12017-07-21T00:04:22  *** aqquadro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  22017-07-21T00:04:33  *** aqquadro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  32017-07-21T00:07:29  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  42017-07-21T00:11:26  <gmaxwell> BIP-91 lock in is now guarenteed (short of a reorg...)
  52017-07-21T00:18:40  *** Guest98786 has quit IRC
  62017-07-21T00:23:38  *** aqquadro has quit IRC
  72017-07-21T00:24:58  *** cheese_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  82017-07-21T00:26:21  *** ivan has quit IRC
  92017-07-21T00:26:56  *** jamesob_ has quit IRC
 102017-07-21T00:34:24  *** cheese_ has quit IRC
 112017-07-21T00:45:25  *** lichtamberg_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 122017-07-21T00:45:48  *** lichtamberg_ is now known as Guest33464
 132017-07-21T00:46:59  *** Murch has quit IRC
 142017-07-21T00:47:11  *** Guest33464 has quit IRC
 152017-07-21T00:49:59  *** MeshCollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 162017-07-21T00:54:02  *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
 172017-07-21T00:59:13  *** MeshCollider has quit IRC
 182017-07-21T01:01:43  *** dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 192017-07-21T01:04:05  *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202017-07-21T01:08:56  *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
 212017-07-21T01:22:16  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 222017-07-21T01:46:55  *** promag has quit IRC
 232017-07-21T02:01:12  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
 242017-07-21T02:02:44  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 252017-07-21T02:06:25  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
 262017-07-21T02:08:06  <gmaxwell> So with BIP-91 lock in I am of the belief that BIP-148 (esp if modified to start enforcing at the same height coordinated by 91) is a pure marginal mitigation in risk for the network now.
 272017-07-21T02:10:20  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] brianmcmichael opened pull request #10889: Docs: Run windows build in a clean path (master...docswin) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10889
 282017-07-21T02:16:59  <luke-jr> would anyone object to an emergency 0.14.3 with BIP148 modified to activate at the same height as BIP91? the downside is that there's only 1-2 days for people to upgrade to it, so we'd need to forego RCs (although most of the code has been tested in the UASF repo) and probably release today or tomorrow..
 292017-07-21T02:17:06  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: morcos ^
 302017-07-21T02:17:41  <luke-jr> (note this would also help avoid the propagation/partitioning risk BIP91 currently has)
 312017-07-21T02:22:12  <gmaxwell> I'd like to do something there, at a minimum we could put up a minimal patch.
 322017-07-21T02:23:45  <gmaxwell> I believe that if turns out that there was significant false bit-4 signaling the harm minimizing outcome will still be to enforce bit1 signaling; also doing so will protect you from seeing the reorgs this enforcement will create; so it's protective in both ways.
 332017-07-21T02:26:14  *** darawk has quit IRC
 342017-07-21T02:26:49  *** darawk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 352017-07-21T02:28:25  *** KevinPan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 362017-07-21T02:32:44  *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 372017-07-21T02:32:52  *** goatpig has quit IRC
 382017-07-21T02:40:58  *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 392017-07-21T02:41:24  <BlueMatt> its two days
 402017-07-21T02:41:35  <BlueMatt> I'd rather make sure the network has consistent(ish) network rules
 412017-07-21T02:41:55  <luke-jr> why observe when we can make sure it does?
 422017-07-21T02:42:32  <BlueMatt> it somewhat frightens me that the network doesnt due to 148 nodes, though I'm skeptical there are many of those behind businesses, more users who can/will pause their actions based on activation, and are at least aware enough to have decided to run 148
 432017-07-21T02:42:49  <BlueMatt> uhh...we cant? you arent getting every business and user who uses their wallet to upgrade in 2.5 days
 442017-07-21T02:43:20  <sipa> BlueMatt: it only needs them to update by end of august
 452017-07-21T02:43:35  <BlueMatt> miners decided to take the risk, let them take it, and dont pull everyone into it
 462017-07-21T02:43:51  <BlueMatt> sipa: i belive the suggestion was to enable it on the now-locked bip91 activation block
 472017-07-21T02:43:56  <luke-jr> BlueMatt: we can drastically improve the situation
 482017-07-21T02:44:07  <BlueMatt> im not convinced thats an improvement
 492017-07-21T02:44:09  <sipa> that's just way too fast
 502017-07-21T02:46:38  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: consistent rules are out the window already, guarenteed.
 512017-07-21T02:47:30  <luke-jr> back in ~45 min
 522017-07-21T02:47:58  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: im more ok with miners having inconsistent rules and users having marginally consistent rules than users being split. ofc I'm hoping 148 users either dont use their wallet in the coming weeks or switch to another node
 532017-07-21T02:48:04  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: so by enforcing you can shield yourself from instability and potentially increase consistency.
 542017-07-21T02:48:16  *** niall_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 552017-07-21T02:48:20  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: going offline isn't an option for everyone.
 562017-07-21T02:48:22  *** niall_ is now known as niallyoung
 572017-07-21T02:49:01  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: i believe that will decrease consistency, not increase
 582017-07-21T02:49:34  <BlueMatt> assuming miners are all enforcing 91, its true you will shield yourself from some instability
 592017-07-21T02:51:51  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 602017-07-21T02:52:07  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 612017-07-21T02:52:21  *** Ylbam has quit IRC
 622017-07-21T03:04:09  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: there are two main protective effects, assuming you can't go offline it protects you from seeing the network forking... the other is that it would damp enforcement instability.
 632017-07-21T03:04:29  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: imagine that there was a lot of false signaling, and at enforcement time half the hashrate doesn't enforce....
