12017-10-02T00:12:34 *** jb55 has quit IRC
22017-10-02T00:29:15 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
32017-10-02T00:33:17 *** wxxs has quit IRC
42017-10-02T00:33:37 *** jb55 has quit IRC
52017-10-02T00:54:50 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
62017-10-02T00:58:38 <meshcollider> BlueMatt harding: if it's not stepping on anyone's toes (if you just want it up there asap), I can chuck up a PR in a bit for them?
72017-10-02T01:00:10 <BlueMatt> meshcollider: if its not up yet I assume just go for it
82017-10-02T01:00:27 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92017-10-02T01:05:36 *** promag has quit IRC
102017-10-02T01:11:58 *** dabura667 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112017-10-02T01:12:23 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
122017-10-02T01:20:32 *** Z9036 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
132017-10-02T01:24:37 *** jb55 has quit IRC
142017-10-02T01:25:43 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
152017-10-02T01:29:40 *** Z9036 has quit IRC
162017-10-02T01:35:37 <meshcollider> ok its up, PR 440
172017-10-02T01:59:05 *** jb55 has quit IRC
182017-10-02T02:10:42 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
192017-10-02T02:17:24 *** goatpig has quit IRC
202017-10-02T02:31:34 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
212017-10-02T02:36:22 *** promag has quit IRC
222017-10-02T02:38:41 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
232017-10-02T02:54:24 *** chjj has quit IRC
242017-10-02T03:12:51 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
252017-10-02T03:22:19 *** Emcy has quit IRC
262017-10-02T03:24:21 *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
272017-10-02T03:27:48 *** Vortiago has quit IRC
282017-10-02T03:29:25 *** Vortiago has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292017-10-02T03:31:37 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302017-10-02T03:36:49 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
312017-10-02T03:55:13 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
322017-10-02T04:07:41 *** jb55 has quit IRC
332017-10-02T04:12:40 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
342017-10-02T04:34:51 *** CubicEarth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
352017-10-02T05:22:09 *** chjj has quit IRC
362017-10-02T05:22:50 *** pbase has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372017-10-02T05:25:17 *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
382017-10-02T05:29:14 *** mtea994 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
392017-10-02T05:35:01 *** d9b4bef9 has quit IRC
402017-10-02T05:35:32 *** mtea994 has quit IRC
412017-10-02T05:36:07 *** d9b4bef9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
422017-10-02T05:42:35 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
432017-10-02T05:52:45 *** intcat has quit IRC
442017-10-02T05:56:45 *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
452017-10-02T06:07:55 *** jb55 has quit IRC
462017-10-02T06:54:03 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
472017-10-02T06:54:32 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
482017-10-02T06:57:50 *** promag has quit IRC
492017-10-02T07:04:13 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
502017-10-02T07:06:34 *** owowo has quit IRC
512017-10-02T07:07:56 *** promag has quit IRC
522017-10-02T07:18:21 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
532017-10-02T07:46:38 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
542017-10-02T07:54:23 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
552017-10-02T07:59:15 *** meshcollider has quit IRC
562017-10-02T08:18:12 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
572017-10-02T08:23:59 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
582017-10-02T08:24:57 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
592017-10-02T08:29:14 *** promag has quit IRC
602017-10-02T08:30:52 *** alreadylate has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
612017-10-02T08:46:02 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
622017-10-02T08:53:50 <fanquake> wumpus I have some changes for the Windows builds notes ready, but can't seem to cherry-pick the commit out of 11244. If they push a commit with author info I'll grab that, otherwise will credit them in my commit message. Hopefully we'll have some clarity around the Windows build docs shortly..
