12017-05-24T00:29:58 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
22017-05-24T00:31:59 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
32017-05-24T01:05:02 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
42017-05-24T01:06:54 *** rgod has quit IRC
52017-05-24T01:08:30 *** marcoagner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62017-05-24T01:22:57 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
72017-05-24T01:25:21 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
82017-05-24T01:30:02 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
92017-05-24T01:31:28 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
102017-05-24T01:32:31 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #10446: net: avoid extra dns query per seed (master...no-double-resolve) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10446
112017-05-24T01:33:37 *** jtimon has quit IRC
122017-05-24T01:36:05 *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
132017-05-24T01:37:03 *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
142017-05-24T01:58:06 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152017-05-24T01:58:57 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
162017-05-24T02:08:52 *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
172017-05-24T03:25:35 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
182017-05-24T03:38:50 *** talmai has quit IRC
192017-05-24T03:49:52 <murchandamus> gmaxwell: Stupid question perhaps. If #frankensegwit activated by signaling on bit4, wouldn't that just get ignored by all current segwit-ready nodes? Except that those nodes wouldn't grok #frankensegwit, would there be more issues?
202017-05-24T03:51:53 <murchandamus> since #frankensegwit would be forking off at the same moment with their blocksize increase also, wouldn't it be a non-issue? :p
212017-05-24T03:53:45 <gmaxwell> murchandamus: they'd all end up banning each other.
222017-05-24T03:54:19 <gmaxwell> murchandamus: because frankensegwit nodes would hand witnesses to 0.14 nodes, and then get punted because things aren't supposted to have wittnesses yet.
232017-05-24T03:54:42 <gmaxwell> Segwit is more than the consensus rule, it's also a set of P2P changes.
242017-05-24T03:54:51 <gmaxwell> And the p2p parts are already in effect.
252017-05-24T03:55:11 <gmaxwell> Because we didn't want to have the p2p behavior suddenly change and light up a lot of new codepaths when segwit enforcement started.
262017-05-24T03:55:20 <gmaxwell> (as that sounded like a receipy for disaster! :) )
272017-05-24T03:56:38 <gmaxwell> Segwit has the bip9 activiation, and a network service type which is used to make sure the graph of segwit capable nodes is not partitioned, and new p2p messages for transfering messages (tx, blocks, compact blocks) with witnesses if they have them.
282017-05-24T03:56:43 <murchandamus> Ah right, I didn't realize that they'd actually hand over the full witness transactions
292017-05-24T03:57:03 <gmaxwell> Only the BIP9 part isn't triggered... so to redeploy segwit we have to also replace all those other parts, not just the bip9 bit.
302017-05-24T03:57:39 <gmaxwell> Which is a simple search and replace, but only if the BIP9 activation has reached its limit... otherwise we have the potential that it might activate under either.
312017-05-24T03:57:47 <murchandamus> gmaxwell: But since #frankensegwit would activate with the blocksize increase in unisono, the hardfork would be there anyway, right?
322017-05-24T03:57:48 <gmaxwell> Just thinking about making the tests for that makes my head hurt.
332017-05-24T03:58:07 <gmaxwell> murchandamus: maybe? people are saying directly contradictory things.
342017-05-24T03:58:48 <gmaxwell> if it's a hardfork why are they talking about percentages? e.g. The thing DCG linked to was sergios proposal that had the hardfork and segwit as seperate things.
352017-05-24T03:59:04 <gmaxwell> thats also what bitfury was saying (seperate), but not what jihan was saying.
362017-05-24T04:00:18 <murchandamus> garzik stated that on Twatter. But since they can't even properly phrase the agreement to make it in anyway specific, I sincerely doubt that they came to agreement on details in that regard yet.
372017-05-24T04:01:30 <murchandamus> Anyway, I guess it'll fall apart anyway when they try to specify what they're trying to achieve exactly with the proposal. :p
382017-05-24T04:02:01 <murchandamus> gmaxwell: Did Adam or Samson finally attend at the meeting?
