12018-11-27T00:00:30  *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  22018-11-27T00:06:02  *** Guest77842 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  32018-11-27T00:07:06  *** schnerchi has quit IRC
  42018-11-27T00:07:35  *** spinza has quit IRC
  52018-11-27T00:12:40  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  62018-11-27T00:13:04  *** schnerchi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
  72018-11-27T00:19:18  *** n1bor has quit IRC
  82018-11-27T00:19:29  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
  92018-11-27T00:20:04  *** n1bor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 102018-11-27T00:28:00  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 112018-11-27T00:28:36  *** Isthmus has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 122018-11-27T00:33:32  *** Guest77842 has quit IRC
 132018-11-27T00:35:07  *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
 142018-11-27T00:36:45  *** Guest77842 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 152018-11-27T00:36:49  *** Guest77842 has quit IRC
 162018-11-27T00:37:56  *** TheHoliestRoger has quit IRC
 172018-11-27T00:38:32  *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 182018-11-27T00:40:15  *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
 192018-11-27T00:45:42  *** TheHoliestRoger has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 202018-11-27T00:46:44  *** promag has quit IRC
 212018-11-27T00:47:21  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 222018-11-27T00:53:29  *** lnostdal has quit IRC
 232018-11-27T00:57:30  *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 242018-11-27T00:58:04  *** lnostdal has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 252018-11-27T01:08:47  *** Emcy has quit IRC
 262018-11-27T01:09:58  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 272018-11-27T01:10:23  *** Emcy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 282018-11-27T01:24:07  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 292018-11-27T01:31:03  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
 302018-11-27T01:34:32  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 312018-11-27T01:50:27  *** drexl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 322018-11-27T01:50:33  *** chenpo_ has quit IRC
 332018-11-27T01:51:09  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 342018-11-27T01:53:11  *** chenpo has quit IRC
 352018-11-27T01:54:00  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 362018-11-27T01:56:40  *** Murch has quit IRC
 372018-11-27T02:00:23  *** chenpo has quit IRC
 382018-11-27T02:01:51  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 392018-11-27T02:02:45  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 402018-11-27T02:05:31  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 412018-11-27T02:05:40  *** dviola has quit IRC
 422018-11-27T02:13:33  *** jb55 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 432018-11-27T02:36:23  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
 442018-11-27T02:40:10  *** laptop__ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 452018-11-27T02:42:14  *** JackH has quit IRC
 462018-11-27T02:48:34  *** _cryptodesktop_i has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 472018-11-27T02:53:38  *** ken2812221 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 482018-11-27T03:02:10  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 492018-11-27T03:03:37  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 502018-11-27T03:10:17  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 512018-11-27T03:22:38  *** _cryptodesktop_i has quit IRC
 522018-11-27T03:35:28  *** profmac has quit IRC
 532018-11-27T03:40:41  *** profmac has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 542018-11-27T04:07:19  *** BCBot has quit IRC
 552018-11-27T04:07:27  *** BCBot has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 562018-11-27T04:08:21  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
 572018-11-27T04:13:26  *** schnerch_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 582018-11-27T04:16:54  *** schnerchi has quit IRC
 592018-11-27T04:18:04  *** zivl has quit IRC
 602018-11-27T04:28:36  *** rex4539 has quit IRC
 612018-11-27T04:39:25  *** ken2812221_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 622018-11-27T04:43:20  *** ken2812221 has quit IRC
 632018-11-27T04:56:24  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 642018-11-27T05:00:42  *** chenpo has quit IRC
 652018-11-27T05:01:13  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 662018-11-27T05:01:18  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
 672018-11-27T05:05:36  *** chenpo has quit IRC
 682018-11-27T05:08:39  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
 692018-11-27T05:10:26  *** ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 702018-11-27T05:29:52  *** tryphe has quit IRC
 712018-11-27T05:30:14  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
 722018-11-27T05:30:21  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 732018-11-27T05:31:25  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 742018-11-27T05:39:28  *** spinza has quit IRC
 752018-11-27T05:44:23  *** wumpus has quit IRC
 762018-11-27T05:44:28  *** wumpus2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 772018-11-27T05:49:33  *** jb55 has quit IRC
 782018-11-27T06:13:48  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 792018-11-27T06:29:25  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 802018-11-27T06:34:35  *** chenpo has quit IRC
 812018-11-27T06:49:32  *** rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 822018-11-27T07:09:22  *** tryphe has quit IRC
 832018-11-27T07:09:51  *** tryphe has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 842018-11-27T07:14:07  *** Soligor has quit IRC
 852018-11-27T07:37:59  *** grubles has quit IRC