632017-10-02T09:01:07 *** dc0de has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
642017-10-02T09:22:38 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
652017-10-02T09:24:36 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
662017-10-02T09:26:41 *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
672017-10-02T09:27:20 *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
682017-10-02T09:28:01 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
692017-10-02T09:34:09 *** Evel-Knievel has quit IRC
702017-10-02T09:36:50 *** Evel-Knievel has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
712017-10-02T09:43:20 *** wxxs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
722017-10-02T10:10:01 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732017-10-02T10:11:01 *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
742017-10-02T10:12:05 *** JackH has quit IRC
752017-10-02T10:48:17 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
762017-10-02T10:48:42 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
772017-10-02T10:49:05 *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
782017-10-02T10:58:14 <meshcollider> Is there any permission level other than admin which can delete pages
792017-10-02T10:58:24 <meshcollider> "Lead developer" and "Original Client developers" both redirect to a deleted page, so they should be deleted too
802017-10-02T10:58:33 <meshcollider> Oops wrong channel
812017-10-02T10:59:19 <meshcollider> Meant that for the wiki channel lol
822017-10-02T11:10:57 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
832017-10-02T11:13:03 *** Alina-malina has quit IRC
842017-10-02T11:13:26 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
852017-10-02T11:14:31 *** SopaXorzTaker has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
862017-10-02T11:14:37 *** Shaun3811 has left #bitcoin-core-dev
872017-10-02T11:14:50 *** Alina-malina has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
882017-10-02T11:29:59 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake opened pull request #11437: [Docs] Update Windows build instructions for using WSL and Ubuntu 17.04 (master...windows-build-1704) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11437
892017-10-02T11:30:18 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #11244: Docs: Add extra step to clean $PATH var to strip out windows %PATH% paths. (master...windows_build_fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11244
902017-10-02T11:53:08 *** pbase has quit IRC
912017-10-02T12:15:28 *** Oda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
922017-10-02T12:17:27 *** dabura667 has quit IRC
932017-10-02T12:20:05 *** Oda has quit IRC
942017-10-02T12:26:20 *** intcat has quit IRC
952017-10-02T12:28:26 *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
962017-10-02T12:28:37 *** Oda_Nobunaga has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
972017-10-02T12:29:27 *** Oda_Nobunaga has left #bitcoin-core-dev
982017-10-02T12:41:28 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e542728cde67...c641ccac5bd8
992017-10-02T12:41:28 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bb8376b Matt Corallo: Verify DBWrapper iterators are taking snapshots...
1002017-10-02T12:41:29 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c641cca Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11422: qa: Verify DBWrapper iterators are taking snapshots...
1012017-10-02T12:42:08 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11422: qa: Verify DBWrapper iterators are taking snapshots (master...2017-09-leveldb-check-snapshots) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11422
1022017-10-02T12:43:35 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
1032017-10-02T12:47:17 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c641ccac5bd8...10bee0dd4f37
1042017-10-02T12:47:17 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d601f16 Anthony Towns: Fix invalid memory access in CScript::operator+=
1052017-10-02T12:47:18 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 10bee0d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11284: Fix invalid memory access in CScript::operator+= (guidovranken, ajtowns)...
1062017-10-02T12:47:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11284: Fix invalid memory access in CScript::operator+= (guidovranken, ajtowns) (master...cscript_insert) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11284
1072017-10-02T12:49:23 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/10bee0dd4f37...557aba6ce7da
1082017-10-02T12:49:23 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 49f869f Johnson Lau: Fix bip68-sequence rpc test
1092017-10-02T12:49:24 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 557aba6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11399: Fix bip68-sequence rpc test...
1102017-10-02T12:50:07 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11399: Fix bip68-sequence rpc test (master...bip68test-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11399
1112017-10-02T12:55:11 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/557aba6ce7da...058c0f996b72
1122017-10-02T12:55:12 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 92848e5 João Barbosa: Remove unused fTry from push_lock
1132017-10-02T12:55:12 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 058c0f9 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11432: Remove unused fTry from push_lock...
1142017-10-02T12:55:47 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11432: Remove unused fTry from push_lock (master...2017-08-clean-push-lock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11432
1152017-10-02T13:00:42 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1162017-10-02T13:05:11 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/058c0f996b72...c5c77bdcc632
1172017-10-02T13:05:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3a4401a practicalswift: [Qt] Terminate string *pszExePath after readlink and without using memset
1182017-10-02T13:05:12 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c5c77bd Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11193: [Qt] Terminate string *pszExePath after readlink and without using memset...
1192017-10-02T13:05:40 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11193: [Qt] Terminate string *pszExePath after readlink and without using memset (master...null-terminate-after-readlink) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11193
1202017-10-02T13:11:07 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c5c77bdcc632...339da9ca4143
1212017-10-02T13:11:07 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5ddf560 Jim Posen: script: Change SignatureHash input index check to an assert....
