06T18:36:06  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7d5172d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Replace includes of boost/filesystem.h with fs.h...
2302017-04-06T18:36:07  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bac5c9c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Replace uses of boost::filesystem with fs...
2312017-04-06T18:36:25  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9902: Lightweight abstraction of boost::filesystem (master...2017_03_fs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9902
2322017-04-06T18:39:32  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332017-04-06T18:45:09  *** jpoo90 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342017-04-06T18:51:35  *** face has quit IRC
2352017-04-06T18:52:15  *** jpoo90 has quit IRC
2362017-04-06T18:52:22  *** face has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372017-04-06T18:56:08  *** Eagle[TM] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382017-04-06T18:56:50  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392017-04-06T18:58:29  <jcorgan> dev meeting?
2402017-04-06T18:58:35  <jonasschnelli> 2mins
2412017-04-06T19:01:31  <jonasschnelli> Dong!
2422017-04-06T19:01:46  <jtimon> proposed topics?
2432017-04-06T19:02:48  <jcorgan> mumble mumble something about a white elephant in the room mumble mumble
2442017-04-06T19:02:58  <wumpus> #startmeeting
2452017-04-06T19:02:58  <lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Apr  6 19:02:58 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
2462017-04-06T19:02:58  <lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
2472017-04-06T19:03:08  <luke-jr> gribble: nicks
2482017-04-06T19:03:26  <luke-jr> … or not :x
2492017-04-06T19:03:29  <kanzure> hi.
2502017-04-06T19:03:41  <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
2512017-04-06T19:03:45  <sipa> hi, half present
2522017-04-06T19:03:59  <sdaftuar> hi
2532017-04-06T19:04:22  <btcdrak> still breathing
2542017-04-06T19:04:24  <wumpus> topics?
2552017-04-06T19:04:55  *** fremenWalking has quit IRC
2562017-04-06T19:05:10  <CodeShark> about 69% present but due to incompatibilities with litecoin that might decrease
2572017-04-06T19:05:29  <luke-jr> absent other suggestions: UASF and/or PoW change? maybe too premature to discuss in dev tho
2582017-04-06T19:05:42  <sipa> offtopic for here, i think
2592017-04-06T19:05:56  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Let's not go down this road.
2602017-04-06T19:05:59  <wumpus> yes I don't think they're good fits for this meeting
2612017-04-06T19:06:03  <CodeShark> thanks for staying above that crap, sipa :)
2622017-04-06T19:06:30  <warren> 0.14.1 status?
2632017-04-06T19:06:42  <btcdrak> Maybe someone can dish out review homework?
2642017-04-06T19:06:44  <wumpus> 0.14.1 status: rc1 was tagged, gitian builds in progress
2652017-04-06T19:06:53  <cfields> hi, here, but also not very present.
2662017-04-06T19:07:13  *** annanay25 has quit IRC
2672017-04-06T19:07:18  <kanzure> if none of us are actually here, what are we doing?
2682017-04-06T19:07:23  *** annanay25 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692017-04-06T19:07:24  <jeremyrubin> here
2702017-04-06T19:07:33  <morcos> here
2712017-04-06T19:07:39  <wumpus> I'll upload binaries tomorrow morning (NL time)
2722017-04-06T19:08:17  <luke-jr> maybe if FC is distracting too many devs, and we have a shortage of topics, meeting should be postponed?
2732017-04-06T19:08:23  <btcdrak> maybe we should just order some pizzas and beers.
2742017-04-06T19:08:27  <CodeShark> right
2752017-04-06T19:08:33  <kanzure> is financial crypto over yet?
2762017-04-06T19:08:44  <wumpus> yes, might be better to skip this meeting then, doesn't seem people have much to discuss or are not present or half present
2772017-04-06T19:08:51  <jonasschnelli> ack
2782017-04-06T19:08:55  <sipa> btcdrak: <BlueMatt> same PRs for review this week
2792017-04-06T19:08:56  <btcdrak> shortest meeting eva
2802017-04-06T19:08:57  <sdaftuar> anyone want to give updates on what they're working on?