 642017-07-21T03:05:07  <gmaxwell> You could imagine (say) slush going "oh crap! network is forked, we're getting orphaned, we're going to stop enforcing 91!" while at the same time antpool goes "oh crap, we're getting orphaned we need to start enforcing 91!!"
 652017-07-21T03:05:38  *** d_t has quit IRC
 662017-07-21T03:05:46  <gmaxwell> this might take a frightningly large time to converge, and even if it converges fast it means that all users will see a very large reorg.
 672017-07-21T03:05:52  <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I agree with the first part, but given heavily inconsistent enforcement I'm far from convinced it wont just be that china is sleeping and europe is awake and 91 gets turned off :p
 682017-07-21T03:06:11  <gmaxwell> Now if you have some major parties and users running this, the outcome is immediately stabilized: the enforcing parties won't stop.
 692017-07-21T03:06:18  <gmaxwell> Even better only _some_ users see a big reorg.
 702017-07-21T03:06:44  <BlueMatt> that assumes an outcome
 712017-07-21T03:07:00  <gmaxwell> It creates it, and in doing so retroactively erases instability.
 722017-07-21T03:07:26  <BlueMatt> and given lack of 100% clarity given the timelines involved, I dont think we should assume an outcome, especially given that we cant get upgrades in time for this to be "useful"
 732017-07-21T03:07:31  <BlueMatt> i dont believe it does
 742017-07-21T03:07:38  <BlueMatt> simply because of the timelines involved
 752017-07-21T03:07:54  <BlueMatt> fuck, getting gitian builders dont will take 6 hours and there's a huge chunk of your time already
 762017-07-21T03:07:59  <gmaxwell> it wouldn't if not for the fact that that outcome is already in play.
 772017-07-21T03:08:33  <gmaxwell> who said anything about gitian even... just putting up an 'officially supported' patch would be protective, allow parties to shield themselves, and contribute to symmetry breaking.
 782017-07-21T03:09:27  * gmaxwell dinner
 792017-07-21T03:10:46  <BlueMatt> ugh, i need sleep sorry...I'm very much not convinced...I'm skeptical a few 148-but-sooner-activation nodes will meaningfully contribute to symmetry breaking, and even if they did, I'm skeptical that it outweighs the convergance risks as it introduces yet another set of consensus rules into play
 802017-07-21T03:13:25  *** BashCo has quit IRC
 812017-07-21T03:13:28  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 822017-07-21T03:14:04  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 832017-07-21T03:15:58  *** KevinPan has quit IRC
 842017-07-21T03:53:26  *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
 852017-07-21T04:02:38  *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 862017-07-21T04:07:41  *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 872017-07-21T04:08:58  *** chjj has quit IRC
 882017-07-21T04:17:45  *** drapetomano has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 892017-07-21T04:20:32  *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
 902017-07-21T04:36:45  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] rohythakur opened pull request #10890: added version (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10890
 912017-07-21T04:39:40  *** djbooth007 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 922017-07-21T04:47:09  *** drapetomano has quit IRC
 932017-07-21T04:52:10  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 942017-07-21T05:03:52  *** jamesob has quit IRC
 952017-07-21T05:04:06  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962017-07-21T05:04:38  *** jamesob has quit IRC
 972017-07-21T05:04:56  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 982017-07-21T05:05:42  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 992017-07-21T05:06:09  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
1002017-07-21T05:06:14  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1012017-07-21T05:06:31  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022017-07-21T05:07:22  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032017-07-21T05:08:06  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1042017-07-21T05:08:39  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1052017-07-21T05:08:56  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062017-07-21T05:09:46  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072017-07-21T05:10:59  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1082017-07-21T05:11:01  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1092017-07-21T05:11:25  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102017-07-21T05:12:11  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112017-07-21T05:12:41  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1122017-07-21T05:12:56  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132017-07-21T05:13:47  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142017-07-21T05:14:17  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1152017-07-21T05:14:34  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162017-07-21T05:15:24  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172017-07-21T05:16:29  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1182017-07-21T05:20:28  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1192017-07-21T05:36:41  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202017-07-21T05:49:17  *** d_t has quit IRC
1212017-07-21T05:56:52  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1222017-07-21T06:12:14  *** alan_baker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1232017-07-21T06:16:30  *** alan_baker has quit IRC
1242017-07-21T06:21:55  *** alan_baker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1252017-07-21T06:27:08  *** niallyoung has quit IRC
1262017-07-21T06:27:18  *** niall_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1272017-07-21T06:38:53  *** rhavar has quit IRC
1282017-07-21T06:46:08  *** JackH has quit IRC
1292017-07-21T06:50:10  *** alan_baker has quit IRC
1302017-07-21T07:00:49  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312017-07-21T07:02:15  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322017-07-21T07:04:19  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332017-07-21T07:07:58  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1342017-07-21T07:11:55  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
1352017-07-21T07:11:57  *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
1362017-07-21T07:12:22  *** BashCo has quit IRC
1372017-07-21T07:12:57  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382017-07-21T07:14:14  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392017-07-21T07:17:44  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402017-07-21T07:22:08  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1412017-07-21T07:23:00  *** djbooth007 has quit IRC
1422017-07-21T07:34:23  *** coredump_ has quit IRC
1432017-07-21T07:45:08  *** jtimon has quit IRC