1222017-10-02T13:11:08 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 339da9c Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11411: script: Change SignatureHash input index check to an assert....
1232017-10-02T13:11:39 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11411: script: Change SignatureHash input index check to an assert. (master...sighash-bounds-check) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11411
1242017-10-02T13:23:09 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/339da9ca4143...90926db2381d
1252017-10-02T13:23:10 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3336676 Akio Nakamura: Fix getchaintxstats()...
1262017-10-02T13:23:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 07704c1 Akio Nakamura: Add some tests for getchaintxstats...
1272017-10-02T13:23:11 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 90926db Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11021: [rpc] fix getchaintxstats()...
1282017-10-02T13:23:37 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11021: [rpc] fix getchaintxstats() (master...fix_getchaintxstats) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11021
1292017-10-02T13:25:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10457: Don't use fixed "wallet.bak"-filename during salvagewallet (master...2017/05/rename_bdb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10457
1302017-10-02T13:38:19 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1312017-10-02T13:39:27 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322017-10-02T13:40:28 *** promag has quit IRC
1332017-10-02T13:40:44 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342017-10-02T13:53:02 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352017-10-02T13:54:41 *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
1362017-10-02T13:55:29 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1372017-10-02T13:56:06 *** fanquake has quit IRC
1382017-10-02T13:58:25 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
1392017-10-02T13:58:53 *** meshcollider has quit IRC
1402017-10-02T14:03:59 *** promag has quit IRC
1412017-10-02T14:04:23 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422017-10-02T14:06:43 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432017-10-02T14:07:36 *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
1442017-10-02T14:15:32 *** unholymachine has quit IRC
1452017-10-02T14:16:48 *** unholymachine has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1462017-10-02T14:16:56 *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472017-10-02T14:23:08 *** intcat has quit IRC
1482017-10-02T14:23:09 *** dermoth has quit IRC
1492017-10-02T14:24:15 *** wraithm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502017-10-02T14:28:52 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512017-10-02T14:29:04 *** intcat has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522017-10-02T14:43:41 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1532017-10-02T14:57:39 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1542017-10-02T15:13:24 *** jtimon has quit IRC
1552017-10-02T15:38:42 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1562017-10-02T16:07:46 *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1572017-10-02T16:13:53 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1582017-10-02T16:16:06 *** goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1592017-10-02T16:17:57 *** promag has quit IRC
1602017-10-02T16:20:05 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1612017-10-02T16:22:22 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1622017-10-02T16:27:34 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1632017-10-02T16:29:07 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1642017-10-02T16:54:38 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1652017-10-02T16:55:23 *** alreadylate has quit IRC
1662017-10-02T16:56:40 *** timothy has quit IRC
1672017-10-02T16:59:13 *** jb55 has quit IRC
1682017-10-02T17:09:31 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1692017-10-02T17:13:55 <wxxs> should 0.15 disconnect clients with version string /Satoshi:1.14.4(2X)/ ?
1702017-10-02T17:15:25 <andytoshi> there's no point in having an arms race, if btc1 is going to masquerade as core then they'll masquerade as core
1712017-10-02T17:15:50 <andytoshi> leaving the situation as-is at least means it's possible to identify them so individuals and businesses can manually patch them out if they cause problems
1722017-10-02T17:18:07 <wxxs> so this is btc1 with the signal bit removed?
1732017-10-02T17:19:18 *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1742017-10-02T17:22:08 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752017-10-02T17:29:19 <BlueMatt> wxxs: yea, btc1 decided to deliberately cause more harm to the network than neccessary, because they felt like trolling, I guess
1762017-10-02T17:29:36 <BlueMatt> so if it didnt get disconencted, it was either a pre-version-bit version of btc1, or masquerading
1772017-10-02T17:29:56 <BlueMatt> (or core with the version message changed to that)
1782017-10-02T17:30:26 <wxxs> ew, I feel violated
1792017-10-02T17:30:35 <BlueMatt> trolls gonna troll
1802017-10-02T17:30:36 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1812017-10-02T17:32:55 <sipa> i don't think there is any particular problem with them not having the service bit for a while
1822017-10-02T17:34:23 <sipa> (up until a bit before the fork, when they'll want preferential peering)
1832017-10-02T17:35:32 <BlueMatt> sipa: I dont believe they've implemented any "week before, force service bit on" logic
1842017-10-02T17:35:58 <BlueMatt> so that they can maximize network disruption and possible isolate some nodes
1852017-10-02T17:38:06 <Murch> Luckily, if the node count stays like this, it'll be likely only disrupt their nodes.