 862018-11-27T07:38:07  *** promag has quit IRC
 872018-11-27T07:44:22  *** Soligor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 882018-11-27T07:57:47  *** visiter has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 892018-11-27T07:59:57  *** visiter has left #bitcoin-core-dev
 902018-11-27T08:01:06  *** timothy has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 912018-11-27T08:12:43  *** setpill has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 922018-11-27T08:18:27  *** EagleTM has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 932018-11-27T08:18:48  *** laptop__ has quit IRC
 942018-11-27T08:20:46  *** ken2812221_ has quit IRC
 952018-11-27T08:21:08  *** ken2812221_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 962018-11-27T08:24:36  *** midnightmagic has quit IRC
 972018-11-27T08:33:06  *** ken2812221_ has quit IRC
 982018-11-27T08:33:55  *** midnightmagic has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
 992018-11-27T08:42:48  *** squidicuz has quit IRC
1002018-11-27T08:43:35  *** user98765432123 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1012018-11-27T08:47:58  *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1022018-11-27T09:06:18  *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1032018-11-27T09:09:21  *** JackH has quit IRC
1042018-11-27T09:09:59  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1052018-11-27T09:25:40  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1062018-11-27T09:25:40  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072018-11-27T09:28:23  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1082018-11-27T09:42:22  <luke-jr> achow101: rpc_psbt's "Make sure that a psbt with signatures cannot be converted" doesn't make sense to me. is the comment/description wrong? (also, it's failing if it gets a non-segwit transaction..)\
1092018-11-27T09:42:50  *** naftulikay has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102018-11-27T09:42:53  <naftulikay> /!＼ ATТⲚ: Ꭲһіѕ cһɑnᥒеl has mοved tⲟ irϲ.freenodе.net ＃ⲟsіrisⅼаb ⁄!⧵
1112018-11-27T09:42:58  <naftulikay> With oᥙr ІRC ad serviϲe you сan reacһ a gⅼobal ɑudiеnce οf ᥱntreрrᥱᥒeᥙrs aᥒd feᥒtanyⅼ ɑddiсts wіth еxtraοrdⅰᥒary ᥱngɑgᥱⅿᥱnt rates! https://ᴡіlⅼiɑmpitcoϲk.ϲom/
1122018-11-27T09:43:02  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o luke-jr
1132018-11-27T09:43:02  <naftulikay> Ι tһⲟuɡht уоu ɡuyѕ miɡһt bᥱ intereѕtᥱd in tһis blоg bу frᥱᥱᥒоdе staff member ᗷryan klⲟеri Οѕtеrɡɑard httрs:／/bryаnostergaard.ⅽഠm/
1142018-11-27T09:43:02  *** naftulikay has quit IRC
1152018-11-27T09:43:07  *** luke-jr sets mode: -o luke-jr
1162018-11-27T10:01:41  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1172018-11-27T10:01:57  *** chenpo has quit IRC
1182018-11-27T10:03:38  *** kexkey has quit IRC
1192018-11-27T10:22:54  *** xuu9 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202018-11-27T10:22:55  <xuu9> /!\ ᎪТᎢN︓ Thiѕ chaᥒᥒel hɑs moved to irϲ.freenοԁe․ᥒet #οsirⅰѕlab /!\
1212018-11-27T10:22:55  <xuu9> Wіth ഠur IRC ad ѕerⅴice you сan rеacһ a gⅼоbɑⅼ aᥙԁieᥒcе of еᥒtrерrᥱᥒеurs аnⅾ fеntanyⅼ addⅰⅽts ᴡіth еⅹtraоrdinarỿ ᥱᥒgɑɡemeᥒt rateѕ! https://wⅰlliamрⅰtcock.cоm/
1222018-11-27T10:22:56  <xuu9> Ⅰ tһoᥙght yοu ɡ∪уѕ ⅿіght be iᥒterеѕtеⅾ іᥒ tһⅰѕ blog bỿ freenоdе staff meⅿber Brỿɑᥒ kⅼοеrі Ostergaarԁ httpѕ։⁄/bryaᥒοstergaard.сഠⅿ/
1232018-11-27T10:23:01  <xuu9> ᖇeаԁ wһɑt IᎡC invᥱstiɡati∨ᥱ jοurnɑⅼіstѕ have ∪ncοvered on the frеᥱᥒഠԁe peԁοpһіⅼⅰa ѕcaᥒԁal https:/∕encycⅼഠреdⅰаdramatіcɑ․rѕ／Freenodeɡate
1242018-11-27T10:23:03  *** xuu9 has quit IRC
1252018-11-27T10:24:04  <rex4539> You can try fighting spammers but you cannot win...
1262018-11-27T10:24:36  <luke-jr> sigh
1272018-11-27T10:29:17  *** CodeBlue1776 has quit IRC
1282018-11-27T10:29:58  *** CodeBlue1776 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1292018-11-27T10:36:40  *** spinza has quit IRC
1302018-11-27T10:46:27  *** owowo has quit IRC
1312018-11-27T10:47:52  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1322018-11-27T10:48:24  <timothy> rex4539: yes, but you need to set the channel for registered-only
1332018-11-27T10:51:37  *** owowo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1342018-11-27T11:03:38  *** ken2812221 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1352018-11-27T11:24:20  *** murrayn has quit IRC
1362018-11-27T11:24:28  *** spinza has quit IRC
1372018-11-27T11:28:33  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1382018-11-27T11:46:06  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1392018-11-27T11:50:33  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1402018-11-27T12:03:30  *** CubicEarth has quit IRC
1412018-11-27T12:04:38  *** murrayn has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1422018-11-27T12:10:59  *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1432018-11-27T12:30:14  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1442018-11-27T12:33:42  *** chenpo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1452018-11-27T12:34:05  *** chenpo_ has quit IRC
1462018-11-27T12:38:10  *** chenpo has quit IRC
1472018-11-27T12:42:09  *** agnjunio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1482018-11-27T12:52:22  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1492018-11-27T12:53:20  *** zivl has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1502018-11-27T12:56:07  *** dviola has quit IRC
1512018-11-27T12:57:51  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1522018-11-27T13:04:09  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1532018-11-27T13:21:53  *** promag has quit IRC
1542018-11-27T13:38:04  *** pjz26 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1552018-11-27T13:38:07  <pjz26> ⧸︕＼ ΑTTN: Тhiѕ сһаnᥒel hаs mоved to irc.frеenoⅾe.net ＃οsⅰrіѕlɑb ⧸!\
1562018-11-27T13:38:10  *** pjz26 has quit IRC
1572018-11-27T13:39:26  <cjd> I wonder if that's just a juped channel and everyone joining it gets killed (?)