1442017-07-21T07:47:27  *** henrik_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452017-07-21T07:58:30  *** darawk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462017-07-21T08:01:32  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472017-07-21T08:02:00  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482017-07-21T08:18:40  *** chjj has quit IRC
1492017-07-21T08:23:38  *** darawk has quit IRC
1502017-07-21T08:39:45  *** darawk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512017-07-21T08:51:09  *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522017-07-21T08:54:18  *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1532017-07-21T08:58:25  *** darawk has quit IRC
1542017-07-21T09:07:57  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier opened pull request #10891: [RPC] Make ImportAddress works with segwit scriptPubKey (master...importaddresswitness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10891
1552017-07-21T09:08:32  *** To7 has quit IRC
1562017-07-21T09:11:00  *** ayy1337|2 has quit IRC
1572017-07-21T09:14:10  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
1582017-07-21T09:15:44  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592017-07-21T09:17:51  *** aqquadro has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1602017-07-21T09:19:02  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612017-07-21T09:23:28  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1622017-07-21T09:31:56  *** praxeology has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632017-07-21T09:32:15  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier closed pull request #10891: [RPC] Make ImportAddress works with segwit scriptPubKey (master...importaddresswitness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10891
1642017-07-21T09:36:15  *** coredump_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652017-07-21T09:49:29  *** coredump_ has quit IRC
1662017-07-21T09:49:48  *** coredump_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672017-07-21T09:51:06  *** aqquadro has quit IRC
1682017-07-21T09:52:53  *** derbumi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692017-07-21T10:02:52  <morcos> luke-jr: gmaxwell: fwiw, I'm strongly in favor of releasing a BIP 91 patch of BIP 148 with the BIP 91 activation height
1702017-07-21T10:03:22  <morcos> that said, i'm not sure i'm going to be bothered to do it myself, it does feel extremely rushed
1712017-07-21T10:04:15  <morcos> the complete shitshow we are in now where the vast majority of the network is unable to properly enforce the rules that I think the community has come to consensus on shows why this is such a terrible way to go about rule changes
1722017-07-21T10:04:51  <morcos> it wasn't clear to anyone that these NYA agreement guys would even get off the ground, we didn't know if they would change the rules or not, we didn't know if other people would agree
1732017-07-21T10:05:30  <morcos> there should have been more time to all agree on the correct BIP 91 parameters, or the NYA guys should have used BIP 148
1742017-07-21T10:06:16  <morcos> but that said, even if we can't rush it out in 2 days..   there are actually about 3 weeks where it matters, so it could still do a lot of good
1752017-07-21T10:07:35  <morcos> its terrible that i bet between all of us here, we can't even agree on what the rules of bitcoin are 48 hours from now.  if miners don't follow BIP 91, what do we do?
1762017-07-21T10:08:37  <morcos> another alternative is to release a BIP 148 patch with the Aug 1st date.   At least if they start being inconsistent, we can end the dustup on Aug 1st.   Thats the other coordination point that is valid now.
1772017-07-21T10:14:46  <morcos> It all comes down to this idea of following the most work chain, or following the most work valid chain.  I for one am convinced that it is no longer valid not to signal bit 1 for segwit.  Whether thats true in 48 hours, or Aug 1, i might be persuadable on
1782017-07-21T10:18:04  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
1792017-07-21T10:18:11  *** coredump_ has quit IRC
1802017-07-21T10:20:25  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1812017-07-21T10:25:01  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1822017-07-21T10:29:51  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832017-07-21T10:32:05  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
1842017-07-21T10:32:05  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852017-07-21T10:33:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] corebob opened pull request #10892: Replace traditional for with ranged for in block and transaction primitives (master...20170721-rangedfor-primitives) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10892
1862017-07-21T10:41:26  *** riemann has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1872017-07-21T10:50:40  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882017-07-21T10:51:59  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1892017-07-21T10:55:10  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1902017-07-21T11:09:38  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1912017-07-21T11:12:06  *** BashCo has quit IRC
1922017-07-21T11:12:45  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1932017-07-21T11:44:41  *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1942017-07-21T12:04:24  *** dabura667 has quit IRC
1952017-07-21T12:15:57  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1962017-07-21T12:19:39  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1972017-07-21T12:21:44  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1982017-07-21T12:26:15  *** jamesob has quit IRC
1992017-07-21T12:26:45  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
2002017-07-21T12:27:12  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012017-07-21T12:28:28  *** corebob has quit IRC
2022017-07-21T12:41:10  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
2032017-07-21T12:46:56  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042017-07-21T12:48:19  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052017-07-21T12:52:13  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2062017-07-21T13:00:03  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072017-07-21T13:04:52  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
2082017-07-21T13:05:30  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092017-07-21T13:38:17  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6adc3a37324c...420238d3103a
2102017-07-21T13:38:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 09eacee John Newbery: [wallet] fix comment for CWallet::Verify()
2112017-07-21T13:38:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4a05715 John Newbery: [wallet] [rpc] print wallet name in getwalletinfo
2122017-07-21T13:38:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9508761 John Newbery: [wallet] [rpc] Add listwallets RPC...