1862017-10-02T17:42:28 <BlueMatt> true, but it still seems needlessly stupid...the only reason to have that option is to troll, but, then, that seems to be what 2x is all about
1872017-10-02T17:43:30 <Murch> of course it's stupid, but if they're being stupid and only hurting themselves, that's less of an issue than if they were being stupid and hurting others
1882017-10-02T17:43:59 <wxxs> wouldn't they rather isolate their own nodes this way? Do the 2X CEOs know what their engineer is doing?
1892017-10-02T17:44:24 <BlueMatt> well they're risking it - if some charitable person decides 2x doesnt have enough nodes so spins up some crazy sybil like we've seen with all the previous forks, they could cause issues for both themselves and others
1902017-10-02T17:48:16 <gmaxwell> We need bad block interogation.
1912017-10-02T17:49:00 <gmaxwell> Whenever we reject a bad block, we should remember it, and try fetching it from every other peer we connect to... and then ban any that serve it to us.
1922017-10-02T17:49:14 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1932017-10-02T17:49:25 <gmaxwell> Still won't prevent isolation from s2x nodes entirely but it would make it less bad.
1942017-10-02T17:49:48 <BlueMatt> grrr, why didnt they fucking use the hardfork bit
1952017-10-02T17:51:17 <gmaxwell> because that would minimize disruption.
1962017-10-02T17:51:34 <BlueMatt> trolls gonna troll.....
1972017-10-02T17:53:43 <wxxs> provocation?
1982017-10-02T17:54:52 <gmaxwell> the whole strategy of s2x is to try to force people to accept their rule change by disrupting everything else.
1992017-10-02T17:55:33 *** abpa has quit IRC
2002017-10-02T17:57:38 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012017-10-02T17:59:51 <sturles> I suggest to just write a script which periodically scan getpeerinfo for 2x, then limit their bandwidth to a minimum where they will still stay connected. I used to do that with BU, XT, etc.
2022017-10-02T18:00:31 <sturles> They don't seem to thinkt that bandwidth can be a problem to anyone, so it shouldn't bother them.
2032017-10-02T18:04:26 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2042017-10-02T18:10:59 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052017-10-02T18:32:02 *** SopaXorzTaker has quit IRC
2062017-10-02T18:38:29 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2072017-10-02T18:56:06 *** jb55 has quit IRC
2082017-10-02T19:01:07 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092017-10-02T19:01:52 *** chjj has quit IRC
2102017-10-02T19:09:32 *** afk11 has quit IRC
2112017-10-02T19:11:17 *** Aaronvan_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122017-10-02T19:11:42 <achow101> gmaxwell: I've been thinking about bad block interrogation. How would you be able to distinguish between they don't have the block, they didn't accept the block, and they're just taking a really long time to respond with the block?
2132017-10-02T19:12:04 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2142017-10-02T19:14:10 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2152017-10-02T19:14:34 *** Argo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2162017-10-02T19:14:52 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2172017-10-02T19:15:25 <andytoshi> probably sufficient to send them a request for it, set a flag somewhere, and then if they ever reply with the block, ban them
2182017-10-02T19:15:45 *** Aaronvan_ has quit IRC
2192017-10-02T19:16:30 <sipa> it could also be done based on headers
2202017-10-02T19:16:56 <sipa> as long as difficulty rule isn't modified, we'll learn about all chains our peers have through the headers
2212017-10-02T19:19:00 <gmaxwell> achow101: I don't think we need to.
2222017-10-02T19:19:18 <gmaxwell> achow101: we ask for it. ... and seperately anyone who ever sends it to use gets punted.
2232017-10-02T19:19:25 <gmaxwell> we don't even have to track if we asked
2242017-10-02T19:19:56 <gmaxwell> though sipa notes doing it through the header is even stronger and simpler.