1582018-11-27T13:40:06  <cjd> Getting people to join another irc network makes some sense... spamming to get them to join another chan on the same network seems...... odd
1592018-11-27T13:49:14  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
1602018-11-27T13:49:40  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1612018-11-27T13:50:38  *** assaf_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1622018-11-27T13:51:43  *** agnjunio has quit IRC
1632018-11-27T13:55:50  *** luke-jr has quit IRC
1642018-11-27T13:56:30  *** assaf_ has quit IRC
1652018-11-27T13:56:47  *** assaf_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1662018-11-27T14:00:41  *** luke-jr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1672018-11-27T14:01:43  *** reardencode has quit IRC
1682018-11-27T14:04:18  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
1692018-11-27T14:19:04  *** gelmutshmidt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702018-11-27T14:24:16  *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712018-11-27T14:26:23  *** reardencode has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1722018-11-27T14:26:51  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1732018-11-27T14:36:27  *** setpill has quit IRC
1742018-11-27T14:36:28  *** agnjunio has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1752018-11-27T14:39:18  *** TheHoliestRoger has quit IRC
1762018-11-27T14:39:27  *** TheHoliestRoger has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1772018-11-27T14:40:16  *** assaf_ has quit IRC
1782018-11-27T14:49:58  *** assaf has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1792018-11-27T14:56:09  *** EagleTM has quit IRC
1802018-11-27T14:57:27  *** assaf has quit IRC
1812018-11-27T15:01:06  *** belcher has quit IRC
1822018-11-27T15:02:18  <achow101> luke-jr: that should be "make sure that a tx with signatures cannot be converted to a psbt"
1832018-11-27T15:03:38  <achow101> luke-jr: how does it fail when it gets a non-segwit transaction?
1842018-11-27T15:06:15  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1852018-11-27T15:11:39  <luke-jr> achow101: test_framework.authproxy.JSONRPCException: Inputs must not have scriptSigs and scriptWitnesses (-22)
1862018-11-27T15:12:16  <achow101> luke-jr: ... the error explains what's wrong. converttopsbt will not convert if signatures are present
1872018-11-27T15:12:35  <luke-jr> achow101: but the test is looking for a different error
1882018-11-27T15:12:41  <luke-jr> assert_raises_rpc_error(-22, "TX decode failed", self.nodes[0].converttopsbt, signedtx['hex'])
1892018-11-27T15:15:38  <instagibbs> converttopsbt stuff is still fairly wonky
1902018-11-27T15:15:43  <instagibbs> from my recollection
1912018-11-27T15:16:06  <instagibbs> rhavar was trying to use it and ran into all sorts of issues
1922018-11-27T15:17:22  <achow101> hmm. some boolean logic might be messed up again
1932018-11-27T15:17:48  <achow101> trying to handle the interaction with permitsigdata and trywitness args got really messy
1942018-11-27T15:18:10  <instagibbs> it was already messed up, my fix just fixed the most obvious bitflip
1952018-11-27T15:19:10  <instagibbs> yeah that test is mine #14356
1962018-11-27T15:19:12  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14356 | fix converttopsbt permitsigdata arg, add basic test by instagibbs · Pull Request #14356 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1972018-11-27T15:19:43  <instagibbs> pinged him on the related issue
1982018-11-27T15:23:08  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992018-11-27T15:23:09  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #14816: Add CScriptNum decode python implementation in functional suite (master...functional_cscriptnum_decode) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14816
2002018-11-27T15:23:09  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2012018-11-27T15:23:43  *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2022018-11-27T15:41:58  <luke-jr> so I'm still not really clear why the test looks for "TX decode failed", but the error is (supposed to be?) "Inputs must not have scriptSigs and scriptWitnesses"
2032018-11-27T15:43:11  *** agnjunio has quit IRC
2042018-11-27T15:43:34  <instagibbs> Should have filed an issue when it was in my brain, oops
2052018-11-27T15:47:59  *** michaelsdunn1 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2062018-11-27T15:49:58  *** Murch has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2072018-11-27T15:54:57  *** IGHOR has quit IRC
2082018-11-27T15:59:50  *** Tralfaz has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2092018-11-27T16:03:52  *** IGHOR has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102018-11-27T16:05:45  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112018-11-27T16:08:25  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2122018-11-27T16:10:43  *** dqx has quit IRC
2132018-11-27T16:21:38  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2142018-11-27T16:21:38  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #14817: qt: Remove unnecessary columns in Coin Selection window (#11811) (master...20181126-fix-hidden-columns) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14817
2152018-11-27T16:21:38  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2162018-11-27T16:23:39  <jnewbery> I'm looking at #14602 and https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/80926/update-to-0-17-0-broke-several-rpc-api-calls-that-worked-under-0-16-3-how-to-mi and trying to understand exactly what the use case is for getbalance *
2172018-11-27T16:23:43  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14602 | Bugfix: Correctly calculate balances when min_conf is used, and for getbalance("*") by luke-jr · Pull Request #14602 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2182018-11-27T16:23:57  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
2192018-11-27T16:24:16  <jnewbery> Do people just need to use getunconfirmedbalance or am I missing some other use case?
2202018-11-27T16:24:25  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2212018-11-27T16:25:43  <jnewbery> as far as I can tell, getbalance * wasn't documented as a feature, was marked as deprecated and there was even a warning in the most recent rpc help text saying "it is recommended to avoid passing this argument"
2222018-11-27T16:25:55  <jnewbery> Trying to understand what people were using it for
2232018-11-27T16:28:48  *** phwalkr has quit IRC
2242018-11-27T16:31:02  <esotericnonsense> jnewbery: atomicity perhaps?
2252018-11-27T16:31:06  <esotericnonsense> (just a guess)
2262018-11-27T16:31:46  <esotericnonsense> if you call getbalance and get x, and getunconfirmedbalance and get y, seperately, you're not guaranteed that the "total unconfirmed balance" is x+y
2272018-11-27T16:33:26  <esotericnonsense> (unless there's some getunconfirmedbalance command that includes it, in which case sure that works... or just use getwalletinfo(?))
2282018-11-27T16:34:48  <sipa> jnewbery: i think the better questiom is why doesn't getbalancd "" return unconfirmed balance?