2132017-07-21T13:38:35  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10604: [wallet] [tests] Add listwallets RPC, include wallet name in `getwalletinfo` and add multiwallet test (master...multiwallet_test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10604
2142017-07-21T13:47:08  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
2152017-07-21T13:50:35  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162017-07-21T13:51:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #10893: [QA] Avoid running multiwallet.py twice (master...2017/07/fix_mw_test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10893
2172017-07-21T13:52:01  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2182017-07-21T13:57:08  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2192017-07-21T13:57:55  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #10894: Add CChain object for headers-only chain (master...2017/07/hdr_chain) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10894
2202017-07-21T14:00:48  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
2212017-07-21T14:02:23  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2222017-07-21T14:09:25  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2232017-07-21T14:12:02  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
2242017-07-21T14:12:03  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252017-07-21T14:13:07  *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
2262017-07-21T14:23:36  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2272017-07-21T14:23:43  *** JackH has quit IRC
2282017-07-21T14:28:12  *** jamesob has quit IRC
2292017-07-21T14:28:53  *** phog_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2302017-07-21T15:12:49  *** BashCo has quit IRC
2312017-07-21T15:13:28  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322017-07-21T15:14:57  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
2332017-07-21T15:21:38  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2342017-07-21T15:23:09  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
2352017-07-21T15:23:09  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362017-07-21T15:23:51  *** timothy has quit IRC
2372017-07-21T15:25:28  *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2382017-07-21T15:27:46  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392017-07-21T15:30:59  *** jtimon has quit IRC
2402017-07-21T15:36:57  *** vicenteH has quit IRC
2412017-07-21T15:46:12  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2422017-07-21T15:49:22  *** praxeology1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2432017-07-21T15:52:21  *** praxeology has quit IRC
2442017-07-21T15:54:04  *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2452017-07-21T16:04:14  *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2462017-07-21T16:05:01  *** jamesob_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472017-07-21T16:07:07  <promag> jnewbery: will do https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10885#discussion_r128787407
2482017-07-21T16:07:47  <promag> instagibbs: said briefly comment :) but developer notes is clear about that.
2492017-07-21T16:08:10  *** promag has quit IRC
2502017-07-21T16:16:09  *** praxeology1 has quit IRC
2512017-07-21T16:18:57  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
2522017-07-21T16:23:23  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
2532017-07-21T16:24:56  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542017-07-21T16:27:48  *** ProfMac_lurking has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2552017-07-21T16:30:00  *** jamesob has quit IRC
2562017-07-21T16:33:59  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10895: [wallet] Fix wallet memory leaks in cases of unsuccessful CreateWalletFromFile calls (master...wallet-memory-leaks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10895
2572017-07-21T17:14:22  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
2582017-07-21T17:18:47  *** Deadhand has quit IRC
2592017-07-21T17:18:49  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602017-07-21T17:21:42  *** Deadhand has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2612017-07-21T17:23:05  *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
2622017-07-21T17:23:05  *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2632017-07-21T17:26:19  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642017-07-21T17:28:49  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #10896: Optimize compact reconstruction somewhat (master...2017-07-faster-compact-reconstruction) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10896
2652017-07-21T17:30:59  *** jamesob has quit IRC
2662017-07-21T17:31:25  <lejitz> There seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy in that any mandate to start signaling bit 1 in Core must begin on either the BIP91 block height, or the BIP148 activation time.  BIP91 feels rushed, while BIP148 leaves time for potential shenanigans or accidents.  If more time is needed than BIP91 allows, why not just start enforcing bit 1 as soon as you can (even before Aug. 1 or after BIP91)?
2672017-07-21T17:32:57  <Murch> gmaxwell: Same question.
2682017-07-21T17:33:35  <Murch> In order to protect ourselves from reorgs, wouldn't we want to enforce BIP91 starting with BIP91 activation?
2692017-07-21T17:36:13  <achow101> lejitz: enforcing bit 1 signaling at any other time than BIP 91 activation height or BIP 148 activation time means that there is potential for yet another fork
2702017-07-21T17:36:42  <achow101> enforcing at bip 91 activation height means that we would be enforcing with the bip 91 clients
2712017-07-21T17:37:15  <achow101> enforcing at the bip 148 activation time means that we would be enforcing with the bip148 clients.
2722017-07-21T17:37:49  <achow101> the point is that we should be enforcing at a time or height which other clients are already enforcing, not at some other time or height.
2732017-07-21T17:38:20  <achow101> Murch: enforcing bit 1 signaling at the BIP 91 height would be the best to avoid reorgs.
2742017-07-21T17:39:28  <Murch> achow101: We're looking into what patch to run on our protection node to do so. Is SegSignal the way to go or is there an even smaller patch by now (since the bit4 signaling is already obsolete)?
2752017-07-21T17:49:33  <morcos> Murch: The SegSignal patch is relatively small.  I think there are 13 commits, it probably makes sense to just squash the first 12.
2762017-07-21T17:50:07  <morcos> But yes there should be an even smaller patch, that just activates required bit1 at the height, but I don't know of one
2772017-07-21T17:53:28  <gmaxwell> morcos: it also needs to stop requiring it.
2782017-07-21T17:54:29  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
2792017-07-21T17:55:22  <achow101> Murch: a three line patch (for core) can be written which enforces bit 1 signaling at block 477120 (bip 91 activation height)(
2802017-07-21T17:57:03  <Murch> achow101: Is anyone working on that 0:-)
2812017-07-21T17:59:54  <achow101> me. maybe
2822017-07-21T18:00:40  <Murch> achow101: Could you please keep me in the loop? We'd be very interested in that.
2832017-07-21T18:01:03  <Murch> In case you happen to work on that.
2842017-07-21T18:01:34  <sipa> Murch: that's good to know
2852017-07-21T18:03:22  <Murch> sipa: Well. We're currently running vanilla Core, and we're worried about customer funds getting entangled in reorgs that would supposedly be impossible if BIP91 were actually properly enforced.
2862017-07-21T18:08:06  *** vicenteH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872017-07-21T18:16:04  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882017-07-21T18:20:20  <jnewbery> promag: it's a nit. Just a recommendation to be consistent with the surrounding code. You can take it or leave it - we certainly don't have consistent commenting across the codebase.