2252017-10-02T19:20:25 <achow101> gmaxwell: well right now we only ban the first person who relays us an invalid block. So I suppose we can just change that to ban anyone who relays us an invalid block regardless of whether we have already seen it
2262017-10-02T19:20:47 <achow101> I was already thinking about just using headers. It can all be done in ProcessNewBlockHeaders I think
2272017-10-02T19:20:56 *** ula has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2282017-10-02T19:21:03 <gmaxwell> achow101: yes, kind of, but if its burried when they connect they won't send it to us.
2292017-10-02T19:22:12 <achow101> gmaxwell: if it's buried, couldn't we imitate IBD?
2302017-10-02T19:22:42 <gmaxwell> I don't understand your question.
2312017-10-02T19:23:16 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/90926db2381d...f199b8a33d94
2322017-10-02T19:23:16 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 634e38c Anditto Heristyo: [Tests] Add Qt GUI tests to Overview and ReceiveCoin Page
2332017-10-02T19:23:17 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f199b8a MarcoFalke: Merge #11365: [Tests] Add Qt GUI tests to Overview and ReceiveCoin Page...
2342017-10-02T19:23:17 <gmaxwell> I don't think we need to in any case, ejecting any peers that has a header chain with a block we consider invalid is sufficient, and simpler than anything with fetching blocks.
2352017-10-02T19:23:47 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #11365: [Tests] Add Qt GUI tests to Overview and ReceiveCoin Page (master...Adding-Qt-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11365
2362017-10-02T19:24:24 <achow101> so we can just ask a peer for the headers starting from block X where block X is invalid to us. If they respond with headers, then ban
2372017-10-02T19:26:09 <achow101> by imitating IBD I meant doing the whole fetch 2000 headers thing starting from some block X and seeing if they responded to us with those headers
2382017-10-02T19:27:08 *** afk11 has quit IRC
2392017-10-02T19:28:22 <gmaxwell> well there are two degress of badness to think about, one is if their best chain contains a block we consider invalid and the other is if they accept a block we consider invalid at all even if its not in their best chain right now.
2402017-10-02T19:29:34 <achow101> If a block is not in their best chain, we can't fetch it, no?
2412017-10-02T19:29:52 <gmaxwell> we can, if it's not too far outside of it.
2422017-10-02T19:30:27 <achow101> but if it is too far outside of the best chain, we can't determine whether they accepted it or not
2432017-10-02T19:30:33 <gmaxwell> it avoids a case where it was on their best chain, they offered it to us, we attempted to fetch it... but were too slow.
2442017-10-02T19:30:44 <gmaxwell> yes, if it's too far outside we can't, indeed.
2452017-10-02T19:30:52 <achow101> unless we give them the block, but that risks getting us banned
2462017-10-02T19:31:23 *** abpa has quit IRC
2472017-10-02T19:31:54 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f199b8a33d94...8ddf60db7ad6
2482017-10-02T19:31:54 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1088b53 Gregory Sanders: add functional test for mempoolreplacement command line arg
2492017-10-02T19:31:55 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8ddf60d MarcoFalke: Merge #11407: [tests] add functional test for mempoolreplacement command line arg...
2502017-10-02T19:31:58 <gmaxwell> But I don't think the too far limit is that limiting.
2512017-10-02T19:32:23 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #11407: [tests] add functional test for mempoolreplacement command line arg (master...testmempoolreplacearg) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11407
2522017-10-02T19:33:19 <achow101> the too far limit is one month.
2532017-10-02T19:37:19 *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2542017-10-02T19:37:28 <achow101> I guess we can't cover the case where we are connected to an isolated peer that is following different consensus rules
2552017-10-02T19:40:04 *** promag has quit IRC
2562017-10-02T19:45:05 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2572017-10-02T19:46:27 *** r251d has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2582017-10-02T19:46:35 *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2592017-10-02T19:48:21 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602017-10-02T19:51:44 <r251d> If a set of nodes wanted to protect against a 51% attack, they might collectively decide to invalidateblock on an attacking block. The coordination may be difficult, deciding whether a block constitutes an attack, but it may be helpful for the defending nodes to be able to reconsiderblock in some cases. In that scenario, the temporarily invalidated block may not be a bannable offense for nodes who
2612017-10-02T19:51:44 <r251d> relayed it.