2292018-11-27T16:35:31  <promag> ken2812221: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/DrahtBot/bitcoin/builds/20590378
2302018-11-27T16:37:35  *** shesek has quit IRC
2312018-11-27T16:38:58  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2322018-11-27T16:43:43  *** promag has quit IRC
2332018-11-27T16:45:03  <jnewbery> It's frustrating. There was originally a code comment saying "getbalance and getbalance '*' 0 should return the same number
2342018-11-27T16:45:39  <jnewbery> and then people started relying on undocumented behaviour about how they return different things
2352018-11-27T16:49:10  <instagibbs> :(
2362018-11-27T16:49:13  <jnewbery> sipa: are you suggesting that getbalance should return unconfirmed balance?
2372018-11-27T16:49:23  <sipa> i don't see why not
2382018-11-27T16:49:32  <sipa> when confirmations=0 is passed
2392018-11-27T16:50:07  <jnewbery> ah, yes, when minconf=0
2402018-11-27T16:51:50  <sipa> jnewbery: my guess is that more people rely on getbalance * 0 returning unconfirmed balance than there are people relying on it being different from getbalance
2412018-11-27T16:52:00  <sipa> but that's just a guess
2422018-11-27T16:57:38  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
2432018-11-27T16:58:26  <luke-jr> minconf=0 wasn't originally supported without "account"
2442018-11-27T16:58:47  <luke-jr> (and never has worked without it, before that PR)
2452018-11-27T17:00:29  <sipa> luke-jr: i know
2462018-11-27T17:00:41  <sipa> but i don't see why it wouldn't be
2472018-11-27T17:01:20  <sipa> my suggestion would be to always support minconf=0, and leave the dummy/account argument alone
2482018-11-27T17:01:54  <luke-jr> sipa: and use minconf=null to get the current behaviour?
2492018-11-27T17:02:20  <sipa> right, just "getbalance" should keep doing what it did before
2502018-11-27T17:02:47  <sipa> but there is no ambiguity in getbalance minconf=0; clearly the caller wants to include 0 conf
2512018-11-27T17:03:02  <luke-jr> hmm
2522018-11-27T17:03:22  <luke-jr> what if at some point we only include 6 blocks deep in IsTrusted?
2532018-11-27T17:03:42  <luke-jr> overloading minconf might bite us then
2542018-11-27T17:05:22  <sipa> i think that would either be a new RPC call, or a configuration option
2552018-11-27T17:05:31  <sipa> how would it require overloading?
2562018-11-27T17:06:26  <sipa> ah, i see
2572018-11-27T17:06:39  <sipa> the default is nominally 0 now
2582018-11-27T17:07:04  <sipa> but that only has an effect when an account was passed
2592018-11-27T17:08:29  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2602018-11-27T17:09:15  <luke-jr> getbalance's behaviour distinction seems to go way, way back
2612018-11-27T17:09:35  <luke-jr> to a Satoshi commit even
2622018-11-27T17:10:56  <sipa> that doesn't surprise me
2632018-11-27T17:11:43  <sipa> i think it's not unreasonable to just change the default minconf to one, bit add a "if dummy=="*", minconf is 0 by default for backward compatibility"
2642018-11-27T17:15:42  *** shesek has quit IRC
2652018-11-27T17:16:10  *** shesek has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2662018-11-27T17:31:24  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2672018-11-27T17:33:13  *** chenpo has quit IRC
2682018-11-27T17:34:08  <luke-jr> ah, converttopsbt fails differently w/ non-segwit inputs because it never tries deserialising as segwit
2692018-11-27T17:35:13  <luke-jr> sipa: I'm not sure a default of minconf=1 will produce the same behaviour.
2702018-11-27T17:35:37  <luke-jr> sipa: the default behaviour is 0 or 1 depending on the individual TXO
2712018-11-27T17:37:07  <gmaxwell> having your balance inexplicably go down due to change would be quite frightening...
2722018-11-27T17:39:21  <sipa> gmaxwell: it won't
2732018-11-27T17:39:28  <sipa> luke-jr: hmm?
2742018-11-27T17:39:40  <sipa> luke-jr: perhaps i misunderstand the issue then
2752018-11-27T17:40:27  <esotericnonsense> the weirdness is that a sent transaction is "half included" right.
2762018-11-27T17:40:40  <sipa> luke-jr: is the default using IsTrusted, but the accounts-based logic including all 0conf?
2772018-11-27T17:40:59  <luke-jr> sipa: the default uses IsTrusted, and the accounts-based logic just checks IsFinal and minconf
2782018-11-27T17:41:07  <jnewbery> sipa: I believe that's the case
2792018-11-27T17:41:08  <sipa> oooh
2802018-11-27T17:41:12  <sipa> ugh, ok
2812018-11-27T17:41:24  <sipa> ignore my suggestion in that case
2822018-11-27T17:41:26  <gmaxwell> that was my belief. that default is 1/0 depending on istrusted so your blance doesn't go down, and "*" uses minconf.
2832018-11-27T17:41:56  <sipa> including non-istrusted balance sounds like a pretty bad idea regardless
2842018-11-27T17:42:45  <luke-jr> why?
2852018-11-27T17:43:36  <sipa> it can be doublespent
2862018-11-27T17:44:08  <sipa> doesn't mean you can't know about it, but including it in a balance RPC by default sounds weird
2872018-11-27T17:44:51  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2882018-11-27T17:44:52  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a4eaaa6ac536...d49103007676
2892018-11-27T17:44:52  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa71eb5 MarcoFalke: Convert comments to thread safety annotations
2902018-11-27T17:44:53  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d491030 MarcoFalke: Merge #14772: refactor: Convert comments to thread safety annotations...
2912018-11-27T17:44:54  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2922018-11-27T17:45:10  <promag> gmaxwell: regarding https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14811#issuecomment-442150028
2932018-11-27T17:45:46  <promag> why you say "mining invalid blocks"?
2942018-11-27T17:46:18  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2952018-11-27T17:46:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14772: refactor: Convert comments to thread safety annotations (master...Mf1802-csCommentsLock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14772
2962018-11-27T17:46:18  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
2972018-11-27T17:46:49  <sipa> promag: if the GBT client doesn't support segwit, but the returned template contains segwit tx, the resulting block they produce will be invalid
2982018-11-27T17:47:19  <promag> I guess that would be for a short period of time?