2892017-07-21T18:24:55  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2902017-07-21T18:27:16  <achow101> Murch: it may be better to just run segsignal. The patch is small and easily reviewable and it has tests
2912017-07-21T18:28:04  <lejitz> achow101: If most of the econ nodes can upgrade before BIP91 activation, then it is not a problem.  But if it is afterwards, I can't see any of them wanting to risk being forked off the network while waiting for others to upgrade (who wants to go first?).  As long as no fork has already occurred, then it is not a problem to join in enforcement later, but nobody knows what happens in the meantime while
2922017-07-21T18:28:05  <lejitz> everyone tries to coordinate.  To solve this problem (assuming most econ nodes can't quickly upgrade before 91 activation), the patch can pick an arbitrary time/block height to start enforcing, so long as every block between BIP91 activation and the patches enforcement time has signaled bit 1.  Everyone can take a few days to upgrade, knowing they will remain in consensus if there is a fork in the meantime.
2932017-07-21T18:28:05  <lejitz> Or, they can all get patched in two days, which is obviously preferable.
2942017-07-21T18:29:15  <jonasschnelli> But indeed its not ideal that the current network situation *forces* users to run non-vanila Core.
2952017-07-21T18:29:27  <gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: no it doesn't.
2962017-07-21T18:30:07  <jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: what about accepting payment?
2972017-07-21T18:31:04  <achow101> lejitz: that assumes that bip91 will be enforced from activation, but that is an assumption we cannot make
2982017-07-21T18:31:17  <gmaxwell> what about it?  there is _NOTHING_ that can be done which will make it safe to accept payments around the 91 enforcement time,  no code is safe.   There are potentially better or worse options, sure, but if at all possible people should be increasing the number of confirms they require to dozens.
2992017-07-21T18:31:40  *** darawk has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3002017-07-21T18:32:18  <lejitz> achow101: No, the patches enforcement is conditioned on BIP91 being enforced until the chosen enforcement time of the patch.
3012017-07-21T18:32:32  <lejitz> patch's
3022017-07-21T18:32:36  <sipa> lejitz: we can't observe whether bip91 is being enforced
3032017-07-21T18:32:43  <sipa> or at least not in the short term
3042017-07-21T18:32:48  <jonasschnelli> Pausing payment is the best option. I guess it's not possible for all kinds of businesses and – if they continue accepting payments – they want to reduce risks.
3052017-07-21T18:33:16  <achow101> lejitz: we can't assume that 91 will be enforced until the patch's activation.
3062017-07-21T18:35:42  <lejitz> @sipa @achow101 Not enforced, complied with, meaning signaled bit 1.  If every block since BIP91's activation (from a post activation perspective) signaled bit 1, then it's been complied with.  The enforcement from the patch could be conditioned on that observation.
3072017-07-21T18:36:28  <gmaxwell> lejitz: it's virtually guarentted that not every block will set bit 1. There are miners who are just unaware of this stuff going on, mistaken failovers to unupdated software etc.
3082017-07-21T18:36:29  <ProfMac_lurking> can I pre seed an IPv6 address?  Oh look, I have one handy, [fdbf:946a:5c97:1:80::e8]  It is one of the globally unique not routable guys.  I see something in tag v0.8.1 src/net.cpp #1144, but I remember something with a numerical hard coding somewhere...
3092017-07-21T18:36:30  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1144 | json_spirit_writer_template.h - comparison is always true due to limited range of data type warning · Issue #1144 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3102017-07-21T18:36:58  <sipa> ProfMac_lurking: ...?
3112017-07-21T18:37:40  <lejitz> @gmaxwell, but if the others are enforcing, then the non-signaling get reorged out.
3122017-07-21T18:38:06  <gmaxwell> lejitz: yes and? If.
3132017-07-21T18:38:16  <gmaxwell> I'm having a hard time figuring out what your point is.
3142017-07-21T18:38:19  <sipa> lejitz: it is a realistic chance that the eventual chain will not have bip91 enforcement, and won't have segwit activated
3152017-07-21T18:39:02  <ProfMac_lurking> sipa, seed an IPv6 node's address into the source code.
3162017-07-21T18:39:11  <sipa> ProfMac_lurking: yes, what about it?
3172017-07-21T18:39:21  <sipa> why?
3182017-07-21T18:39:38  <morcos> gmaxwell: I think the point is that we as a community could decide that BIP91 is the new rules of Bitcoin
3192017-07-21T18:39:50  <gmaxwell> I wouldn't call it a _high_ chance, but it's not a negligible possiblity.  If miners find 91 is getting their blocks orphaned, right now many will stop enforcing.  And we know for a fact that virtually all signaling is false. (also emphasized by the existance of signaling patterns which no published patch will produce)
3202017-07-21T18:39:50  <morcos> in which case running a BIP91 node makes it safe to accept payments
3212017-07-21T18:40:09  <gmaxwell> morcos: This is basically what I was advocating for a day ago.
3222017-07-21T18:40:10  <sipa> Murch: *safer
3232017-07-21T18:40:12  <morcos> your argument seems to be there isn't enough time to coordinate that
3242017-07-21T18:40:18  <sipa> eh
3252017-07-21T18:40:19  <morcos> me too!
3262017-07-21T18:40:21  <sipa> morcos: *safer
3272017-07-21T18:40:51  <sipa> morcos: lejitz is arguing (i think?) for starting bip91 enforcement at another time
3282017-07-21T18:40:51  <ProfMac_lurking> I want to do it.  Just because I'm curious.  Oh, and I think IPv6 the future and I want some experience ahead of the curve.
3292017-07-21T18:40:56  <morcos> I think we should do something as a project
3302017-07-21T18:40:58  <gmaxwell> morcos: among other issues, we don't have time to manage a release however.