2622017-10-02T19:53:00 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2632017-10-02T19:53:40 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2642017-10-02T19:55:35 *** alreadylate has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652017-10-02T20:01:15 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662017-10-02T20:03:52 *** RoyceX has quit IRC
2672017-10-02T20:07:04 <gmaxwell> r251d: if it isn't your defence won't work well, because you'll invalidate that block but be surrounded by nothing but peers that have it, and so not even hear about the other chain.
2682017-10-02T20:07:14 *** Oda_nobunaga has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2692017-10-02T20:07:28 <gmaxwell> so you're actually giving an argument for the importance of kicking off peers that have a block you consider invalid in their best chain.
2702017-10-02T20:08:20 *** RoyceX has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2712017-10-02T20:08:30 <Oda_nobunaga> Yesterday Adam talked about "bunker mode" on slack: that is, if I understood well, a way to build the chain by selecting blocks sort of manually, and invalidating blocks from a suspected 51% attack?
2722017-10-02T20:09:47 <r251d> I was hoping that a hypothetical "bunker mode" could keep connections with nodes that have alternative tips until social coordination decided on the best one to follow.
2732017-10-02T20:10:09 *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
2742017-10-02T20:10:34 <Oda_nobunaga> I was also wondering about the reaction to a 51% attack. How long would a PoW change take? Would we be talking hours or weeks?
2752017-10-02T20:10:48 <Oda_nobunaga> I'm afraid that Jihan might use the threat of a reorg attack (very implicitly worded of course) as a way to sap confidence in the original chain, and scare people away from investing in it - thus deflating its price and possibly chasing more hash power away. The mere threat of an attack could work almost as well as an actual one.
2762017-10-02T20:12:02 <sipa> please keep this channel about software development
2772017-10-02T20:13:14 <Oda_nobunaga> Sorry, I was eager to get devs opinions about this. Perhaps this would be more suited for #bitcoin
2782017-10-02T20:13:41 <mryandao> i was wondering if it would be possible to remove the libboost dependency for bitcoin-cli so it is possible to compile separately on a lightweight node with minimal libs.
2792017-10-02T20:15:42 *** r251d has quit IRC
2802017-10-02T20:17:08 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2812017-10-02T20:17:12 <achow101> mryandao: what does bitcoin-cli use boost for?
2822017-10-02T20:17:31 <mryandao> that's exactly my question a week ago
2832017-10-02T20:17:57 <mryandao> if you run `ldd` on it, you will see that bitcoin-cli requires libboost
2842017-10-02T20:18:37 <achow101> oh, its for thread management
2852017-10-02T20:20:53 *** Oda_nobunaga has quit IRC
2862017-10-02T20:21:07 <achow101> and some of the things it includes requires boost
2872017-10-02T20:22:40 <mryandao> ok, i see.
2882017-10-02T20:23:11 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892017-10-02T20:25:00 *** Argo_ has quit IRC
2902017-10-02T20:26:33 *** RoyceX has quit IRC
2912017-10-02T20:33:03 *** promag has quit IRC
2922017-10-02T20:33:24 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932017-10-02T20:42:09 *** alreadylate has quit IRC
2942017-10-02T20:42:15 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2952017-10-02T20:47:11 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipsorcery opened pull request #11438: Updated Windows build doc for WSL/Xenial workaround (master...wslbuilddoc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11438
2962017-10-02T20:49:45 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
2972017-10-02T20:51:22 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2982017-10-02T20:52:04 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2992017-10-02T20:53:00 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3002017-10-02T20:53:39 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3012017-10-02T20:54:04 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022017-10-02T21:03:34 *** meshcollider has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3032017-10-02T21:05:50 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3042017-10-02T21:06:28 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3052017-10-02T21:07:17 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062017-10-02T21:10:14 *** alreadylate has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3072017-10-02T21:12:01 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3082017-10-02T21:15:01 *** abpa has quit IRC
3092017-10-02T21:30:13 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #11439: [test] Refactor ZMQ test to use one address per notification type (master...2017-10-clean-zmq-test) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11439
3102017-10-02T21:33:05 <promag> BlueMatt: ^
3112017-10-02T21:33:34 *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
3122017-10-02T21:34:10 <BlueMatt> promag: heh, I removed that commit
3132017-10-02T21:36:03 <BlueMatt> promag: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11439#issuecomment-333672328
3142017-10-02T21:41:24 <promag> BlueMatt: replied
3152017-10-02T21:43:52 <BlueMatt> promag: does zmq not give you reliable order?
