12017-04-12T00:00:59  <cfields> heh
  22017-04-12T00:14:10  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
  32017-04-12T00:19:38  *** dermoth has quit IRC
  42017-04-12T00:20:23  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  52017-04-12T00:32:18  *** Samdney has quit IRC
  62017-04-12T00:42:53  *** d_t has quit IRC
  72017-04-12T01:55:06  <jtimon> cfields: at the same time, I'm a sed newbie, there were no '\' in my teacher's blackboard or my "reduded-c" interpreter implemented in c++, please, don't laught to loud when you tell me what my mistake is in: https://0bin.net/paste/mHKVu6pkl2XopjAb#3S9s6vUOBTnlmnDMWRKH6Te6-oJAjdE3lBD0LtS45/s
  82017-04-12T01:55:08  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3 | Encrypt wallet · Issue #3 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  92017-04-12T01:57:02  * jtimon https://www.gnu.org/software/sed/manual/sed.html#sed-regular-expressions
 102017-04-12T02:10:15  <cfields> jtimon: i think you want something like: sed -i 's/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\),\(.*\))/for(\1 :\2)/' net_processing.cpp
 112017-04-12T02:10:15  <cfields> ?
 122017-04-12T02:11:12  <jtimon> oh, yeah, the dot, thank you very much
 132017-04-12T02:12:35  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 142017-04-12T02:12:44  <cfields> np
 152017-04-12T02:13:52  <cfields> jtimon: you'll need to filter some things out of that. iirc pairs are handled differently, at least.
 162017-04-12T02:15:31  <jtimon> I shouldn't even need a pair I think, now I'm trying sed -i "s/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\), /for (${\1} :" src/net_processing.cpp
 172017-04-12T02:16:09  <jtimon> bash: s/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\), /for (${\1} :: bad substitution
 182017-04-12T02:17:54  <jtimon> it feels like it's something embarrasingly obvious
 192017-04-12T02:18:40  *** Joseph__ has quit IRC
 202017-04-12T02:18:49  *** NewLiberty has quit IRC
 212017-04-12T02:39:23  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
 222017-04-12T02:47:21  <jtimon> ok, "git checkout -- ." was the first thing I was missing before trying again with something different
 232017-04-12T02:47:46  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 242017-04-12T02:48:26  *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 252017-04-12T02:52:02  *** goksinen has quit IRC
 262017-04-12T02:52:23  *** dodomojo has quit IRC
 272017-04-12T02:53:13  <jtimon> alright, I think 'git checkout -- . ; sed -i 's/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\),/for (\1 :/' ./src/qt/*.cpp ./src/wallet/*.cpp' is enough to test your PR on travis
 282017-04-12T02:56:28  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 292017-04-12T02:57:45  <cfields> jtimon: does that actually build?
 302017-04-12T02:58:53  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 312017-04-12T03:02:38  <jtimon> cfields: sed does what I expect, and only with ./src/qt/*.cpp , it passes unittests
 322017-04-12T03:03:02  <cfields> mm, neat
 332017-04-12T03:05:46  <jtimon> now it's time to make it "fail" on purpose and open a PR, then add a fixup commit to be squashed once your pr is merged
 342017-04-12T03:06:31  <jtimon> neat indeed, I expect this to be revolution in refactors, thanks again
 352017-04-12T03:09:07  <cfields> :) happy to help
 362017-04-12T03:10:55  <cfields> I've had this one (the cnode change) done on a ton of branches, but never felt like dealing with the process of pushing it through. So yea, I can see how it could be helpful for lots of similar changes.