392017-05-24T04:04:30 <gmaxwell> murchandamus: no, we were expicitly disinvited. (then reinvited, then disinvited-- samson ended up cancling a flight)
402017-05-24T04:05:07 <gmaxwell> Yea, details matter, and not just to engineers.
412017-05-24T04:05:42 <murchandamus> gmaxwell: Ah, I see. I was only up to date with "invited, disinvited, reinvited". Samson is in NYC though, right? Saw him in some pictures, I think.
422017-05-24T04:06:05 <gmaxwell> murchandamus: their meeting was on sunday, so I guess he went later.
432017-05-24T04:06:57 <murchandamus> gmaxwell: It just pisses me off that after two years of debate, somebody trying to forge an agreement doesn't even invest the time to run it by someone to make the text any sort of clear. E.g. "2MB hardfork", "immediately/within six months" gnarf
442017-05-24T04:07:02 <murchandamus> Ah, I C
452017-05-24T04:08:56 <murchandamus> I'm so done with the debate. I want all the shiny things that come with SegWit.â I'm sick of having 10 "unconfirmed transaction" questions on Bitcoin.SE every day.
462017-05-24T04:09:37 <gmaxwell> look on the bright side, -- someone tries to add some kind of crazy AML thing to Bitcoin, good luck to them! :P
472017-05-24T04:13:26 <murchandamus> gmaxwell: heh. Indeed. â Although I just realized. within six months would end just after the BIP9 timeout of segwit, perhaps they suggest to activate it right then?
482017-05-24T04:16:39 <luke-jr> on the bright side, BIP148 is up to 10% of listening nodes
492017-05-24T04:22:00 <murchandamus> I wouldn't be surprised if Frankensegwit becomes a large motivator for more people to adopt UASF. j)
502017-05-24T04:22:03 <murchandamus> ;)
512017-05-24T04:32:27 *** ensign has quit IRC
522017-05-24T04:34:22 *** nsh has quit IRC
532017-05-24T04:36:58 *** d_t has quit IRC
542017-05-24T04:41:55 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552017-05-24T04:43:25 *** ensign has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
562017-05-24T05:00:03 *** ensign has quit IRC
572017-05-24T05:02:21 *** nsh has quit IRC
582017-05-24T05:13:58 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
592017-05-24T05:19:28 *** ensign has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
602017-05-24T05:29:14 <paveljanik> luke-jr, you mean that 10% of nodes match /UASF/?
612017-05-24T05:29:31 <paveljanik> or how do you know that run it?
622017-05-24T05:30:37 <paveljanik> ...they...
632017-05-24T05:35:35 *** kadoban has quit IRC
642017-05-24T05:52:29 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
652017-05-24T06:00:04 *** dermoth has quit IRC
662017-05-24T06:01:07 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
672017-05-24T06:03:38 <wumpus> the bright side, for me, is that people are finally enthousastic about running their own node. So much activity! More (direct) users in the longer run run will likely result in more contributors to the project.
682017-05-24T06:04:54 <wumpus> Gavin's tweet (combined with BIP148) seems to have the complete opposite effect of what he probably imagined.
692017-05-24T06:06:44 <gmaxwell> https://twitter.com/bergealex4/status/867241659897171968 tehehe
702017-05-24T06:07:08 <wumpus> even one of my (non bitcoin) friends asked me about how to do it
712017-05-24T06:07:13 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
722017-05-24T06:07:53 <jcorgan> gmaxwell: three blind men and an elephant
732017-05-24T06:08:57 <gmaxwell> "oh. thats not its trunk."
742017-05-24T06:09:16 <wumpus> rofl
752017-05-24T06:09:19 <jcorgan> heh
762017-05-24T06:12:00 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
772017-05-24T06:28:04 <jonasschnelli> Why does addrman needs to remember the IPs of the seeders?