3162017-10-02T21:45:17 <promag> AFAIK no, messages can be dropped
3172017-10-02T21:45:25 <promag> but that's not the issue
3182017-10-02T21:45:32 *** alreadylate has quit IRC
3192017-10-02T21:46:06 <promag> the issue is that if we change the publishing order then we break the test (and other clients
3202017-10-02T21:46:34 <BlueMatt> yes, thats my point, in common usage it seems to me that a client can vaguely rely on ordering
3212017-10-02T21:46:38 <promag> that's why you needed to fix in the old commit
3222017-10-02T21:46:40 <BlueMatt> who's to say clients dont rely on ordering today
3232017-10-02T21:46:51 <BlueMatt> there are no docs, there is no API, so clients could be doing who-knows-what
3242017-10-02T21:47:07 <promag> right
3252017-10-02T21:47:12 <BlueMatt> a client would be entirely justified in assuming the ordering was part of the API
3262017-10-02T21:47:32 <BlueMatt> so if we want to change that, we need to a) write some docs to begin with, b) document the change, with sufficient notice
3272017-10-02T21:47:41 <BlueMatt> and until then, imo, the test should test order
3282017-10-02T21:48:00 <BlueMatt> I realized this later based on sdaftuar complaining the lack of API, hence the commit removal
3292017-10-02T21:48:02 <promag> So atm the PR is to prevent the test to fail and to be a better example on how to subscribe notifications
3302017-10-02T21:48:10 <promag> > a client would be entirely justified in assuming the ordering was part of the API -- why?
3312017-10-02T21:48:47 <BlueMatt> why not?
3322017-10-02T21:48:50 <BlueMatt> it works, doesnt it?
3332017-10-02T21:49:04 <BlueMatt> well my point is the test *should* fail if the interface changes
3342017-10-02T21:49:34 <BlueMatt> a client, in the absense of any documentation whatsoever, would be justified in assuming the ordering was part of the api, imo
3352017-10-02T21:50:52 *** Dizzle has quit IRC
3362017-10-02T21:53:09 *** wraithm has quit IRC
3372017-10-02T21:53:38 <promag> BlueMatt: it works, doesnt it? -- so? it's not documented as such it shouldn't be used as if it was
3382017-10-02T21:54:14 <promag> if the interface changes - you didn't change the interface
3392017-10-02T21:54:57 <BlueMatt> well then I'd prefer to rip out the whole thing...it wasnt documented so you shouldnt rely on it being there :p
3402017-10-02T21:54:58 <promag> you changed some internals that changed the publishing order, but nothing is said about the order, only about the message contents
3412017-10-02T21:55:17 <BlueMatt> nothing is said about the message contents, either
3422017-10-02T21:55:23 <BlueMatt> nothing is said about any part of the interface
3432017-10-02T21:55:24 *** afk11 has quit IRC
3442017-10-02T21:55:27 <BlueMatt> its wholly undocumented
3452017-10-02T21:55:50 <promag> doc/zmq.md ?
3462017-10-02T21:56:50 <BlueMatt> sorry, it does say that you'll get messages, but it doesnt say why
3472017-10-02T21:56:56 <BlueMatt> is hashblock just for new tips?
3482017-10-02T21:56:58 <BlueMatt> or all blocks
3492017-10-02T21:57:16 <BlueMatt> should you get a hashblock for something that was disconnected? what about something removed from your mempool?
3502017-10-02T21:57:25 <promag> tip
3512017-10-02T21:57:53 <BlueMatt> err, sorry, guess it does mention tip, doenst mention mempool, though, and in this case were talking about mempool
3522017-10-02T21:57:59 <BlueMatt> those docs are useless
3532017-10-02T21:58:42 <BlueMatt> it has 4 types of things, and afaict only mentions what happens in one of them
3542017-10-02T21:59:02 <promag> so you suggest to improve the docs?