3312017-07-21T18:41:03  <sipa> ProfMac_lurking: use -addnode=IP
3322017-07-21T18:41:04  *** ProfMac_lurking is now known as ProfMac
3332017-07-21T18:41:10  <morcos> yes, another time makes no sense
3342017-07-21T18:41:12  <sipa> no need to put it in the source code...
3352017-07-21T18:41:15  <morcos> gmaxwell: sure agreed
3362017-07-21T18:41:35  <morcos> but why don't we decide to release a BIP148 patch then
3372017-07-21T18:41:50  <morcos> at least that way this will all be over by aug 1 (this, being the uncertainty)
3382017-07-21T18:41:54  <lejitz> gmaxwell: I'm showing how to buy a little more time for a coordination.  Not a lot.  But some.
3392017-07-21T18:42:10  <gmaxwell> lejitz: I do not follow.
3402017-07-21T18:42:13  <morcos> i think its clear at this point that there is community consensus for segwit forced signaling
3412017-07-21T18:42:16  <BlueMatt> Murch: I'd just recommend changing your api to expose confirmations = confirmations / 6 or something
3422017-07-21T18:42:17  <ProfMac> I know about -addnode.  I want to crawl around in the code.
3432017-07-21T18:42:34  <BlueMatt> Murch: much simpler and you dont have to rely on any inconsistencies being resolved in the bip 91 direction
3442017-07-21T18:42:47  <sipa> lejitz: the worst forking will likely be right when bip91 activates...
3452017-07-21T18:42:54  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: while that might also be a good idea, I don't think it's a replacement.
3462017-07-21T18:43:03  <BlueMatt> fair
3472017-07-21T18:43:28  <lejitz> gmaxwell: see my post to achow at ??:28 Pacific
3482017-07-21T18:43:54  <lejitz> 11:28
3492017-07-21T18:45:02  <gmaxwell> if you draw a factor-matrix, where the options are you enforce 91 or not, and the other axis is 91 enforcement works or not.  There is only one quadrant where there are no major reorgs which you see.  And thats the you+network enforce one.  So I think it is reasonable to push for the one option that doesn't contain a guarenteed bloodbath.
3502017-07-21T18:51:21  *** ayy1337|2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3512017-07-21T18:52:38  *** cheese_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522017-07-21T18:53:34  *** cdecker is now known as cdecker|afk
3532017-07-21T18:56:11  <lejitz> gmaxwell: Clearly, having everyone enforce BIP91 is the way to go if it can be done in time.  But if you can't get the econ nodes enforcing BIP91 before enforcement begins, then it is difficult to get people to begin enforcing at all, because they won't want to be the one to go first in the event that the a fork occurs right after they patch/upgrade.  If upgrading must occur after BIP91 activates, then the
3542017-07-21T18:56:11  <lejitz> upgradees will want to be coordinated to enforce at the same time.  That's the problem I'm getting at.
3552017-07-21T18:56:55  <gmaxwell> I think simply telling friendly miners that developers intend to support enforcing this period will help give them the confidence to stick with it, even if there is some churn.
3562017-07-21T18:58:05  *** chjj has quit IRC
3572017-07-21T19:02:18  <morcos> gmaxwell: agree 100% .  In fact I think they already have confidence to stick with it.  But it certainly can't hurt to support them!
3582017-07-21T19:06:46  <achow101> so how about merging #10444 into a separate branch and making a quick 0.14.3 release/tag?
3592017-07-21T19:06:47  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10444 | Implement BIP91 Reduced threshold Segwit MASF by jameshilliard · Pull Request #10444 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3602017-07-21T19:10:57  <morcos> achow101: I strongly agree with this.  But unforutntely with it being the weekend and the short timeframe. I'll be hard to gauge enough support
3612017-07-21T19:11:22  *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3622017-07-21T19:12:01  *** BashCo has quit IRC
3632017-07-21T19:12:33  *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3642017-07-21T19:12:39  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3652017-07-21T19:13:06  <Murch> morcos: Right now we're looking at an activation of BIP91 at Sunday morning at ~2am PDT (5am EDT). Likely if any reorgs happen then right at the start.
3662017-07-21T19:13:32  <morcos> Murch: sure.. but that's a tight timeline.  any release is better than no release
3672017-07-21T19:14:19  <Murch> morcos: Yeah, I agree that a release would be good. Another option would be to update BIP148 to start at the activation height of BIP91 activation instead of August 1st.
3682017-07-21T19:14:51  *** Aaronvan_ is now known as AaronvanW
3692017-07-21T19:15:24  <morcos> yes.  same thing.  UASF at new height.   miners signalled readiness to lock in new consensus rules at earlier time than flag day.
3702017-07-21T19:15:25  <achow101> Murch: uhh. I calculate saturday 9 PM PDT activation
3712017-07-21T19:15:29  <sipa> Murch: i get around 9pm tomorrow PD
3722017-07-21T19:15:45  <gmaxwell> I would prefer to do the BIP148 based approach, but its a larger patch, unfortunately.
3732017-07-21T19:15:46  <morcos> how we implement in code now is a matter of time and effort
3742017-07-21T19:15:54  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3752017-07-21T19:18:39  <Murch> achow101 229 blocks -> divide by 6 -> about 38 hours which made me think 2am Sunday morning. What am I missing?
3762017-07-21T19:18:53  <achow101> Murch: 8.7 minute block time, not 10
3772017-07-21T19:18:59  <achow101> because that's what it is roughly now
3782017-07-21T19:18:59  <sipa> Murch: hashrate is significantly above difficulty
3792017-07-21T19:19:16  <sipa> ;;hashrate
3802017-07-21T19:19:16  <gribble> Error: "hashrate" is not a valid command.