2992018-11-27T17:47:26  <sipa> no?
3002018-11-27T17:47:36  <sipa> they will not produce the segwit commitment
3012018-11-27T17:47:38  *** fabianfabian has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3022018-11-27T17:47:39  <luke-jr> it would be until the miner notices on his own :/
3032018-11-27T17:47:48  <gmaxwell> assuming he ever does
3042018-11-27T17:48:07  <promag> if he upgrades then he has to
3052018-11-27T17:48:13  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062018-11-27T17:48:13  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #14818: Bugfix: test/functional/rpc_psbt: Remove check for specific error message that depends on uncertain assumptions (master...bugfix_test_rpc_psbt) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14818
3072018-11-27T17:48:13  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3082018-11-27T17:48:21  <sipa> promag: that's the point
3092018-11-27T17:48:40  <sipa> if his setup is not supporting segwit, it should fail immediately
3102018-11-27T17:48:43  <sipa> so that it can be fixed
3112018-11-27T17:48:55  <gmaxwell> otherwise, how would he even know to upgrade?
3122018-11-27T17:49:00  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3132018-11-27T17:49:05  <luke-jr> promag: miners are amazingly ignorant of problems
3142018-11-27T17:49:11  <sipa> it shouldn't need to take days... perhaps more until he notices he is producing invalid blocks
3152018-11-27T17:49:12  *** zallarak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3162018-11-27T17:49:25  <luke-jr> see the recent lawsuit where a miner is suing Bitmain because he didn't bother to configure his new miners for his own account..
3172018-11-27T17:49:26  <promag> ok, sorry my ignorance here
3182018-11-27T17:50:00  <promag> what if he upgrades, but wants to keep the upgraded version for some other reason but without this change?
3192018-11-27T17:50:14  <luke-jr> huh?
3202018-11-27T17:50:27  <promag> I guess this is 0.18?
3212018-11-27T17:50:50  <sipa> promag: this is about gbt client
3222018-11-27T17:50:54  <sipa> not bitcoim core
3232018-11-27T17:51:02  <gmaxwell> I think we're talking past each other with the use of the word 'upgrade', when we say upgrade we mean his mining software.
3242018-11-27T17:51:30  *** chenpo has quit IRC
3252018-11-27T17:54:00  <sipa> promag: currently, if the gbt client does not provide segwit flag, bitcoin core will produce a (suboptimal) block template without segwit txn
3262018-11-27T17:54:37  <sipa> we want to change that, as segwit is so widely adopted now, it almost certainly means a configuration error rather than an intentional choice
3272018-11-27T17:54:49  <gmaxwell> promag: mining software (e.g. pool software) had to be upgraded to be able to include segwit txn because it needs to compute and include the segwit commitment, because GBT doesn't itself make the coinbase transaction.  To avoid forcing everyone to upgrade at once, we made it optional-- if you don't send the segwit flag, you don't get segwit txn and your blocks are still valid.
3282018-11-27T17:55:14  *** hebasto has quit IRC
3292018-11-27T17:55:28  <jnewbery> I think promag means 'what if the miner wants to take Bitcoin Core 0.18 but doesn't want to upgrade his pool software to support mining segwit blocks?'
3302018-11-27T17:55:43  <gmaxwell> So sad for him.
3312018-11-27T17:55:49  <promag> lol, thanks jnewbery
3322018-11-27T17:55:54  <sipa> oh!
3332018-11-27T17:56:12  <promag> so in the future it can be implict by default? like when last N blocks are segwit?
3342018-11-27T17:56:12  <luke-jr> once that PR is merged, we just won't support that anymore
3352018-11-27T17:56:19  <gmaxwell> If he wants to keep losing money, he can modify the software himself.
3362018-11-27T17:56:21  <jnewbery> it seems pretty edge-case. Over 99% of blocks include segwit transactions right now
3372018-11-27T17:56:24  <luke-jr> promag: no, implicit = broken
3382018-11-27T17:56:41  <sipa> promag: making it implicit is worse than silently mining non-segwit blocks
3392018-11-27T17:56:44  <gmaxwell> promag: it can't be implicit, because then if you restart with old mining software or something you'll silently produce invalid blocks.
3402018-11-27T17:56:52  <sipa> instead it will be silently not making any blocks at all
3412018-11-27T17:57:13  <gmaxwell> We could, in the future, introduce a replacement to that rpc that does it implicitly, for example.
3422018-11-27T17:57:24  <promag> gmaxwell: ah right
3432018-11-27T17:57:51  <jnewbery> I'm inclined to agree with gmaxwell. The Bitcoin Core project doesn't need to support theoretical miners who for some reason don't want to include a certain class of transaction in their blocks.
3442018-11-27T17:57:53  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3452018-11-27T17:57:53  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #14819: Bugfix: test/functional/mempool_accept: Ensure oversize transaction is actually oversize (master...bugfix_test_mempool_accept) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14819
3462018-11-27T17:57:53  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
3472018-11-27T17:58:08  <promag> does it make sense to add deprecatedrpc=getblocktemplate to have same behavior in 0.18?
3482018-11-27T17:58:10  <jnewbery> Yes, in v0.19 or v0.20 we could implicitly assume that rule:segwit is set
3492018-11-27T17:58:14  <gmaxwell> If we were really worried about back compat we could have a depricated flag to bring it back, but given the stats, I don't think there is a need to.
3502018-11-27T17:58:29  <sipa> promag: why bother?
3512018-11-27T17:58:33  <gmaxwell> jnewbery: I would be opposed to that, because there is always a risk of accidental downgrade.
3522018-11-27T17:58:44  <promag> ok, just asking
3532018-11-27T17:58:49  <jnewbery> even if it was v0.20?