2812017-04-06T19:09:01  <jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
2822017-04-06T19:09:06  <jonasschnelli> ^ PRs to review
2832017-04-06T19:09:16  <warren> For those who can't directly obtain the osx gitian build req, should we recommend that they do not participate in that part of the gitian process?
2842017-04-06T19:09:20  <jonasschnelli> sdaftuar: good idea. You start?
2852017-04-06T19:09:28  <luke-jr> I'm looking at adding a UTXO index by scriptPubKey for sweeping purposes
2862017-04-06T19:09:28  <sipa> kanzure: dinner after FC17 currently ongoing; BlueMatt, roasbeef, ... are here
2872017-04-06T19:09:39  <jonasschnelli> warren: It's just an SDK tar.gz?!
2882017-04-06T19:09:47  <sdaftuar> jonasschnelli: sure
2892017-04-06T19:09:48  <wumpus> luke-jr: there's a pull for that right?
2902017-04-06T19:09:56  <luke-jr> warren: I don't see why it should be hard nowadays.. but yes, if you don't want to, feel free to skip
2912017-04-06T19:10:19  <luke-jr> wumpus: the current PR iterates over the entire UTXO set
2922017-04-06T19:10:21  <wumpus> luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9806
2932017-04-06T19:10:49  <luke-jr> what I'm working on uses a RIPEMD160 to index scripts -> txid
2942017-04-06T19:10:58  <warren> jonasschnelli: I think a lot of non-Mac users have been sharing that with others instead of going through steps of getting it themselves, which defeats the security goal, so it's misleading if multiple people go through the gitian process unless they obtain it themselves.
2952017-04-06T19:11:27  <jonasschnelli> warren: that's true
2962017-04-06T19:11:32  <wumpus> luke-jr: not sure how that one is diffrent, but I don't think we need multiple utxo indexes
2972017-04-06T19:11:43  <luke-jr> anyone who didn't make it themselves should delete and make it (or not do osx builds) IMO
2982017-04-06T19:11:43  <jonasschnelli> I'm working on BFD. roasbeef did inform me in Berlin about the progress they have made for the LND. I'd like to have BFD for the hybrid full block SPV mode.
2992017-04-06T19:11:50  <jeremyrubin> I'd like to discuss net_processing refactors. It seems like there is some plan for where that is going, but it's not been made available to me.
3002017-04-06T19:11:56  *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012017-04-06T19:11:59  <luke-jr> wumpus: the only UTXO index right now is by txid
3022017-04-06T19:12:15  <wumpus> luke-jr: yes, but the pull I referenced adds an index by scriptPubKey
3032017-04-06T19:12:19  <sipa> luke-jr: #9806
3042017-04-06T19:12:20  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9806 | txoutsbyaddress index (take 3) by droark · Pull Request #9806 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3052017-04-06T19:13:32  <jtimon> althought it isn't mine, I think https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7729 should be added to the list of things to review: that blocks the removal of accounts system
3062017-04-06T19:13:38  <wumpus> warren: yes, the only reason I had to copy it (from a person I trust very much) is because it makes it possible for me to actually upload the executables. I don't think it's generally useful to build using someone else's macosx sdk file
3072017-04-06T19:14:30  *** annanay25 has quit IRC
3082017-04-06T19:14:38  *** annanay25 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3092017-04-06T19:14:42  <wumpus> but with luke-jr's instructions to extract it on linux there's not really an excuse anymore
3102017-04-06T19:15:07  <sipa> i've been working on database/cache/flush/memory usage things
3112017-04-06T19:15:18  <wumpus> jtimon: I tend to agree. though please review the *API*, not the code, the code is extremely outdated on that now
3122017-04-06T19:15:47  <jtimon> wumpus: thank you, that helps
3132017-04-06T19:15:50  <wumpus> jtimon: however I still stand behind the label API as I wrote it down back then, and that's the important part
3142017-04-06T19:16:07  <morcos> i've been coding and recoding fee estimates for months now.. they'll maybe be a tiny smidge better but infinitely more complicated and will annoy the crap out of everyone to review.  have a nice day.
3152017-04-06T19:16:25  <sdaftuar> i've been working on CreateNewBlock, so that we have a way to skip recently added transactions if the block income from doing so is below some threshold (to model higher orphan risk)
3162017-04-06T19:16:32  <warren> wumpus: I'd like for us to be able to hash verify some part of the SDK and add that somewhere in the gitian process, I'm pretty sure this is possible
3172017-04-06T19:16:53  <wumpus> warren: if you'd tar it in a deterministic way (like we do in gitian build process itself) that'd be easily possible
3182017-04-06T19:16:57  <jcorgan> please correct me if i'm wrong, but #9806 uses hash of the full script as a key, not extracting the embedded push(es) for and addrindex type key, or am i confused
3192017-04-06T19:16:58  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9806 | txoutsbyaddress index (take 3) by droark · Pull Request #9806 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3202017-04-06T19:17:03  <wumpus> warren: we'd just need a a script for that
3212017-04-06T19:17:08  <wumpus> warren: "normalize mac sdk"
3222017-04-06T19:17:26  <luke-jr> jcorgan: problem?
3232017-04-06T19:17:30  <warren> wumpus: agreed
3242017-04-06T19:17:51  <jcorgan> not a problem, just making sure i have the correct understanding
3252017-04-06T19:18:18  <wumpus> the files and file names should definitely be the same for everyone, the differences will be in the metadata such as date/time/user and possibly file order
3262017-04-06T19:19:14  <jtimon> I put some more ideas on #7829, not sure what to do about it, a couple of people participated at first, but perhaps the proposed task is too boring, even for newbies, at least I found some functions to make static
3272017-04-06T19:19:16  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7829 | Globals: TODO: Experiment: Kill "Params()" by jtimon · Pull Request #7829 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3282017-04-06T19:20:15  <luke-jr> jcorgan: not sure, but I didn't see a need for it myself
3292017-04-06T19:20:18  <jcorgan> luke-jr: wondering if the name 'txoutsbyaddressindex' is misleading
3302017-04-06T19:20:43  <luke-jr> jcorgan: definitely, since it has nothing to do with addresses, but I already complained about that in a past PR it appears XD
3312017-04-06T19:20:44  <jcorgan> anyway, not sure what the current topic is, i'll take this to the PR comments
3322017-04-06T19:20:45  <jtimon> also worked on #9494 #10119 #10118 and more things to potentially do afterwards
3332017-04-06T19:20:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9494 | Introduce an ArgsManager class encapsulating cs_args, mapArgs and mapMultiArgs by jtimon · Pull Request #9494 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3342017-04-06T19:20:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10119 | Util: Remove ArgsManager wrappers: by jtimon · Pull Request #10119 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3352017-04-06T19:20:48  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10118 | Util: Remove redundant calls to argsGlobal.IsArgSet() by jtimon · Pull Request #10118 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3362017-04-06T19:23:11  <sipa> any other topics or updates?
3372017-04-06T19:23:34  <sdaftuar> quiet times!
3382017-04-06T19:23:47  <jcorgan> maybe here it is quiet :)
3392017-04-06T19:24:21  <warren> wumpus mentioned luke's script, for the record it is located here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/README_osx.md
3402017-04-06T19:24:23  <wumpus> let's close the meeting early then
3412017-04-06T19:24:29  <jonasschnelli> Yes. /end
3422017-04-06T19:24:36  <wumpus> warren: yup
3432017-04-06T19:24:42  <warren> well, instructions at least
3442017-04-06T19:24:47  <wumpus> #link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/README_osx.md
3452017-04-06T19:24:50  <wumpus> #endmeeting
3462017-04-06T19:24:50  <lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Apr  6 19:24:50 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
3472017-04-06T19:24:50  <lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-06-19.02.html
3482017-04-06T19:24:50  <lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-06-19.02.txt
3492017-04-06T19:24:50  <lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-04-06-19.02.log.html
3502017-04-06T19:24:52  <sipa> it seems we boosted the speed of the meeting significantly
3512017-04-06T19:25:03  <warren> overt boost even
3522017-04-06T19:25:10  <jonasschnelli> boost(ed),.. I can't read that word anymore
3532017-04-06T19:25:25  <gmaxwell> oops
3542017-04-06T19:25:32  <jeremyrubin> A [sic] efficiency gain
3552017-04-06T19:25:50  <jcorgan> ima go patent it
3562017-04-06T19:25:51  <wumpus> isn't meeting speed boost patented?
3572017-04-06T19:26:04  <jonasschnelli> Heh,... I'm sure there is one somewhere
3582017-04-06T19:26:06  <gmaxwell> Sorry, been caught up in responding to dramaz and missed the meeting entirely! :(
3592017-04-06T19:26:15  <jonasschnelli> Well... it was short
3602017-04-06T19:26:18  <warren> wumpus: yes, one of the claims is to remove chairs from the room
3612017-04-06T19:26:33  <jtimon> gmaxwell: I guess you can bring any topic if you want, we just finished
3622017-04-06T19:26:48  <jtimon> most people are probably still around
3632017-04-06T19:26:49  <wumpus> warren: hah indeed, to not let people get too comfortable
3642017-04-06T19:27:35  <gmaxwell> I didn't want anything.
3652017-04-06T19:28:03  <gmaxwell> I'm kind of overwhelmed by this bitmain response. It says a lot of agressive and untrue things, about the BIP proposal, about me personally, about our project.
3662017-04-06T19:28:28  <luke-jr> seemed clearly nonsense enough I wouldn't worry over it IMO
3672017-04-06T19:28:30  <jcorgan> no good deed goes unpunished
3682017-04-06T19:28:32  <gmaxwell> It does a weird mix of confirming and denying.
3692017-04-06T19:28:45  <wumpus> they're overwhelmed, and incapable of responding coherently
3702017-04-06T19:28:54  <CodeShark> gmaxwell: they will never back down at this point
3712017-04-06T19:28:57  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: if Bitmain was innocent, they'd be all supportive of your proposal to stop competition from abusing it
3722017-04-06T19:29:06  <achow101> what was Bitmain's response?
3732017-04-06T19:29:32  <wumpus> yes, any miners that are not (planning to) use the trick would be supportive, after all no one wants to be secretly screwed out of their reward
3742017-04-06T19:29:40  <gmaxwell> E.g. they helpfully confim their hardware implements asicboost, they loudly say they have the right to use it.  They claim that they haven't used it on mainnet 'for the good of bitcoin' (how that jives with their claims that they'll make all the empty blocks they want because the protocol allows it, I dunno)
3752017-04-06T19:29:51  <CodeShark> if you're expecting a mea culpa you will end up gravely disappointed
3762017-04-06T19:30:22  <jcorgan> ^
3772017-04-06T19:30:46  <gmaxwell> Yes, the proposal is specifically designed to have minimal impact and only interfear with covert asicboost and only to the extent that it gums up protocol extensions (like segwit, utxo commitments, bloom filter commitments, etc.)  But in their response they claim that I am trying to harm bitcoin by blocking a valuable optimization. :-/
3782017-04-06T19:30:56  <gmaxwell> CodeShark: oh no, I expected them to just deny having used it flat out.
3792017-04-06T19:30:57  <wumpus> well denying that their hardware implements it would be pointless, so they fall back to denying they use it
3802017-04-06T19:31:07  <gmaxwell> I didn't expect the rant full of trivially falsifyable claims.
3812017-04-06T19:31:28  <wumpus> saying they don't use it 'for the sake of bitcoin' can't be jived with saying it's a valuable optimization though
3822017-04-06T19:31:38  <jcorgan> very few people to whom that rant was addressed will care to try to falsify them
3832017-04-06T19:31:49  <CodeShark> truth isn't the point
3842017-04-06T19:31:49  <wumpus> if it shouldn't be used for the good of bitcoin, your BIP is exactly what they should adopt too
3852017-04-06T19:31:55  <wumpus> truth is the point, for us
3862017-04-06T19:32:00  <gmaxwell> There is so much just simply untrue in it that I don't know where to respond.  Baiscally I was prepared for a "We don't use it!" to which my response would be "Great, then you'll support activating this fix so no one else does and gains an advantage on you, right?"
3872017-04-06T19:32:05  <CodeShark> yeah, but not for the intended audience
3882017-04-06T19:32:09  <wumpus> we're trying to do development here, not politics
3892017-04-06T19:32:13  <CodeShark> lol
3902017-04-06T19:32:16  <wumpus> the intended audience of this channel is core devs
3912017-04-06T19:32:20  <sipa> wumpus: +1
3922017-04-06T19:32:27  <CodeShark> yes, so this is not the best place for this discussion
3932017-04-06T19:32:33  <jcorgan> yeah, sorry
3942017-04-06T19:32:46  <wumpus> well it's fine to mention it. I'm sure we want the BIP implemented in bitcoin core?
3952017-04-06T19:33:11  <morcos> wumpus: i'd say we want if if we think there is community support
3962017-04-06T19:33:23  <morcos> that should be our stance on all consensus changes
3972017-04-06T19:33:39  <sipa> agree
3982017-04-06T19:33:41  <jonasschnelli> morcos: how do you measure "community support"?
3992017-04-06T19:33:49  <jonasschnelli> reddit?
4002017-04-06T19:33:53  <sipa> jonasschnelli: it's complicated
4012017-04-06T19:33:56  <morcos> its hard to measure obviously... but letting the dust settle a bit is a starting point
4022017-04-06T19:34:13  <jtimon> let's move the discussion to #bitcoin ?
4032017-04-06T19:34:18  <wumpus> ok, if we're not sure whether we want it, this is not the place to discuss it
4042017-04-06T19:34:35  <jtimon> I mean, I think as a technical proposal it belongs in here
4052017-04-06T19:34:38  <wumpus> otherwise the next question would have been how, and who is going to write the code
4062017-04-06T19:34:40  <jonasschnelli> And I guess there is great uncertainty in the community.
4072017-04-06T19:35:19  <wumpus> well there is quite certainly that the sneaky form of asicboost should be banished
4082017-04-06T19:35:39  <jonasschnelli> Yes. Indeed.
4092017-04-06T19:36:03  <jonasschnelli> Will it be a miner activated soft fork? :-)
4102017-04-06T19:36:10  <wumpus> whether that BIP is the best solution to that is indeed open, indeed makes sense for the dust to settle on that, though it may still make sense to have actual code
4112017-04-06T19:36:31  <morcos> i think in a clean room protocol design then, yes it shoudl be banished...  it people were using it, and keeping it quiet for competitive advantage, that seems a quasi-reasonable action to me.
4122017-04-06T19:37:20  <morcos> so if we want to ban the merkle-root form b/c it isn't good for the protocol (which i agree with), it's fair to give some time to not immediately obsolete hardware made with fair intention (hypothetically speaking)
4132017-04-06T19:37:24  <wumpus> if people were using it, it should be banished, if people were not using it, it should also be banished to prevent it from being used. No miner would rationally want another miner to get a sneaky advantage on them.
4142017-04-06T19:37:37  <morcos> yes, if no one is using it.. then we don't need to have delay
4152017-04-06T19:37:39  <jonasschnelli> It's a sneaky form of optimisation that leads to more centralisation of mining, .. and therefor does not follow the idea of Satoshi IMO.
4162017-04-06T19:37:49  <morcos> but in all cases, it seems to me its somethign the community should decide not core
4172017-04-06T19:38:01  <wumpus> the BIP doesn't break normal mining hardware does it?
4182017-04-06T19:38:02  <morcos> it can be our recommendation that it should be banished at some point, for sure
4192017-04-06T19:38:05  <wumpus> unlike a PoW change
4202017-04-06T19:38:27  <jonasschnelli> I guess the community will decide if they run Core or no.
4212017-04-06T19:38:28  <morcos> but there seems to be no reason to continue to use it (covertly) now that it has been made public
4222017-04-06T19:38:41  <morcos> so one question is how compatible existing hardware is with switching to overt
4232017-04-06T19:38:52  <jcorgan> hopefully nobody made covert-only hardware
4242017-04-06T19:38:53  <morcos> if compatible.. then again , no reason to delay
4252017-04-06T19:39:01  <morcos> jcorgan: ha, good poitn i suppose!
4262017-04-06T19:39:12  <wumpus> if they did they just screwed themselves
4272017-04-06T19:39:22  <jtimon> wumpus: personally I am sure that we want it, because logic tells me that only people that plan to use it would oppose it, but if all miners use it nobody gains anything
4282017-04-06T19:39:24  <wumpus> though I'm sure all hardware supports mining without tricks
4292017-04-06T19:39:53  *** IRC-Source_22424 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4302017-04-06T19:40:06  <jeremyrubin> I think we need to be very careful with how we brand any changes happening. The reason we would like to ban it is *NOT* because it is covert. It is because it is incomaptible with Bitcoin's incentive systems (e.g., transaction selection to maximiuze fees) and it interferes with protocol development.
4312017-04-06T19:40:06  <wumpus> it needs special support to be able to receive multiple roots, and if it can accept multiple roots it can also accept one
4322017-04-06T19:40:06  <gmaxwell> you can construct hardware that can ONLY use asicbost (or lose 3/4 of its hashpower) but it would be really stupid to do that, and I have seen no evidence that anyone does.
4332017-04-06T19:41:02  <jeremyrubin> In the future, you don't want some regulator charging in requesting feature changes to disable a "covert" bitcoin feature
4342017-04-06T19:41:02  <gmaxwell> wumpus: yes, though if you unroll the logic and route it, the getting only one would lose 3/4 of the hashpower. But that is not how Bitmain's is implemented...
4352017-04-06T19:41:10  <wumpus> jeremyrubin: again, this is not about branding, this channel is about development
4362017-04-06T19:41:11  <gmaxwell> (at least not in the chips they sell to the public)
4372017-04-06T19:41:51  <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes I don't think that's anything realistic
4382017-04-06T19:41:52  <jeremyrubin> I'm just saying the name "Covert" is misleading and does not lead to good technical undertsanding
4392017-04-06T19:42:09  <wumpus> it's pointless to start discussing language here
4402017-04-06T19:43:28  <rgrant> morcos: core must protect the protocol.  if this subverts it, by creating meaning in bits that should have no meaning, then core should take a stand on that.
4412017-04-06T19:47:23  <rgrant> one principled way to proceed would be to say that optimizations that harm intended extensibility will not be respected.
4422017-04-06T19:47:48  <jcorgan> i like the restraint in the original proposal, to make the protocol enhancing blockage stuff not do that, and decouple that from the optimization vs. attack discussion
4432017-04-06T19:48:09  <rgrant> jcorgan: sme
4442017-04-06T19:48:12  <rgrant> same
4452017-04-06T19:49:25  <jtimon> so on the developer side, I think we can introduce a per-deployment optional field that makes a given deployment activate instead of expire according to bip9, I guess that deserves it's own bip even if it's a simple extension of bip9, but the code is also easy to add and not very disruptive, and it seems something reasonable to have
4462017-04-06T19:49:37  <gmaxwell> jcorgan: Thank you, that is very much intended. And so its frustrating to see bitmain misrepresent it so completely.