3812017-07-21T19:19:21  <sipa> ;;bc,hashrate
3822017-07-21T19:19:21  <gribble> Error: "bc,hashrate" is not a valid command.
3832017-07-21T19:19:36  <gribble> Stop, that hurts.
3842017-07-21T19:19:50  <sipa> ;;fuck,you
3852017-07-21T19:19:50  <gribble> Error: "fuck,you" is not a valid command.
3862017-07-21T19:20:19  <Murch> sipa: Okay, I see. Anyway, it's in the middle of Saturday to Sunday night for much of the western world, not a great time to wake up and deal with customer escalations ;)
3872017-07-21T19:20:36  <achow101> Murch: just don't sleep :p
3882017-07-21T19:20:48  <Murch> achow101: I've tried that, but my body objects
3892017-07-21T19:20:57  <sipa> ;;calc 6443072419.2968798
3902017-07-21T19:20:57  <gribble> 6443072419.3
3912017-07-21T19:21:23  <gmaxwell> Murch: don't worry, small amounts of forking will probably continue for days, so you'll get support requests at all times of day eventually. :)
3922017-07-21T19:22:37  * Murch shakes fist, damn deployments without community support *tongue in cheek*
3932017-07-21T19:22:56  <BlueMatt> anyone have an android alarm app that goes off based on block height?
3942017-07-21T19:23:01  <BlueMatt> (serious question)
3952017-07-21T19:23:31  <Murch> BlueMatt: Interesting question, if you do find one, I want to know, too.
3962017-07-21T19:23:38  <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it's really easy to just make your computer play loud music...
3972017-07-21T19:25:35  *** DrOlmer2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3982017-07-21T19:26:19  <gmaxwell> while true; do if [ `./bitcoin-cli getblockcount` -gt 476892 ]; then echo alarm_goes_here ; fi ; sleep 10 ; done
3992017-07-21T19:26:41  <BlueMatt> eww, if its midnight I'll just get coffee and sit at my desk all evening
4002017-07-21T19:27:06  <achow101> BlueMatt: it should be between 9 and 10 PM PDT, so 12-1 AM EDT
4012017-07-21T19:27:18  <BlueMatt> yea, easier to stay up
4022017-07-21T19:27:24  <BlueMatt> cfields: you coming up to ny to party up here? :p
4032017-07-21T19:27:28  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
4042017-07-21T19:27:37  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052017-07-21T19:28:22  <cfields> BlueMatt: heh, i would, but I have a flight out on Sunday morning :(
4062017-07-21T19:28:27  <cfields> there's some shitty timing
4072017-07-21T19:28:31  <BlueMatt> lol, indeed
4082017-07-21T19:28:42  <Murch> achow101, gmaxwell, sipa: We could have a party as well. :p
4092017-07-21T19:29:03  *** eck has quit IRC
4102017-07-21T19:29:07  <cfields> At least I'll be able to sleep on the flight. Definitely won't be sleeping Sat night
4112017-07-21T19:29:18  *** drapetomano has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4122017-07-21T19:31:12  *** cheese_ has quit IRC
4132017-07-21T19:32:05  *** jamesob has quit IRC
4142017-07-21T19:33:23  <BlueMatt> lol
4152017-07-21T19:39:23  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift closed pull request #10895: [wallet] Fix wallet memory leaks in cases of unsuccessful CreateWalletFromFile calls (master...wallet-memory-leaks) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10895
4162017-07-21T19:40:35  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4172017-07-21T19:41:30  *** ProfMac has quit IRC
4182017-07-21T19:48:43  *** drapetomano has quit IRC
4192017-07-21T19:49:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10898: Fix invalid checks (NULL checks after dereference, redundant checks, etc.) (master...invalid-logic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10898
4202017-07-21T19:49:39  *** eck has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4212017-07-21T19:50:33  *** praxeology has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4222017-07-21T19:50:52  *** praxeology has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4232017-07-21T19:58:08  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
4242017-07-21T20:04:35  *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
4252017-07-21T20:10:53  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4262017-07-21T20:13:19  <sturles> Re reorgs related to BIP91, will -walletnotify trigger if a transacttion changes status from confirmed to unconfirmed due to a reorg?
4272017-07-21T20:13:31  <sipa> no
4282017-07-21T20:13:40  <sturles> :-(
4292017-07-21T20:13:40  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
4302017-07-21T20:13:55  <sipa> i think
4312017-07-21T20:14:32  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
4322017-07-21T20:14:32  *** tiagotrs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4332017-07-21T20:15:29  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4342017-07-21T20:26:45  <praxeology> Maybe instead of making a core release that enforces 91 by default, make it optional and default off.  And not worry so much about getting it released by when 91 starts enforcing that blocks signal for segwit
4352017-07-21T20:29:04  <[\\\]> there are a lot of people that don't do anything but download and run
4362017-07-21T20:29:10  <[\\\]> defaults go a long way
4372017-07-21T20:29:18  <[\\\]> and expecting people to change that probably isn't reliable
4382017-07-21T20:30:37  <praxeology> yea, well, IIRC core is very conservative and patient... and they want a smooth upgrade that is is compatible with old clients
4392017-07-21T20:31:46  <praxeology> so releasing something that requires everyone to upgrade right away so that we can enforce a minority chain rule...  seems contradictory to core's more conservativeness
4402017-07-21T20:39:22  *** Cory has quit IRC
4412017-07-21T20:42:21  <Murch> praxeology: "minority chain rule" with 97% hashrate support.
4422017-07-21T20:42:44  <Murch> And likely very high community support.