3552017-10-02T21:59:20 <BlueMatt> see, eg, #9371
3562017-10-02T21:59:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9371 | Notify on removal by morcos · Pull Request #9371 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3572017-10-02T22:00:03 <BlueMatt> I'd love to see someone actually document what in the hell the zmq stuff actually does, yes
3582017-10-02T22:00:31 <BlueMatt> once we have such a doc, I think it'd be reasonable to deprecate certain behaviors being normative, eg the ordering restrictions
3592017-10-02T22:00:32 <promag> later jonasschnelli added sequence which I believe is not documented (sorry if it is)
3602017-10-02T22:00:51 <BlueMatt> its mentioned, but only in passing, no what the fuck format it has
3612017-10-02T22:02:08 <promag> agree BlueMatt, I'll improve the doc
3622017-10-02T22:02:36 <BlueMatt> I dont think we should remove ordering for a release or two, however
3632017-10-02T22:04:40 <promag> I can split the PR in 2 - cleanup + remove-ordering
3642017-10-02T22:04:48 <promag> create a 3rd improve-doc
3652017-10-02T22:05:13 <BlueMatt> I dont think we should remove ordering until 0.17, assuming we have docs noting it is non-normative in 0.16
3662017-10-02T22:05:21 <BlueMatt> (also cause there is no rush)
3672017-10-02T22:05:57 <BlueMatt> we have no reason to need to remove ordering, and probably will keep the same ordering requirements in validationinterface
3682017-10-02T22:06:01 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
3692017-10-02T22:06:03 *** Deacyde has quit IRC
3702017-10-02T22:08:16 <promag> From the client perspective, it should not rely on the order not because of bitcoind but because of zmq
3712017-10-02T22:08:31 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3722017-10-02T22:09:02 <BlueMatt> are you sure zmq doesnt provide consistent ordering?
3732017-10-02T22:09:06 <esotericnonsense> zmq is only guaranteed to preserve order over TCP
3742017-10-02T22:09:13 <BlueMatt> you may lose messages but I'd assume in practice its ordered
3752017-10-02T22:09:27 <BlueMatt> heh, ok, so in common-usage its guaranteed to preserve order :p
3762017-10-02T22:09:45 <esotericnonsense> and only in the simple case with no proxies that may cause different paths to be taken by different messages
3772017-10-02T22:10:00 <BlueMatt> <BlueMatt> heh, ok, so in common-usage its guaranteed to preserve order :p
3782017-10-02T22:10:02 <esotericnonsense> hehe
3792017-10-02T22:10:57 <promag> > probably will keep the same ordering requirements in validationinterface - where is this tested (beside in zmq)?
3802017-10-02T22:11:27 <BlueMatt> stuff that calls into wallet is required, mostly
3812017-10-02T22:11:38 <BlueMatt> depends on which calls zmq uses, I dont recall
3822017-10-02T22:20:06 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3832017-10-02T22:20:08 <BlueMatt> do we have a standard for adding options to rpc calls now? we have named args, but also lots of stuff in options{} objects....do we prefer one for new things?
3842017-10-02T22:27:16 <sipa> i prefer using named arguments over options - easier or equally easy to use
3852017-10-02T22:27:36 <sipa> unless it's options that apply to only some arguments (like per-output options in createrawtransactions eg)
3862017-10-02T22:28:20 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #11440: Fix validationinterface build on super old boost/clang (master...2017-10-cblock-validationinterface) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11440
3872017-10-02T22:28:23 <gmaxwell> results in a terrible commandline expirence either way.
3882017-10-02T22:30:42 *** promag has quit IRC
3892017-10-02T22:31:47 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3902017-10-02T22:33:30 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
3912017-10-02T22:34:07 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3922017-10-02T22:37:13 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3932017-10-02T22:46:18 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3942017-10-02T22:54:24 *** abpa has quit IRC
3952017-10-02T22:58:17 *** _flow_ has quit IRC
3962017-10-02T22:58:47 *** timothy has quit IRC
3972017-10-02T23:06:41 *** promag has quit IRC
3982017-10-02T23:13:44 *** _flow_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3992017-10-02T23:17:30 *** dc0de has quit IRC
4002017-10-02T23:18:49 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4012017-10-02T23:24:10 *** promag has quit IRC
4022017-10-02T23:33:59 *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4032017-10-02T23:40:28 *** afk11 has quit IRC
4042017-10-02T23:46:05 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052017-10-02T23:55:17 *** Ylbam has quit IRC