4472017-04-06T19:52:09  *** jnewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4482017-04-06T19:53:02  *** jnewshoes has quit IRC
4492017-04-06T19:53:12  <jcorgan> so i'd recommend that if something is done short term, it be entirely focused on that, with pushback by the team on any enthusiam to address the "overt" asicboost activity
4502017-04-06T19:53:43  <btcdrak> morcos: covert boost is switchable so it can, and should be disabled post haste (community willing ofc).
4512017-04-06T19:54:09  *** jnewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4522017-04-06T19:55:25  <morcos> yes, well apparently no one is using either version... so thats probably the biggest argument that no delay is needed
4532017-04-06T19:56:48  <gmaxwell> Yes, if the argument is that no one is using it yet, great!
4542017-04-06T20:28:26  *** alpalp has quit IRC
4552017-04-06T20:57:33  <Chris_Stewart_5> jcorgan: I agree whole heartedly with *only* focusing on the covert (protocol blocking stuff) right now. Table the other discussion like you said
4562017-04-06T20:58:07  <Chris_Stewart_5> Thats going to be a much more interesting debate and I'm not sure where I fall on that one
4572017-04-06T20:59:52  <wumpus> that's also the only thing that gmaxwell's BIP covers
4582017-04-06T20:59:54  <jcorgan> me neither
4592017-04-06T21:00:32  <Chris_Stewart_5> Just to be clear, gmaxwell's BIP can be withdrawn if segwit is activated right?
4602017-04-06T21:00:59  <Chris_Stewart_5> if we are focusing on covert usage
4612017-04-06T21:01:09  <BlueMatt> Chris_Stewart_5: kinda, segwit is very deliberately designed to allow miners to not mine segwit txn, but the problem is likely self-correcting then - you're losing out on fees for asicboost
4622017-04-06T21:01:29  <BlueMatt> (ie you can skip the witness commitment, but only if you dont mine segwit txn)
4632017-04-06T21:03:48  *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
4642017-04-06T21:08:46  <gmaxwell> Chris_Stewart_5: segwit also satisifies my BIP.  The bip lets you either include the segwit commitment OR another segwit incompatible commitment.
4652017-04-06T21:09:13  <gmaxwell> I structured it this way so parties that already had segwit would need zero additional work, and parties that didn't want segwit could support this bip without supporting segwit in any way.
4662017-04-06T21:10:01  <gmaxwell> personally I do not believe these parties exist, but we shouldn't create a vulnerablity in the proposal where people could dishonestly argue against segwit to stop the proposal (which is the problem I think we've been having)
4672017-04-06T21:16:13  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4682017-04-06T21:21:51  *** veleiro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4692017-04-06T21:23:16  <jcorgan> perhaps it would be better to move away from overt/covert terminology and use something like 'forward compatible/incompatible'
4702017-04-06T21:24:06  <jcorgan> that focuses on the technical side without motivationally tinged wording
4712017-04-06T21:26:23  <rgrant> jcorgan:  "FairHeader" has gained a following already in #bitcoin.  "forward compatible" might stir up big blockers.
4722017-04-06T21:26:43  <jcorgan> ugh
4732017-04-06T21:27:06  <jcorgan> "fair" is a completely subjective and political term
4742017-04-06T21:27:45  <rgrant> so is "forward".  got anything more descriptive?
4752017-04-06T21:27:47  <jcorgan> but perhaps this particular thing should stay in #bitcoin, sorry guys
4762017-04-06T21:29:06  <Eagle[TM]> whether to make it a UASF (not specifically endorsed by core) or to include it in core code is something to consider
4772017-04-06T21:35:38  *** bitcoinreminder_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4782017-04-06T21:36:25  <bitcoinreminder_> could you release a binary for this covert asic boost bug?