 372017-04-12T03:11:52  <jtimon> at the very least, it revolutionized the way I think about refactors, maybe it was obvious to use sed for rebase and review for everyone else but certainly not for me
 382017-04-12T03:12:42  <jtimon> yeah, not only painful simple changes will stop to be painful
 392017-04-12T03:12:56  <jtimon> which is the fisrt use case
 402017-04-12T03:15:03  <jtimon> but also some painful changes that authors don't even open as PR because they're too disruptive will be open now
 412017-04-12T03:15:29  <cfields> awesome
 422017-04-12T03:15:32  <jtimon> and more importantly, reviewed too
 432017-04-12T03:15:52  <cfields> jtimon: you might look at pairing it with "git rebase -i --exec <script>" too :)
 442017-04-12T03:16:04  <cfields> for maintaining
 452017-04-12T03:17:04  <jtimon> or maybe I'm over-excited about this, it is good enough to know I am not stupid for not thinking about this by myself beforehand
 462017-04-12T03:17:38  <jtimon> -exec was failing locally for some reason
 472017-04-12T03:18:17  <cfields> heh
 482017-04-12T03:18:28  <cfields> headed off, nnite
 492017-04-12T03:24:15  *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502017-04-12T03:25:48  *** goksinen has quit IRC
 512017-04-12T04:03:46  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #10193: scripted-diff: sed -i 's/BOOST_FOREACH(\(.*\),/for (\1 :/' ./src/qt/*.cpp (master...b14-10189-scripted-qt-foreach) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193
 522017-04-12T04:05:43  <cfields> jtimon: you didn't format the commit message in a way that it will be picked up
 532017-04-12T04:06:00  <cfields> jtimon: see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193/commits/d04198309e7e9b21de1604cc4321148b37a46347
 542017-04-12T04:16:18  <jtimon> cfields: np, updated https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10189#issuecomment-293468978 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193
 552017-04-12T04:17:29  <cfields> that looks better, thanks
 562017-04-12T04:44:42  *** To7 has quit IRC
 572017-04-12T04:52:21  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 582017-04-12T05:15:10  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
 592017-04-12T05:18:16  *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 602017-04-12T05:18:17  *** cryptapus_afk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612017-04-12T06:00:20  *** Victor_sueca has quit IRC
 622017-04-12T06:01:28  *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 632017-04-12T06:15:40  *** jtimon has quit IRC
 642017-04-12T06:50:00  *** Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca
 652017-04-12T06:54:56  *** jnewshoes has quit IRC
 662017-04-12T06:55:24  *** LeMiner has quit IRC
 672017-04-12T06:55:25  *** adiabat has quit IRC
 682017-04-12T06:55:36  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
 692017-04-12T06:55:53  *** murchandamus has quit IRC
 702017-04-12T06:56:13  *** nickler has quit IRC
 712017-04-12T06:56:52  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 722017-04-12T06:56:53  *** chjj has quit IRC
 732017-04-12T06:57:01  *** adiabat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 742017-04-12T06:57:43  *** LeMiner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 752017-04-12T06:57:58  *** murchandamus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 762017-04-12T07:00:42  *** jnewshoes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772017-04-12T07:02:00  *** nickler has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 782017-04-12T07:03:59  *** kexkey_ has quit IRC
 792017-04-12T07:06:33  *** paveljanik has quit IRC
 802017-04-12T07:08:32  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
 812017-04-12T07:18:32  *** kadoban has quit IRC
 822017-04-12T07:24:23  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 832017-04-12T07:26:32  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 842017-04-12T07:26:34  *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
 852017-04-12T07:36:40  *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862017-04-12T07:44:45  *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 872017-04-12T08:23:43  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 882017-04-12T08:26:53  *** moli_ has quit IRC
 892017-04-12T08:40:21  *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 902017-04-12T08:43:53  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912017-04-12T08:49:35  *** d_t has quit IRC
 922017-04-12T09:11:28  *** frabrunelle has quit IRC
 932017-04-12T09:11:28  *** herzmeister[m] has quit IRC
 942017-04-12T09:11:28  *** kewde[m] has quit IRC
 952017-04-12T09:13:18  *** herzmeister[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962017-04-12T09:15:42  *** so has quit IRC
 972017-04-12T09:26:19  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 982017-04-12T09:30:36  <wumpus> taking another look at #9694, really want to move forward multiwallet support
 992017-04-12T09:30:44  <wumpus> #8694 sorry
1002017-04-12T09:31:39  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9694 | Importmulti cannot import bare private keys · Issue #9694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1012017-04-12T09:31:40  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8694 | Basic multiwallet support by luke-jr · Pull Request #8694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1022017-04-12T09:34:40  *** frabrunelle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032017-04-12T09:34:40  *** kewde[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1042017-04-12T09:51:03  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052017-04-12T09:58:52  *** d_t has quit IRC
1062017-04-12T10:12:00  *** so has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072017-04-12T10:28:14  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bulldozer00 opened pull request #10194: Remove unecessary friend keyword from the class definition (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10194
1082017-04-12T10:38:14  *** kayamm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092017-04-12T10:38:15  *** kayamm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102017-04-12T10:46:41  <wumpus> what's the problem with travis today?