3542018-11-27T17:58:59  <luke-jr> [17:57:13] <gmaxwell> We could, in the future, introduce a replacement to that rpc that does it implicitly, for example. <-- breaking all compatibility with the BIPs and existing software? :/
3552018-11-27T17:59:08  <jnewbery> ie 1-1.5 years after it was possible to mine a non-segwit block
3562018-11-27T17:59:11  <gmaxwell> jnewbery: people sometimes manage to accidentally start up old software/configs.
3572018-11-27T17:59:29  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: we're going to replace the rpc eventually... GBT has a lot of problems.
3582018-11-27T17:59:39  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: doesn't mean the old one wouldn't continue to work for a long time.
3592018-11-27T18:00:01  <jnewbery> but at that point, all pool software will necessarily support segwit blocks
3602018-11-27T18:00:12  *** promag has quit IRC
3612018-11-27T18:00:16  <luke-jr> jnewbery: bitcoind is not the only GBT server, and pool software is not the only GBT clients
3622018-11-27T18:00:45  <gmaxwell> jnewbery: yes, and what happens if you reboot your host and your startup script starts an old version of your pool software?
3632018-11-27T18:01:02  *** rh0nj has quit IRC
3642018-11-27T18:01:13  <sipa> testing that segwit is set in the call is essentially free
3652018-11-27T18:01:30  <sipa> i don't think there is any reason to remove that (1?) line of code
3662018-11-27T18:01:34  <sipa> ever
3672018-11-27T18:01:48  <sipa> as long as GBT exists
3682018-11-27T18:01:57  <jnewbery> I think that scenario is out of the scope of things we can reasonably worry about.
3692018-11-27T18:02:07  *** rh0nj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3702018-11-27T18:02:11  <gmaxwell> We shouldn't obsessively trying to "clean things up" in ways that introduce real, if somewhat obscure, funds loss avenues while providing NO benefit.
3712018-11-27T18:02:14  <sipa> jnewbery: it happened recently
3722018-11-27T18:02:29  <gmaxwell> And similar has happened in the past.
3732018-11-27T18:02:59  <sipa> a few weeks ago a bunch of blocks were mined without segwit txn as a result of a configuration error
3742018-11-27T18:03:02  <gmaxwell> jnewbery: a large miner recently started producing blocks without segwit txn exactly because they accidentally regressed to non-sw supporting mining software.
3752018-11-27T18:03:09  <jnewbery> sipa: sure - I don't think it needs to happen, but I wouldn't be opposed to it being implicit in future
3762018-11-27T18:03:32  <sipa> jnewbery: i'm not strictly opposed to it either if there was a good reasom
3772018-11-27T18:03:42  <sipa> but i see literally zero benefit to making it implicit
3782018-11-27T18:03:56  <sipa> apart from saving 1 line of code
3792018-11-27T18:04:00  <jnewbery> I'm aware of that. I also don't think there's any way that bitcoind can police all possible misconfigurations in client software.
3802018-11-27T18:04:10  <sipa> sure
3812018-11-27T18:04:10  <jnewbery> Sure, I don't really care that much :)
3822018-11-27T18:04:31  <gmaxwell> This isn't a question about all possible misconfigurations, this is a protocol versioning question.
3832018-11-27T18:04:58  <gmaxwell> Essentially GBT is a protocol, it was effectively unversioned originally. The different versions were not compatible and would cause funds loss if mixed.
3842018-11-27T18:05:08  <gmaxwell> Setting the flag manually negoiates the version.
3852018-11-27T18:05:14  <luke-jr> eh, it wasn't unversioned
3862018-11-27T18:05:20  <luke-jr> this is exactly the verisoning it has always had
3872018-11-27T18:05:21  <gmaxwell> Requiring the flag drops support for the old version.
3882018-11-27T18:05:52  <jnewbery> gmaxwell: yes, that makes sense
3892018-11-27T18:06:14  <luke-jr> well, I guess the original had "capabilities"
3902018-11-27T18:06:17  <luke-jr> instead of "rules"
3912018-11-27T18:06:18  <gmaxwell> But implicitly accepting incompatible requests just creates exposure.  To a real issue that has cropped up multiple times, because making sure all your software is running lockstep correct versions is hard. (esp since many of these pools also support non-sw altcoins...)
3922018-11-27T18:06:52  <jnewbery> ok, you've convinced me! I won't try to remove it
3932018-11-27T18:07:08  <gmaxwell> If we were to make a new GBT-like call, obviously we'd need no segwit flag for it, as it would just be defined to always have it.
3942018-11-27T18:08:49  <luke-jr> while we're on the topic, I think we should still merge the fix in #10595 before this, so it can be backported..
3952018-11-27T18:08:50  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10595 | Bugfix: RPC/Mining: Use pre-segwit sigops and limits, when working with non-segwit GBT clients by luke-jr · Pull Request #10595 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3962018-11-27T18:10:19  <luke-jr> otoh, realistically, I'm not sure anyone's encountering that issue, so maybe not worth the effort, dunno
3972018-11-27T18:10:40  <sipa> yeah, i think it's not worth the effort
3982018-11-27T18:10:42  <gmaxwell> luke-jr: or backport dropping segwit support? :P  (maybe in that case it would be with a depricated flag)
3992018-11-27T18:10:50  <gmaxwell> er dropping nonsegwitsupport
4002018-11-27T18:11:43  <luke-jr> gmaxwell: might trigger some trolls with that :p (but who cares)
4012018-11-27T18:12:04  <luke-jr> (they'll probably be triggered either way)
4022018-11-27T18:12:06  <gmaxwell> yea, who cares? I think in a BP we probably would want to make it switchable.
4032018-11-27T18:12:13  <gmaxwell> so maybe thats an argument against it.
4042018-11-27T18:12:18  *** chenpo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052018-11-27T18:12:30  <sipa> BP?
4062018-11-27T18:12:30  <provoostenator> Would it make sense to have a "disabled_rules" param for GBT? Throw the error if neither rules or disabled_rules contains "segwit"?
4072018-11-27T18:12:36  <sipa> ah, backport
4082018-11-27T18:12:53  <luke-jr> provoostenator: why?