4432017-07-21T20:43:17  <praxeology> Murch: if it is majority chain, then there is no reason for bitcoincore to release a client that enforces BIP 91... since its majority
4442017-07-21T20:43:48  <praxeology> They would only need to release something that enforces BIP 91 if  they are trying to enforce a minority chain
4452017-07-21T20:44:44  <sipa> praxeology: there are multiple effects in play
4462017-07-21T20:44:48  <Murch> praxeology: That's not correct. It looks likely that BIP91 will have a majority in mining support, however due to the quick rollout it has hardly any node infrastructure.
4472017-07-21T20:45:28  <Murch> While in sentiment large parts of the community support segwit activation and a majority of that would probably be willing to go along with BIP91, the node count doesn't yet reflect that.
4482017-07-21T20:46:07  <sipa> praxeology: a significant amount of hashrate may be spy mining, the amount actually enforcing bip91, even if they intend to, may be low and/or unmeasurable
4492017-07-21T20:46:10  <Murch> Providing a patch to Core that includes enforcement of BIP91 would give many users the option to support a defacto activated softfork that they currently can only enforce by running third party software.
4502017-07-21T20:46:40  <sipa> praxeology: which may mean that when bip91 activates, many forks are seen on the network, even if everyone totally intends the 91 chain to win
4512017-07-21T20:46:58  <praxeology> sipa: yes
4522017-07-21T20:47:05  <sipa> i'm still not sure what the best thing to do about is is, as we're on a very short timescale
4532017-07-21T20:47:21  <Murch> …and at the same time protect yourselves from going along with blocks that would be later reorganized out of the longest chain because they are not signaling, which for many business usecases provides some level of backend headaches.
4542017-07-21T20:47:27  <sipa> but the reason for having bip91 enforcement in the client is not to make a minority chain win
4552017-07-21T20:47:45  <sipa> it's to avoid spurious forks and unreliable confirmations during the activation
4562017-07-21T20:48:25  <praxeology> sipa: then it sounds to me like you have decided that you do want 91 to be enforced... for it to become the new bitcoin
4572017-07-21T20:48:28  <[\\\]> this is slightly off topic, but I'm asking anyway:  any reason to allow or not allow bitcoinuasf.org in #bitcoin ?
4582017-07-21T20:49:03  <sipa> praxeology: not want; expect
4592017-07-21T20:52:28  <praxeology> I think bitcoincore could create a build that enforces 91... just not sure how you would label it.  Surely say something different or put it on  a different page etc than  the normal releases
4602017-07-21T20:52:46  <sipa> praxeology: that sounds reasonable to me
4612017-07-21T20:52:59  <praxeology> Like you have the Releases list
4622017-07-21T20:53:10  <praxeology> put another list to the side of it
4632017-07-21T20:53:29  <praxeology> Emergency BIP91 Release
4642017-07-21T20:53:44  <[\\\]> just as long as there is an info tip or link to what bip91 is
4652017-07-21T20:53:51  <[\\\]> set expectations for people
4662017-07-21T20:55:02  <praxeology> Its a release that requires SegWit to be activated.
4672017-07-21T20:55:46  <praxeology> does 91 require that every block signal for segwit, or just that at least 95% signal?
4682017-07-21T20:58:03  <Murch> praxeology: BIP91 requires every block to signal bit1.
4692017-07-21T21:00:21  <praxeology> Emergency "Stick to Guns" BIP 91 Release
4702017-07-21T21:03:11  <praxeology> I wish there was better communication from the miners, if we knew whether they were just signaling or actually running the rules
4712017-07-21T21:08:58  *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4722017-07-21T21:09:21  *** Dizzle has quit IRC
4732017-07-21T21:09:34  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4742017-07-21T21:15:27  <Eliel> praxeology: the only way to achieve that would be to somehow interweave the signaling with the actual implementation so that it's extremely difficult to reliably signal without actually running the code.
4752017-07-21T21:15:54  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4762017-07-21T21:16:49  *** DrOlmer2 has quit IRC
4772017-07-21T21:17:57  *** chjj has quit IRC
4782017-07-21T21:25:10  *** tiagotrs has quit IRC
4792017-07-21T21:28:14  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] brianmcmichael opened pull request #10899: Qt: Use _putenv_s instead of setenv on Windows builds (master...testfix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10899
4802017-07-21T21:29:53  *** jamesob has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4812017-07-21T21:34:24  *** jamesob has quit IRC
4822017-07-21T21:41:47  *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4832017-07-21T21:43:09  *** DrOlmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4842017-07-21T21:54:12  *** shufflepuff has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4852017-07-21T21:57:59  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4862017-07-21T22:01:53  *** dermoth has quit IRC
4872017-07-21T22:06:27  *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4882017-07-21T22:12:57  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4892017-07-21T22:19:12  *** Dyaheon has quit IRC
4902017-07-21T22:20:34  *** Dyaheon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4912017-07-21T22:24:32  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
4922017-07-21T22:34:40  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #10900: [0.14] Enforce segsignal activation height and rules (0.14...early-uasf-bip91) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10900
4932017-07-21T22:41:36  *** DrOlmer has quit IRC
4942017-07-21T22:42:39  *** DrOlmer has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4952017-07-21T22:49:40  *** chjj has quit IRC
4962017-07-21T23:01:43  *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4972017-07-21T23:08:05  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #10901: Fix constness of ArgsManager methods (master...2017-07-args-manager-constness) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10901
4982017-07-21T23:12:26  *** BashCo has quit IRC
4992017-07-21T23:13:06  *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5002017-07-21T23:28:24  *** roidster has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5012017-07-21T23:53:55  *** chjj has quit IRC