1112017-04-12T10:52:20  <wumpus> nm, no travis issue today :)
1122017-04-12T10:57:55  *** arubi has quit IRC
1132017-04-12T11:00:16  *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142017-04-12T11:15:20  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1152017-04-12T11:20:27  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1162017-04-12T11:58:53  *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172017-04-12T12:37:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #10195: Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model (master...pertxoutcache) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10195
1182017-04-12T12:37:39  *** cryptapus_afk has quit IRC
1192017-04-12T12:42:32  *** Jared has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202017-04-12T12:42:52  *** Jared is now known as Guest19942
1212017-04-12T12:49:52  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1222017-04-12T12:49:52  *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232017-04-12T12:49:59  *** cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk
1242017-04-12T13:01:16  *** To7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252017-04-12T13:04:31  *** [b__b] has quit IRC
1262017-04-12T13:08:26  *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
1272017-04-12T13:11:08  *** PaulCapestany has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1282017-04-12T13:16:42  *** jnewbery has quit IRC
1292017-04-12T13:24:15  *** Samdney has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302017-04-12T13:26:45  *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312017-04-12T13:31:21  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322017-04-12T13:37:34  *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332017-04-12T13:40:01  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1342017-04-12T13:43:51  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery reopened pull request #10191: [trivial] Remove unused submit block parameters argument (master...remove_submit_block_params) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10191
1352017-04-12T13:48:13  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362017-04-12T13:50:02  *** kexkey has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1372017-04-12T13:50:30  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382017-04-12T13:54:01  *** ChillazZ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392017-04-12T13:54:28  *** [b__b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402017-04-12T13:55:32  *** d_t has quit IRC
1412017-04-12T14:30:28  *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422017-04-12T14:36:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #10196: Bugfix: PrioritiseTransaction updates the mempool tx counter (master...2017-04-prioritise-transaction) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10196
1432017-04-12T14:47:19  *** molz_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442017-04-12T14:49:57  *** mol has quit IRC
1452017-04-12T14:56:05  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462017-04-12T14:56:29  *** molz_ has quit IRC
1472017-04-12T14:56:45  *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482017-04-12T14:57:10  *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492017-04-12T14:57:59  *** Guest19942 has quit IRC
1502017-04-12T15:12:35  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10197: Functional test warnings (master...functional_test_warnings) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10197
1512017-04-12T15:17:04  *** talmai has quit IRC
1522017-04-12T15:46:57  *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532017-04-12T15:57:37  *** Char0n has quit IRC
1542017-04-12T15:59:09  *** shesek has quit IRC
1552017-04-12T16:08:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10198: [tests] Remove is_network_split from functional test framework (master...remove_is_network_split) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10198
1562017-04-12T16:09:07  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery closed pull request #10198: [tests] Remove is_network_split from functional test framework (master...remove_is_network_split) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10198
1572017-04-12T16:15:52  *** Char0n has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1582017-04-12T16:19:25  *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592017-04-12T16:21:41  *** chjj has quit IRC
1602017-04-12T16:41:26  *** root-servers has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612017-04-12T16:57:10  *** e4xit has quit IRC
1622017-04-12T17:01:34  *** sanada has quit IRC
1632017-04-12T17:01:46  <arubi> is there a way to get bitcoind to not complain about any non-standardness?  I'd still like for it to error on operations with invalid transactions, but for example I'd like it to not care about DER strictness, or to ignore the P2SH requirement for a valid redeemscript (provided some preimage to p2sh, it should pass, no matter if the preimage parses as a script at all).  "SCRIPT_VERIFY_NONE = 0;" in script/interpreter.h (I'm on some
1642017-04-12T17:01:47  <arubi> 0.13.99) looks promising, but I'm not sure what to set it to.  would love a hint on what I should look for
1652017-04-12T17:03:24  <arubi> this is for testnet \ regtest use by the way
1662017-04-12T17:06:24  <arubi> maybe I should just set all verify flags to 0 :)
1672017-04-12T17:10:16  <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: Like you mentioned you can tinker with the verify flags: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/policy/policy.h#L52
1682017-04-12T17:10:28  <Chris_Stewart_5> but I'm not sure if you can do this from the command line :/
1692017-04-12T17:10:45  <arubi> oh no command line, these flags are not enough though
1702017-04-12T17:11:23  <arubi> it's letting it advance, I can send non standard transactions with some of these flags disabled, but getblocktemplate fails
1712017-04-12T17:11:48  <arubi> I don't wanna say that it's related, I already mauled this specific code to death
1722017-04-12T17:11:49  <Chris_Stewart_5> hmmm, perhaps you need to tinker with relay policy? Not sure where that is set in the codebase though
1732017-04-12T17:11:59  <arubi> other nodes drop the transaction
1742017-04-12T17:12:04  <arubi> actually I think they're banning me
1752017-04-12T17:12:40  <arubi> I'll be able to mine it myself eventually on testnet, when the diff drops, I just need getblocktemplate to work :)  setting all verify flags to 0 now
1762017-04-12T17:17:25  <arubi> muhaha it's working
1772017-04-12T17:18:40  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #10199: Better fee estimates (master...smarterfee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10199
1782017-04-12T17:20:50  <Chris_Stewart_5> setting all the flags to zero worked?
1792017-04-12T17:21:00  <arubi> yep
1802017-04-12T17:21:12  <Chris_Stewart_5> you couldn't just unset STRICTDER?
1812017-04-12T17:21:43  <arubi> well I noticed script_verify_p2sh is used even with this tx's bare p2pk
1822017-04-12T17:22:17  <arubi> I did unset strictder to even be able to relay it... I think checking block validity is even more strict than that
1832017-04-12T17:22:41  <arubi> if you saw the tx in #-dev, it's also a hybrid pubkey, so maybe more relaxed flags are needed
1842017-04-12T17:26:07  <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: Is p2pk scripts considered non standard?
1852017-04-12T17:26:37  <arubi> if it's a hybrid pubkey, probably
1862017-04-12T17:27:41  <arubi> also the signature itself is weird.  uses 0x01000000 as the sighash when the sig is passed as input
1872017-04-12T17:28:28  <arubi> so it's actually passed with a 4 byte value instead of just 0x01.. I think it should still be valid?
1882017-04-12T17:31:48  *** jnewbery has quit IRC
1892017-04-12T17:32:19  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902017-04-12T17:34:24  <instagibbs> morcos, for #10199 did you look at how it handles chain limits? There was some speculation during last spam attack that the chain limits were causing high-fee transactions to "fail" to get into blocks, spiking fees randomly
1912017-04-12T17:34:25  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10199 | Better fee estimates by morcos · Pull Request #10199 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1922017-04-12T17:35:46  <morcos> instagibbs: the estimates don't consider txs that are dependent on other txs
1932017-04-12T17:35:56  <morcos> i don't think i saw that speculation, but it makes no sense
1942017-04-12T17:36:00  <Chris_Stewart_5> arubi: Look at this function if you haven't seen it yet: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b83264d9c7a8ddb79f64bd9540caddc8632ef31f/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L186
1952017-04-12T17:36:15  <Chris_Stewart_5> to see if the hash type is valid
1962017-04-12T17:36:37  <arubi> being defined != being valid :)
1972017-04-12T17:37:09  <arubi> the famous amount overflow transaction used 0xA8 as sighash iirc, weird, but it resolves to ALL
1982017-04-12T17:38:12  <arubi> interpreter.cpp has the rules for setting up the sighash, it does a bunch of bitwise and's with 1F and flags it knows.  really I think 32 bits can be used.  sighashv2 uses 32 bits
1992017-04-12T17:39:21  <instagibbs> morcos, ok good to know. One less idea why someone was doing that then.
2002017-04-12T17:40:18  <arubi> er, it uses 16 bits.
2012017-04-12T17:42:54  <arubi> was just informed that I may be wrong re. 4 bytes sighash value :)
2022017-04-12T17:45:17  <arubi> bip66 might be causing testnet failures where it works on regtest.  will stop spamming :)
2032017-04-12T17:45:24  <Chris_Stewart_5> Yeah when checking the signature you have to prepend? the extra bytes?
2042017-04-12T17:45:46  <arubi> (-dev)
2052017-04-12T17:47:05  *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062017-04-12T17:58:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b44adf92342a...350b22497c7c
2072017-04-12T17:58:12  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4d9950d John Newbery: Set BCLog::LIBEVENT correctly for old libevent versions.
2082017-04-12T17:58:13  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5255aca John Newbery: [rpc] Add logging RPC...
2092017-04-12T17:58:13  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7fd50c3 John Newbery: allow libevent logging to be updated during runtime
2102017-04-12T17:58:36  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10150: [rpc] Add logging rpc (master...logging_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10150
2112017-04-12T17:58:59  <gmaxwell> neat
2122017-04-12T18:00:13  *** tripleslash has quit IRC
2132017-04-12T18:00:19  *** chjj has quit IRC
2142017-04-12T18:02:20  *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152017-04-12T18:13:59  *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162017-04-12T18:14:08  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
2172017-04-12T18:14:08  *** bsm1175321 is now known as bsm117532
2182017-04-12T18:14:15  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192017-04-12T18:14:26  *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2202017-04-12T18:15:58  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/350b22497c7c...de01da7cad32
2212017-04-12T18:15:59  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8c3e6c6 KibbledJiveElkZoo: Changed "Send" button default status from true to false...
2222017-04-12T18:15:59  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master de01da7 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10177: Changed "Send" button default status from true to false...
2232017-04-12T18:16:20  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10177: Changed "Send" button default status from true to false (master...ui_fixes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10177
2242017-04-12T18:25:58  <BlueMatt> wumpus: can we give that guy an award for "most humorous bug report"?
2252017-04-12T18:40:33  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] bulldozer00 closed pull request #10194: Remove unecessary friend keyword from the class definition (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10194
2262017-04-12T18:51:13  *** jnewbery has quit IRC
2272017-04-12T19:11:37  *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282017-04-12T19:17:59  <BlueMatt> #9942 looks mergeable
2292017-04-12T19:18:01  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9942 | Refactor CBlockPolicyEstimator by morcos · Pull Request #9942 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2302017-04-12T19:18:37  <BlueMatt> same with #9480, maybe jeremyrubin should change the commit message, but has like 5 acks
2312017-04-12T19:18:38  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9480 | De-duplicate SignatureCacheHasher by JeremyRubin · Pull Request #9480 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2322017-04-12T19:26:05  *** juscamarena has quit IRC
2332017-04-12T19:26:34  *** juscamarena has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342017-04-12T19:26:57  *** juscamarena is now known as Guest76166
2352017-04-12T19:36:21  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362017-04-12T19:59:23  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #10200: Mining: Skip recent transactions if fee difference is small (master...2017-04-dont-mine-recent-tx) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10200
2372017-04-12T20:12:12  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: wow, that is much more complicated than I expected.  What I had just expected it to do is to simply skip very new transactions unless they paid a high feerate, just like we skip transactions that there aren't room in the block for.
2382017-04-12T20:12:27  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: is there a big fee income difference from doing a simple thing like that?
2392017-04-12T20:14:34  <BlueMatt> cfields: wait, we really want random bash snippets in git history run by a script in #10189? I'm unsure about the wisdom of that?
2402017-04-12T20:14:36  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10189 | devtools/net: add a verifier for scriptable changes. Use it to make CNode::id private. by theuni · Pull Request #10189 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2412017-04-12T20:14:48  <BlueMatt> i mean its super nice to have, but also...running bash scripts out of git messages :/
2422017-04-12T20:16:02  <cfields> BlueMatt: arguably if a script is used to transform a large chunk of code, it should be saved with the commit for future reference. Why not use it too?
2432017-04-12T20:16:13  <BlueMatt> yea......
2442017-04-12T20:16:59  <BlueMatt> cfields: do merge tools show commit messages very clearly for sign-off?
2452017-04-12T20:17:13  <BlueMatt> would need to if they dont for this, i suppose
2462017-04-12T20:17:23  <cfields> BlueMatt: "git notes" is what you're asking about, i think :)
2472017-04-12T20:17:42  <BlueMatt> hmm?
2482017-04-12T20:18:32  <cfields> BlueMatt: i suppose I don't understand your question
2492017-04-12T20:19:00  <BlueMatt> cfields: contrib/devtools/github-merge.py
2502017-04-12T20:19:20  <BlueMatt> i would expect them to clearly query the merger to read each commit's commitmsg
2512017-04-12T20:21:30  <cfields> unsure. Wouldn't change anything there, though. the merge script could just run the verifier first.
2522017-04-12T20:22:08  <BlueMatt> cfields: oh dear god lets not default to running random peoples' commitmsg scripts on wumpus' computer
2532017-04-12T20:22:42  <BlueMatt> cfields: my point is that many people dont read commitmsgs in enough detail and might miss such scripts esp if they're replaced last-minute in a "title-only rebase"
2542017-04-12T20:24:40  <cfields> BlueMatt: travis runs the script and fails if it doesn't transform 1:1. It can be done locally as well....
2552017-04-12T20:25:00  <cfields> BlueMatt: I don't see what's so terrible about automating this checking: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9902/commits/bac5c9cf643e9333479ac667426d0b70f8f3aa7f
2562017-04-12T20:25:35  <BlueMatt> cfields: insmod cool_thing.ko && sed s/BOOST_FOREACH/for/
2572017-04-12T20:25:50  <BlueMatt> it'll transform 1:1 still?
2582017-04-12T20:25:54  <BlueMatt> this is not a sufficient check
2592017-04-12T20:26:01  <BlueMatt> automating on travis whatever
2602017-04-12T20:26:24  <BlueMatt> putting yet more scripts in a place that people might not see it is bad...I'm only suggesting we make it more apparent at least to people pressing the merge button
2612017-04-12T20:26:35  <BlueMatt> as many of us primarily just look at the diff itself
2622017-04-12T20:28:09  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632017-04-12T20:28:16  *** root-servers has quit IRC
2642017-04-12T20:28:28  * BlueMatt ponders if you can get a ^H somewhere....insmod kool_things.ko &&^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsed s/BOOST_FOREACH/for/
2652017-04-12T20:28:32  <BlueMatt> probably not
2662017-04-12T20:29:16  <cfields> BlueMatt: the person pressing the merge button on bac5c9cf643e9333479ac667426d0b70f8f3aa7f should be running that sed script to be sure all occurances have been caught. Again, this should only be automatiting cases where mass transforms need to be checked anyway.
2672017-04-12T20:29:51  <BlueMatt> cfields: yes, but the person pressing the merge button should also be reading the script before it gets automatically run on their system
2682017-04-12T20:29:57  <BlueMatt> I think we're talking past each other somehow
2692017-04-12T20:30:00  <cfields> so yea, maybe not make it part of the merge script, but i don't see how having c-i do it could be a bad thing
2702017-04-12T20:30:12  <BlueMatt> I didnt say having c-i do it is bad?
2712017-04-12T20:30:16  <BlueMatt> i agree, travis should do it?
2722017-04-12T20:30:33  <BlueMatt> my only point was that the person pressing the merge button MUST be forced to read commit messages now
2732017-04-12T20:30:43  <BlueMatt> <BlueMatt> I think we're talking past each other somehow
2742017-04-12T20:32:23  <cfields> ok, fair enough. I thought you point was that the person hitting the button should be verifying as well if it's going to live in the commit message..
2752017-04-12T20:32:56  <BlueMatt> oh i mean maybe, i dont care much either way there, travis should run it so thats good
2762017-04-12T20:33:13  <BlueMatt> my only point is something should be done because many of us dont read commit messages as part of review (much)
2772017-04-12T20:33:49  <cfields> BlueMatt: jtimon suggested a prefix: "scripted-diff: commit msg here". I suppose for those, the merge-tool could interrupt and present the full message, if it doesn't already
2782017-04-12T20:34:01  <BlueMatt> that may help, i suppose
2792017-04-12T20:34:04  <BlueMatt> long prefix sucks though
2802017-04-12T20:34:09  <BlueMatt> scripted:
2812017-04-12T20:34:24  <cfields> well it could also just detect the script begin/end
2822017-04-12T20:34:31  <BlueMatt> but, yea, putting it in the commit title itself is probably good
2832017-04-12T20:34:38  <BlueMatt> no, i like jtimon's suggestion
2842017-04-12T20:35:04  <jtimon> yep, look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10193 for an example (needs some squashing after completing it)
2852017-04-12T20:36:57  <cfields> jtimon: btw, I think you're looking for: sed -i '/#include <boost\/foreach.hpp>/d' file
2862017-04-12T20:36:58  <cfields> :)
2872017-04-12T20:37:04  <jtimon> btw, how can I do sed -i ':a;N;$!ba;s/#include <boost\/foreach.hpp>\n//' ./src/*.cpp but excluding some specific files ?
2882017-04-12T20:38:36  *** waxwing has quit IRC
2892017-04-12T20:43:10  <jtimon> yeah, for qt and wallet  I have it done, but some places use BOOST_REVERSE_FOREACH so they need to maintain the include for now
2902017-04-12T20:43:31  <jtimon> that's why I need to exclude specific files
2912017-04-12T20:44:29  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: yeah it is certainly possible i overlooked something simple
2922017-04-12T20:44:45  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: but with what you describe, i don't see how you could bound the income difference?
2932017-04-12T20:44:54  <sdaftuar> without making assumptions about the fee distribution
2942017-04-12T20:44:55  <cfields> jtimon: how about just changing those to rbegin/rend iterators in a prior commit?
2952017-04-12T20:46:10  <jtimon> yeah, that would be another option, at first I was thinking of only removing it from qt and wallet for now, but if I can completely remove them using this, it doesn't look as disruptive as I expected
2962017-04-12T20:46:44  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: one way to implement what you describe might be, fill up the first X% of the block, and if no recent transactions were chosen, then exclude recent transactions from the remainder of the block
2972017-04-12T20:47:11  <sdaftuar> but if fee distributions were close to flat, then you might give up a lot of income unless X is large
2982017-04-12T20:47:17  <jtimon> I mean, if people are ok with doing it all at once, I would prefer it
2992017-04-12T20:51:21  <BlueMatt> jtimon: please. kill boost
3002017-04-12T20:51:26  *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012017-04-12T20:52:19  <jtimon> BlueMatt: alright, that feeback is useful
3022017-04-12T20:52:51  <BlueMatt> :)
3032017-04-12T20:53:07  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: and conversely, i think you could also have the problem of including recent transactions too frequently -- a small high feerate transactions that was recently received should almost certainly not be included
3042017-04-12T20:53:50  <sdaftuar> because block reward is still high enough that it dominates
3052017-04-12T20:57:16  *** waxwing has quit IRC
3062017-04-12T21:07:47  *** bsm117532 has quit IRC
3072017-04-12T21:13:07  *** waxwing has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3082017-04-12T21:26:40  *** mol has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3092017-04-12T21:28:43  <bincap> is it possible to write a script that executes or not depending on version bits of current block? (e.g. a payment locked by activation of segwit)?
3102017-04-12T21:28:54  <bincap> (or of other block)
3112017-04-12T21:29:40  *** moli_ has quit IRC
3122017-04-12T21:37:27  *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3132017-04-12T21:38:23  <sipa> no, transactions cannot observe what block they are in
3142017-04-12T21:38:35  *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3152017-04-12T21:38:39  <sipa> otherwise you couldn't validate them before being confirmed
3162017-04-12T21:39:01  <bincap> sipa: in previous block(s) then
3172017-04-12T21:53:02  <sipa> no, transactions cannot observe what block they are in
3182017-04-12T21:57:24  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: income difference is bound by amount_you_will_skip times transactions.
3192017-04-12T22:00:57  <bincap> sipa: could they instead observe e.g. version bits of block defined in script by it's height?
3202017-04-12T22:01:29  <bincap> that could allow to set up some incentives for users promising to support given BIP to actually do that
3212017-04-12T22:04:24  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: I agree that what you propose is more 'correct', but it is non-trivially more complex. I'm doubtful that it increases income a meaningful amount, we've also not seen miners working especially hard in increasing their work update speed.. which causes similar losses.
3222017-04-12T22:05:33  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
3232017-04-12T22:06:19  <jtimon> would adding something like https://gist.github.com/arvidsson/7231973 be acceptable for getting rid of BOOST_REVERSE_FOREACH ?
3242017-04-12T22:12:43  <sipa> bincap: transactions don't observe blocms
3252017-04-12T22:12:52  <sipa> transactions exist before they're in a block
3262017-04-12T22:13:09  <sipa> their validity is independent of what chain they are included in
3272017-04-12T22:13:10  <sipa> so no
3282017-04-12T22:15:09  <bincap> I see. I thought of something like NLockTime
3292017-04-12T22:24:19  <bincap> can you otherwise create now a transaction, that will be very expensive to spend without segwit, but easy with segwit? (for example some setup of creating dust transactions and collecting them in segwit)
3302017-04-12T22:28:34  *** Guest76166 has quit IRC
3312017-04-12T22:29:32  *** Guest76166 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3322017-04-12T22:34:42  <gmaxwell> bincap: such things would create terrible incentives to lie about your rule support. These kinds of proposals have been rehashed many times before...
3332017-04-12T22:42:08  <berndj> gmaxwell, i think i started this line of thinking in #bitcoin, my version was only slightly different, where the coins become redeemable by anyone (i.e. probably a miner) if SW should fail to be active
3342017-04-12T22:42:15  <berndj> so blame me for that :)
3352017-04-12T22:58:57  *** vicenteH has quit IRC
3362017-04-12T22:59:28  *** jannes has quit IRC
3372017-04-12T23:14:53  *** btcdrak has quit IRC
3382017-04-12T23:18:04  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3392017-04-12T23:24:01  *** sanada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3402017-04-12T23:31:46  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i don't think the PR is all that complex, it may appear to be because i broke things out into lots of small commits (hopefully, to help review).  but admittedly i introduced some complexity in order to shave a few milliseconds off the runtime
3412017-04-12T23:32:07  <gmaxwell> sdaftuar: to confess, I didn't review it yet but you made it _sound_ complex.
3422017-04-12T23:32:13  <sdaftuar> gmaxwell: conceptually, i could have kept things very simple if i just ran CNB twice, once allowing recent transacitons in, and once without them
3432017-04-12T23:32:39  <gmaxwell> yes, but that would have pretty poor performance.
3442017-04-12T23:32:53  <sdaftuar> not terribly poor, if you avoided the TBV call
3452017-04-12T23:32:58  <sdaftuar> er, redundant TBV call
3462017-04-12T23:33:17  <sdaftuar> basically you would just call addPackageTxs twice... average runtime of 7-8ms
3472017-04-12T23:33:34  <sdaftuar> so that times two, versus the optimization i did, which gets down to about 10ms instead
3482017-04-12T23:34:15  *** Giszmo has quit IRC
3492017-04-12T23:34:33  <sdaftuar> i do want to save further optimization for a future PR.  but i could back out the optimization in this one, if it would aid review
3502017-04-12T23:35:14  <gmaxwell> Do you have a benchmark for this, that lets you measure how often it picks each option and how much fees it loses on consistent traffic?
3512017-04-12T23:35:59  <gmaxwell> e.g. that you could also try a braindead simple patch that just skips txn you've had less than X seconds, unless they have astronomic fees?
3522017-04-12T23:36:13  <sdaftuar> yeah i have simulated this a bunch.  i think with 10seconds of recency and 1% threshold, it almost never will include recent transactions.
3532017-04-12T23:36:42  <sdaftuar> my most recent run was with 30 seconds/0.5% threshold, and it still very rarely included recent transactions... maybe a handful of times out of more than 1000 samples
3542017-04-12T23:37:20  <gmaxwell> I made measurements of cross node mempool consistency a while back, but cdecker tells me that propagation has become much slower (which was intentional) so those numbers probably should be redone.
3552017-04-12T23:39:10  <sdaftuar> so the toggles in that model would be X (number of seconds) and fee (feerate?) threshold?
3562017-04-12T23:39:14  <cdecker> Yeah, TX propagation has slowed down considerably (http://bitcoinstats.com/network/propagation/), but blocks have sped up a lot
3572017-04-12T23:39:48  <sdaftuar> cdecker: thats great data, thanks!
3582017-04-12T23:40:42  <gmaxwell> (It slowed down because we unbroke trickling)
3592017-04-12T23:43:08  <midnightmagic> +1 unbreaking trickling
3602017-04-12T23:44:21  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3612017-04-12T23:45:30  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3622017-04-12T23:51:14  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3632017-04-12T23:55:57  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3642017-04-12T23:57:27  *** chjj has quit IRC