4092018-11-27T18:13:09  <jnewbery> I don't think it's worth the effort of backporting
4102018-11-27T18:13:42  <gmaxwell> provoostenator: 09:57:52 < jnewbery> I'm inclined to agree with gmaxwell. The Bitcoin Core project doesn't need to support theoretical miners who for some reason
4112018-11-27T18:13:42  <gmaxwell>                      don't want to include a certain class of transaction in their blocks.
4122018-11-27T18:13:43  <luke-jr> the only question is if the GBT client supports segwit or not. there's no reason it would ever be supported but disabled..?
4132018-11-27T18:14:30  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
4142018-11-27T18:15:04  <gmaxwell> provoostenator: if there were some actual reason known to intentionally run in that config that made sense, then what you suggest is what it should do...
4152018-11-27T18:15:11  <provoostenator> The "theoretical miner" argument is reasonable, but has anyone actually asked a bunch of miners why they're not mining SegWit blocks to make sure it's really either an accident or a lack of upgrading other tools?
4162018-11-27T18:15:30  <gmaxwell> provoostenator: there aren't "a bunch of miners" who aren't mining segwit blocks
4172018-11-27T18:15:37  <gmaxwell> There was a recent incident, and it was an accident.
4182018-11-27T18:15:56  <provoostenator> 9 out of 1000 blocks accodring to the PR
4192018-11-27T18:16:01  <provoostenator> (in that time range)
4202018-11-27T18:16:13  <gmaxwell> provoostenator: which may just not have had any segwit txn available at all.
4212018-11-27T18:16:31  <luke-jr> provoostenator: if they really don't want to mine blocks with segwit txs, they can just not upgrade
4222018-11-27T18:16:34  <provoostenator> Oh ok, so if there's 0 segwit transactions, nothing in the block indicates SegWit?
4232018-11-27T18:16:46  <provoostenator> In that case a miner who doesn't want to mine SegWit could just filter those before they reach the node.
4242018-11-27T18:17:06  <jnewbery> provoostenator: the only time we saw it drop below 90% was for a couple of weeks before returning to normal: https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2018/11/06/#news
4252018-11-27T18:17:15  <sipa> provoostenator: that will result in a highly suboptimal tx selection
4262018-11-27T18:17:59  <gmaxwell> in any case, if someone has some crazy reason that makes sense, they can show up and ask about it.
4272018-11-27T18:18:27  <gmaxwell> This is unlikely. I can't think of an example explination that we'd choose to support, but if they did, they could.
4282018-11-27T18:18:32  <provoostenator> We're still pretty early in the 0.18 cycle indeed.
4292018-11-27T18:20:49  <sipa> this discussion is pointless, sorry
4302018-11-27T18:21:23  <sipa> there is no point in doing work to support a configuration edge case nobody is asking for
4312018-11-27T18:22:50  <provoostenator> The discussion may indeed be pointless, but there's obviously nobody asking for a configuration that already exists :-)
4322018-11-27T18:23:06  <gmaxwell> (and which-- maybe-- even if it were asked for, we'd choose to not support in any case)
4332018-11-27T18:23:39  <sipa> provoostenator: come on man
4342018-11-27T18:23:59  <provoostenator> sipa: I was kidding. I'm fine with removing this, especially this early in the release.
4352018-11-27T18:24:17  <sipa> :)
4362018-11-27T18:33:55  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4372018-11-27T18:42:10  *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
4382018-11-27T18:43:18  *** Victorsueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4392018-11-27T18:54:06  *** savil has quit IRC
4402018-11-27T18:54:14  *** ajtowns[m] has quit IRC
4412018-11-27T18:54:15  *** kewde[m] has quit IRC
4422018-11-27T18:54:18  *** TheFuzzStone[m] has quit IRC
4432018-11-27T18:55:40  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4442018-11-27T18:55:41  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d49103007676...8c119b27551f
4452018-11-27T18:55:42  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fa739d4 MarcoFalke: qa: Add wallet_encryption error tests
4462018-11-27T18:55:42  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8c119b2 MarcoFalke: Merge #14813: qa: Add wallet_encryption error tests...
4472018-11-27T18:55:43  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4482018-11-27T18:57:10  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4492018-11-27T18:57:11  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14813: qa: Add wallet_encryption error tests (master...Mf1811-qaWalletEncTest) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14813
4502018-11-27T18:57:11  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4512018-11-27T18:58:18  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, can you still make blocks without the commitment if there's no segwit transactions in it?
4522018-11-27T18:58:34  <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: yes.
4532018-11-27T18:59:02  <gmaxwell> the whole idea for those rules was to avoid creating a flag day where everyone had to upgrade their software at the same time.
4542018-11-27T18:59:48  <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, yeah
4552018-11-27T19:02:59  *** absx has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4562018-11-27T19:07:27  *** chenpo has quit IRC
4572018-11-27T19:10:31  *** ajtowns[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4582018-11-27T19:11:39  *** absx has quit IRC
4592018-11-27T19:15:40  *** TheFuzzStone[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4602018-11-27T19:15:40  *** kewde[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4612018-11-27T19:15:40  *** savil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4622018-11-27T19:18:33  <luke-jr> MarcoFalke: if we wanted to avoid the import, we could just add +1 unconditionally.. but I think using ceil is clearer and no real downside
4632018-11-27T19:20:25  *** user98765432123 has quit IRC
4642018-11-27T19:44:43  *** timothy has quit IRC
4652018-11-27T19:48:32  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4662018-11-27T19:48:32  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky opened pull request #14820: Fix descriptor_tests not checking ToString output of public descriptors (master...pr/descstr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14820
4672018-11-27T19:48:32  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4682018-11-27T19:56:51  *** kewde[m] has quit IRC
4692018-11-27T19:56:52  *** TheFuzzStone[m] has quit IRC
4702018-11-27T19:56:54  *** savil has quit IRC
4712018-11-27T19:56:55  *** ajtowns[m] has quit IRC
4722018-11-27T20:01:58  *** ajtowns[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4732018-11-27T20:03:33  *** phwalkr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4742018-11-27T20:08:36  *** savil has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4752018-11-27T20:08:36  *** TheFuzzStone[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4762018-11-27T20:08:38  *** kewde[m] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4772018-11-27T20:11:17  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4782018-11-27T20:11:18  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8c119b27551f...0fa3703c1757
4792018-11-27T20:11:18  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c77f092 Russell Yanofsky: Fix descriptor_tests not checking ToString output of public descriptors
4802018-11-27T20:11:19  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0fa3703 MarcoFalke: Merge #14820: test: Fix descriptor_tests not checking ToString output of public descriptors...