4792017-04-06T21:36:39  <bitcoinreminder_> i think a lot of people are already waiting for it :D
4802017-04-06T21:37:56  <Eagle[TM]> i don't think it's even clear yet whether it's done as an UASF or a MASF
4812017-04-06T21:39:48  <bitcoinreminder_> hm ok.. :/
4822017-04-06T21:42:34  <abpa> UASF can be done by Core, just not without community support
4832017-04-06T21:43:01  <abpa> MASF for fixing AntBleed can't work
4842017-04-06T21:43:18  <abpa> Sorry I mean covert asicboost
4852017-04-06T21:43:24  <bitcoinreminder_> I also think we should really try UASF this time.. I also think the support is overwhelming
4862017-04-06T21:43:36  <abpa> It's really for #bitcoin discussion not #bitcoin-core-dev
4872017-04-06T21:44:28  <BlueMatt> lol, lots of new people here tonight
4882017-04-06T21:44:35  <sturles> An UASF would need support from a supermajority of exchanges and payment processors, and preferably as many merchants as possible dealing with bitcoin directly.
4892017-04-06T21:44:50  <sturles> And I don't think that will be a problem.
4902017-04-06T21:45:17  <sturles> Theese days you can buy beer with testnet coins, as long as you use LN..
4912017-04-06T21:45:39  <BlueMatt> sturles: nonononono, that was a one-night thing...if it turns into a regular thing we have to reset testnet :(
4922017-04-06T21:46:16  <BlueMatt> (and, before you ask, testnet doesnt get consensus-requirements...wumpus is the appointed holy leader and less-than-benevolent dictator for life of testnet :p)
4932017-04-06T21:47:33  <Eagle[TM]> BlueMatt: it's just when things are getting really interesting, 2nd tier style reddit doesn't do it anymore. people crawling out of the woodwork
4942017-04-06T21:47:36  <bitcoinreminder_> would someone be so nice to create an unofficial UASF implementation? you dont have to sign or compile it, just the code would be fine for me?
4952017-04-06T21:47:51  <BlueMatt> less-than-benevolent because he gets to maximize for zero value....
4962017-04-06T21:48:17  <BlueMatt> bitcoinreminder_: the proposal is far from done, needs constants, not now, no
4972017-04-06T21:48:44  <bitcoinreminder_> damn :D
4982017-04-06T21:49:04  <bitcoinreminder_> is there any suggestion already at least for a version string?
4992017-04-06T21:50:04  <bitcoinreminder_> sorry for my impatience :D
5002017-04-06T21:50:34  <jcorgan> patience is a virtue well-honed by participation in the bitcoin world :-)
5012017-04-06T21:50:38  <Eagle[TM]> bitcoinreminder_: give it time. even core devs need sleep from time to time.
5022017-04-06T21:51:21  <bitcoinreminder_> unfortunately :D No thanks guys, for your great work.. really :)
5032017-04-06T22:04:05  <BlueMatt> yea, at least the folks at fc went to bed an hour ago, and I'm off now
5042017-04-06T22:05:14  <bitcoinreminder_> good night you heros of the magic internet money :)
5052017-04-06T22:15:22  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
5062017-04-06T22:16:01  *** veleiro has quit IRC
5072017-04-06T22:23:08  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
5082017-04-06T22:34:45  *** Guest38904 is now known as belcher
5092017-04-06T22:34:48  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5102017-04-06T22:40:12  *** NewLiberty_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5112017-04-06T22:46:29  *** rgrant has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5122017-04-06T22:56:30  *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5132017-04-06T22:59:08  *** Eagle[TM] has quit IRC
5142017-04-06T23:07:29  *** NewLiberty_ is now known as NewLiberty
5152017-04-06T23:11:51  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5162017-04-06T23:11:51  *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5172017-04-06T23:15:22  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
5182017-04-06T23:32:40  *** gotojyh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5192017-04-06T23:44:44  *** jnewshoes has quit IRC
5202017-04-06T23:46:57  *** jnewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5212017-04-06T23:56:22  *** IRC-Source_22424 has quit IRC
5222017-04-06T23:56:40  *** abpa has quit IRC
5232017-04-06T23:58:22  *** gotojyh has quit IRC