782017-05-24T06:28:22 <jonasschnelli> -> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10446/files#diff-9a82240fe7dfe86564178691cc57f2f1R1603
792017-05-24T06:29:50 <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: because it tracks where it learns addresses from, so no single source can get excessive influence on the table.
802017-05-24T06:29:59 <wumpus> the origin of an address is kept around to make sure the connections are balanced, e.g. a not all to those from a single dns seed
812017-05-24T06:30:02 <wumpus> right
822017-05-24T06:30:13 <jonasschnelli> Okay. That makes sense. Thanks.
832017-05-24T06:31:11 <jonasschnelli> I somehow though addrman does relay the seeders IP which sets the assumption that a seeder should also run a node on the same IP (my seeder runs no node on the same IP).
842017-05-24T06:31:29 <jonasschnelli> *thought
852017-05-24T06:31:37 <sipa> nope
862017-05-24T06:31:39 <wumpus> I was confused about that too in the past, but no, that's never an assumption
872017-05-24T06:31:42 <sipa> addrman is also just a database
882017-05-24T06:32:02 <sipa> indeed, it just uses the source ip to balance in the buckets
892017-05-24T06:32:17 <sipa> this is to prevent that a single source could poison your entire cache
902017-05-24T06:36:52 <wumpus> gah it's painful to read how some people are juggling wallet.dat files, let's please get multiwallet in for 0.15
912017-05-24T06:41:30 <gmaxwell> oh it's finally been rebased.
922017-05-24T06:42:54 <jonasschnelli> Whats the etymological source of "bogo"(size)? My humble english understanding does only point me to buy-one-get-one-for-free?
932017-05-24T06:43:20 <sipa> jonasschnelli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BogoMips
942017-05-24T06:44:03 <jonasschnelli> sipa: Ah. Thanks. bogus is it then...
952017-05-24T06:44:35 <sipa> indeed
962017-05-24T06:47:06 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4cb8757aae1a...4314544d46e8
972017-05-24T06:47:06 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5749a48 Russell Yanofsky: Add Qt tests for wallet spends & bumpfee...
982017-05-24T06:47:07 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4314544 Jonas Schnelli: Merge #10420: Add Qt tests for wallet spends & bumpfee...
992017-05-24T06:47:36 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #10420: Add Qt tests for wallet spends & bumpfee (master...pr/btest) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10420
1002017-05-24T06:48:35 <jonasschnelli> Anyone working on the network code willing to review: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9502?
1012017-05-24T06:50:56 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1022017-05-24T06:51:08 <wumpus> yes it's orignally a Linux thing, they needed an estimate to calibrate a delay loop. They called it 'bogo' to prevent people from using it as an actual measure of processor speed, though some people still were using it for that in the 90's.
1032017-05-24T06:52:21 <wumpus> bogosize is bogus in that it doesn't measure the actual size, it can be used for relative comporisons, but keeping in mind that it's... bogus
1042017-05-24T06:53:07 <wumpus> the definition is fixed and shouldn't change between client versions, unlike the leveldb size, which is entirely implementation dependent
1052017-05-24T06:56:16 <gmaxwell> also history of reorgs dependant.
1062017-05-24T06:59:38 <wumpus> yep, noisy and path-dependent, makes you wonder what is the bogus one :)
1072017-05-24T07:03:16 <jonasschnelli> For luke-jr's multiwallet: is it problematic to keep multiple wallet.dat files in the same directory? BDB does open(datadir()), right?
1082017-05-24T07:03:56 <wumpus> I think that's the only scenario supported?
1092017-05-24T07:04:20 <jonasschnelli> Yes. But can BDB handle that?
1102017-05-24T07:04:29 <wumpus> like with -wallet, all wallet files are relative to the data directory, there is no support for multiple BDB environments
1112017-05-24T07:05:05 <wumpus> sure - a BDB environment can contain as many databases as you want
1122017-05-24T07:06:05 *** Apocalyptic has quit IRC
1132017-05-24T07:06:15 <wumpus> there used to be a few when all the other files were BDB databases as well (that's the etymology of ".dat" for many of the files)
1142017-05-24T07:07:12 <jonasschnelli> I wasn't sure if some of the salvage/recover functions where treating the whole bdb env. But right,... seems to always be per db
1152017-05-24T07:07:47 <wumpus> (which is annoying for some things, e.g. you can't simply list/copy all the wallets with *.dat)
1162017-05-24T07:16:16 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172017-05-24T07:19:24 <wumpus> oh no we are still giving the "There is no RPC client functionality in bitcoind anymore" message, we should probably change that to something more helpful before 0.15: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10402#issuecomment-303639064
1182017-05-24T07:20:41 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1192017-05-24T07:21:22 <wumpus> I'll PR
1202017-05-24T07:25:15 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1212017-05-24T07:31:24 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #10447: Make bitcoind invalid argument error message specific (master...2017_05_bitcoind_commandline_error) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10447
1222017-05-24T07:42:25 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: not sure,... but the Qt part may need the "bitcoin:" argument...
1232017-05-24T07:42:25 <jonasschnelli> PaymentServer::ipcParseCommandLine(argc, argv);
1242017-05-24T07:42:43 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: but that's bitcoind.cpp, it's not part of bitcoin-qt
1252017-05-24T07:43:11 <jonasschnelli> Right.. indeed... I guess no URI scheme calls bitcoind
1262017-05-24T07:43:15 <jonasschnelli> I guess it can be removed then
1272017-05-24T07:44:04 <wumpus> that's why I diligently copied the boost::starts_with into my new code... then later I realized, oh, this makes no sense
1282017-05-24T07:45:09 <wumpus> what you want to happen if you accidentally call bitcoind with a bitcoin: URL is to give an error
1292017-05-24T07:45:15 <wumpus> not for it to be silently ignored :)
1302017-05-24T07:47:48 *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
1312017-05-24T07:50:56 *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322017-05-24T08:06:58 <jonasschnelli> Can we reject non GPG signed email to security@bitcoincore.org?
1332017-05-24T08:31:26 *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342017-05-24T08:42:58 *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352017-05-24T08:50:23 *** JackH has quit IRC
1362017-05-24T08:58:19 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1372017-05-24T09:03:57 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: we don't even have a GPG key for security@bitcoincore.org
1382017-05-24T09:04:20 <wumpus> I'm all for a secure way to report security issues to us, but we'll first have to solve that
1392017-05-24T09:05:04 <wumpus> could just list who to encrypt it to
1402017-05-24T09:15:47 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: I just though require a signature (encryption can be dealt later), as form of a spam protection
1412017-05-24T09:16:00 <jonasschnelli> Auto-answer back (your mail needs to be signed)...
1422017-05-24T09:16:24 <jonasschnelli> reduced the "can you please confirm my tx" mails
1432017-05-24T09:16:29 <jonasschnelli> *reduces
1442017-05-24T09:41:47 <wumpus> I'm also not sure about the technical side, I don't think the current mail alias provider supports running a custom script to check incoming mails
1452017-05-24T09:43:20 <wumpus> and - signing doesn't provide security - we'll need to decide either 1) list theGPG keys encrypts to (leaks the list of recipients) 2) generate a GPG key and share that between the recipients
1462017-05-24T09:43:52 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472017-05-24T09:49:13 *** paracyst has quit IRC
1482017-05-24T09:49:26 *** paracyst has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1492017-05-24T09:49:41 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502017-05-24T09:50:37 <wumpus> (one might want to be able to submit security reports deniably, so that's another reason to not require signing)
1512017-05-24T09:54:18 *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522017-05-24T09:54:57 *** tunafizz has quit IRC
1532017-05-24T09:55:46 *** tunafizz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1542017-05-24T09:58:14 *** goatturner has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552017-05-24T10:12:06 <timothy> wumpus: you can use a pseudonimous GPG key
1562017-05-24T10:32:06 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572017-05-24T10:38:28 <wumpus> sure
1582017-05-24T11:05:48 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1592017-05-24T11:07:56 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1602017-05-24T11:19:55 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1612017-05-24T11:49:28 *** jcorgan has quit IRC
1622017-05-24T11:49:28 *** gwillen has quit IRC
1632017-05-24T11:50:10 *** gwillen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642017-05-24T11:50:27 *** murr4y has quit IRC
1652017-05-24T11:53:30 *** murr4y has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662017-05-24T11:53:43 *** jcorgan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672017-05-24T11:54:56 *** Guest29397 has quit IRC
1682017-05-24T11:54:56 *** Guest29397 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692017-05-24T11:54:56 *** Guest29397 is now known as amiller
1702017-05-24T11:56:10 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712017-05-24T11:58:27 *** talmai has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722017-05-24T12:04:17 *** talmai has quit IRC
1732017-05-24T12:04:20 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] spencerlievens opened pull request #10448: Initial Rename (master...rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10448
1742017-05-24T12:04:25 *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752017-05-24T12:04:30 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] spencerlievens closed pull request #10448: Initial Rename (master...rename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10448
1762017-05-24T12:15:30 <jonasschnelli> hmm... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/wallet/walletdb.cpp#L606
1772017-05-24T12:15:48 <jonasschnelli> SoftSetBoolArg("-rescan", true); will be set regardless of that if statement above...
1782017-05-24T12:15:55 <jonasschnelli> I guess this is why we should always use brackets.. right?
1792017-05-24T12:16:28 <jonasschnelli> in the context, its non critical though
1802017-05-24T12:24:34 <wumpus> a comment is not a statement, so this should be ok
1812017-05-24T12:24:50 <wumpus> it's a coding style violation, sure
1822017-05-24T12:26:55 <jonasschnelli> Okay... thanks.
1832017-05-24T12:36:39 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli reopened pull request #7061: [Wallet] add rescanblockchain <height> RPC command (master...2015/11/wallet_rescan_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7061
1842017-05-24T12:37:06 *** riemann has quit IRC
1852017-05-24T12:38:16 *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862017-05-24T12:40:44 <jonasschnelli> I hope this is not to pro-active: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7061
1872017-05-24T12:41:04 <jonasschnelli> But if we want clean multiwallet, we need to move zap/salvage/rescan to per wallet basis and I think only RPC works for that
1882017-05-24T13:20:11 *** ShatoshiPlay has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892017-05-24T13:39:42 *** goatturneer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1902017-05-24T13:42:47 *** da1vinci has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1912017-05-24T13:43:14 *** goatturner has quit IRC
1922017-05-24T13:47:53 *** ShatoshiPlay has quit IRC
1932017-05-24T13:52:32 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
1942017-05-24T14:05:23 *** rafalcpp has quit IRC
1952017-05-24T14:11:21 *** Sprh has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1962017-05-24T14:15:43 *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
1972017-05-24T14:22:02 *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1982017-05-24T14:24:28 *** da1vinci has quit IRC
1992017-05-24T14:25:56 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2002017-05-24T14:29:54 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012017-05-24T14:53:42 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2022017-05-24T14:53:43 *** riemann has quit IRC
2032017-05-24T14:55:41 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2042017-05-24T15:13:20 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #10449: Overhaul Qt fee bumper (master...2016/05/bump_qt_overhaul) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10449
2052017-05-24T15:35:35 *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
2062017-05-24T15:36:23 *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072017-05-24T15:44:16 *** BMRelayBot has quit IRC
2082017-05-24T15:45:53 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092017-05-24T15:49:08 *** BashCo has quit IRC
2102017-05-24T15:51:12 *** mryandao has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112017-05-24T15:53:38 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122017-05-24T16:16:10 *** PRab_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2132017-05-24T16:17:34 *** PRab has quit IRC
2142017-05-24T16:17:43 *** PRab_ is now known as PRab
2152017-05-24T16:31:26 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162017-05-24T16:37:39 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172017-05-24T16:46:39 *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
2182017-05-24T16:48:42 *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192017-05-24T16:50:25 *** arubi has quit IRC
2202017-05-24T16:55:17 *** arubi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212017-05-24T17:14:46 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
2222017-05-24T17:15:04 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232017-05-24T17:15:08 *** RubenSomsen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2242017-05-24T17:19:53 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252017-05-24T17:19:56 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2262017-05-24T17:20:03 *** jtimon has quit IRC
2272017-05-24T17:20:09 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282017-05-24T17:20:59 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2292017-05-24T17:21:44 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302017-05-24T17:22:25 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2312017-05-24T17:33:18 *** vicenteH has quit IRC
2322017-05-24T17:37:51 *** rafalcpp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332017-05-24T17:45:26 *** timothy has quit IRC
2342017-05-24T17:56:14 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2352017-05-24T18:09:54 <kanzure> asicboost https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-9230
2362017-05-24T18:15:57 *** alicezw has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2372017-05-24T18:26:32 *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
2382017-05-24T18:29:45 *** dgenr8 has quit IRC
2392017-05-24T18:30:24 *** pr0fess0r has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2402017-05-24T18:43:33 *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
2412017-05-24T18:52:03 *** sturles has quit IRC
2422017-05-24T18:54:37 *** sturles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432017-05-24T18:54:37 *** sturles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2442017-05-24T19:43:50 <gmaxwell> luke-jr: why is the gentoo ebuild of bitcoin broken since 0.13.1 at least? it seems impossible to get it to build with wallet support if ljr is disabled.
2452017-05-24T19:48:06 *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462017-05-24T20:10:55 *** Giszmo1 has quit IRC
2472017-05-24T20:13:50 *** Giszmo1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2482017-05-24T20:28:05 *** jnewbery has quit IRC
2492017-05-24T20:28:20 *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2502017-05-24T20:33:29 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #10450: Fix bumpfee rpc "errors" return value (master...pr/berr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10450
2512017-05-24T20:41:01 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2522017-05-24T21:01:51 *** Sprh has quit IRC
2532017-05-24T21:17:32 *** RubenSomsen has quit IRC
2542017-05-24T21:25:49 *** alicezw has quit IRC
2552017-05-24T21:56:17 *** goatturneer has quit IRC
2562017-05-24T21:56:42 *** goatturneer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572017-05-24T21:58:43 *** goatturneer has quit IRC
2582017-05-24T21:59:13 *** goatturneer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2592017-05-24T22:00:10 *** face has quit IRC
2602017-05-24T22:09:38 *** jnewbery has quit IRC
2612017-05-24T22:09:51 *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2622017-05-24T22:19:08 *** jnewbery has quit IRC
2632017-05-24T22:19:21 *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642017-05-24T22:26:50 *** vicenteH has quit IRC
2652017-05-24T22:36:47 *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662017-05-24T22:39:58 *** beatrootfarmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672017-05-24T22:40:27 *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
2682017-05-24T22:42:05 *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692017-05-24T22:43:38 *** goatturneer has quit IRC
2702017-05-24T23:06:21 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
2712017-05-24T23:17:33 *** goatturneer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2722017-05-24T23:19:11 *** beatrootfarmer has quit IRC
2732017-05-24T23:30:28 *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
2742017-05-24T23:39:42 <gmaxwell> qt/test/wallettests.cpp:105:41: error: âvoid QWidget::customContextMenuRequested(const QPoint&)â is protected within this context
2752017-05-24T23:47:43 <gmaxwell> looks like master is not building w/ qt4 again
2762017-05-24T23:51:51 *** abpa has quit IRC