4812018-11-27T20:11:19  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4822018-11-27T20:12:28  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4832018-11-27T20:12:29  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14820: test: Fix descriptor_tests not checking ToString output of public descriptors (master...pr/descstr) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14820
4842018-11-27T20:12:29  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4852018-11-27T20:23:12  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4862018-11-27T20:23:12  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0fa3703c1757...fdf146f3293c
4872018-11-27T20:23:13  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 4d78bd9 Pieter Wuille: Add support for inferring descriptors from scripts
4882018-11-27T20:23:13  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 225bf3e Pieter Wuille: Add Descriptor::IsSolvable() to distinguish addr/raw from others
4892018-11-27T20:23:14  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9b2a25b Pieter Wuille: Add tests for InferDescriptor and Descriptor::IsSolvable
4902018-11-27T20:23:14  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4912018-11-27T20:23:33  <MarcoFalke> luke-jr: Lol, its fine either way. with the import or +1
4922018-11-27T20:23:59  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4932018-11-27T20:23:59  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #14477: Add ability to convert solvability info to descriptor (master...201810_inferdescript) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14477
4942018-11-27T20:23:59  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
4952018-11-27T20:25:11  <meshcollider> Yay \o/
4962018-11-27T20:25:17  <meshcollider> Time to rebase mine now
4972018-11-27T20:26:03  <meshcollider> Oh wait no I still need #14565
4982018-11-27T20:26:04  *** assaf_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4992018-11-27T20:26:09  <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/14565 | Overhaul importmulti logic by sipa · Pull Request #14565 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
5002018-11-27T20:31:08  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5012018-11-27T20:31:09  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #14821: Replace CAffectedKeysVisitor with descriptor based logic (master...201810_die_caffectedkeysvisitor_die) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14821
5022018-11-27T20:31:09  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5032018-11-27T20:45:37  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5042018-11-27T20:56:43  *** promag has quit IRC
5052018-11-27T20:56:58  *** promag has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5062018-11-27T21:03:10  *** dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5072018-11-27T21:10:24  *** ibispi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5082018-11-27T21:18:48  *** assaf_ has quit IRC
5092018-11-27T21:27:36  *** grubles has quit IRC
5102018-11-27T21:32:00  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5112018-11-27T21:32:00  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fdf146f3293c...600b85bb4172
5122018-11-27T21:32:01  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ebd3bf2 practicalswift: Make test p2p_invalid_messages.py pass: Allow for expected Travis ASAN memory increase
5132018-11-27T21:32:01  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ff7212e practicalswift: Add ASan Travis build
5142018-11-27T21:32:02  <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6541d59 practicalswift: Add LSan suppression warnings
5152018-11-27T21:32:02  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5162018-11-27T21:33:13  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5172018-11-27T21:33:14  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #14794: tests: Add AddressSanitizer (ASan) Travis build (master...asan-in-travis) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14794
5182018-11-27T21:33:14  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5192018-11-27T21:50:39  *** morcos has quit IRC
5202018-11-27T21:50:56  *** morcos has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5212018-11-27T21:52:20  *** grubles has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5222018-11-27T21:55:31  *** bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5232018-11-27T21:55:31  <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #14822: bench: Destroy wallet txs instead of leaking their memory (master...Mf1811-benchWalletTxs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/14822
5242018-11-27T21:55:31  *** bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev
5252018-11-27T21:56:00  <jnewbery> I'm trying to work out how fAvailableCreditCached in WalletTx is supposed to work. If the spentness of any of the outputs changes, the cache doesn't get cleared and subsequent calls to GetAvailableCredit() will return the cached value. Am I missing something?
5262018-11-27T22:08:25  *** harrigan has quit IRC
5272018-11-27T22:10:35  *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
5282018-11-27T22:12:58  <meshcollider> jnewbery: not sure exactly where you're looking, but does it call MarkDirty?
5292018-11-27T22:13:14  <meshcollider> MarkDirty will set fAvailableCreditCached to false so it won't return the cached value
5302018-11-27T22:17:04  <jnewbery> meshcollider: yes, you're right. Thanks!
5312018-11-27T22:17:20  *** harrigan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5322018-11-27T22:19:02  *** spinza has quit IRC
5332018-11-27T22:20:23  *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
5342018-11-27T22:38:15  *** spinza has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5352018-11-27T22:49:28  *** fabianfabian has quit IRC
5362018-11-27T22:58:56  *** ken2812221_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5372018-11-27T23:01:00  *** ken2812221 has quit IRC
5382018-11-27T23:05:16  *** Bullitje has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5392018-11-27T23:08:27  *** Bullit has quit IRC
5402018-11-27T23:24:25  *** gelmutshmidt has quit IRC
5412018-11-27T23:24:26  <luke-jr> jnewbery: making it impossible to get the current balance (ie, with untrusted txs included) is IMO not acceptable
5422018-11-27T23:27:01  *** flyingkiwi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5432018-11-27T23:27:31  *** flyingkiwi has quit IRC
5442018-11-27T23:29:03  *** michaelsdunn1 has quit IRC
5452018-11-27T23:41:06  *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5462018-11-27T23:41:37  *** justan0theruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
5472018-11-27T23:45:27  *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
5482018-11-27T23:56:09  *** Boniche0 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev