1 2015-10-08T00:00:42 *** goregrind has quit IRC
2 2015-10-08T00:01:08 *** n0n0__ has quit IRC
3 2015-10-08T00:01:26 *** malduron has quit IRC
4 2015-10-08T00:05:21 *** Goathill has joined #bitcoin-dev
5 2015-10-08T00:06:19 *** snthsnth has quit IRC
6 2015-10-08T00:06:57 *** Dr-G has joined #bitcoin-dev
7 2015-10-08T00:07:27 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
8 2015-10-08T00:08:52 <denisx> sounds like someone removed one line where an unused byte of the hash was written and then the compiler said âunused variable xyâ and that was the starting snowball ;)
9 2015-10-08T00:09:31 *** jimpo has quit IRC
10 2015-10-08T00:09:44 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
11 2015-10-08T00:10:02 *** Dr-G2 has quit IRC
12 2015-10-08T00:12:51 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
13 2015-10-08T00:14:32 *** xiando has joined #bitcoin-dev
14 2015-10-08T00:14:39 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-dev
15 2015-10-08T00:15:13 *** esneider has quit IRC
16 2015-10-08T00:15:44 <xiando> Any thoughts on how bitcoind would handle a 3GB mempool?
17 2015-10-08T00:15:59 <xiando> at this rate of growth that is were we are in 24h
18 2015-10-08T00:16:30 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-dev
19 2015-10-08T00:16:37 <phantomcircuit> xiando, assuming you have that much memory everything will be fine
20 2015-10-08T00:16:39 <belcher> xiando use the option added in 0.11
21 2015-10-08T00:16:49 <belcher> to drop the low fee spam txes
22 2015-10-08T00:16:55 *** [hecatex] has joined #bitcoin-dev
23 2015-10-08T00:18:26 <xiando> That's another oddity belcher with minrelayfee=0.00016 (spammers use .00015) it's currently using 1.7GB mem, it was 2.2GB when I did that and it was using less a short while but it appers to grow (but not as much) rapidly anyway
24 2015-10-08T00:19:01 <belcher> interesting
25 2015-10-08T00:19:02 <xiando> phantomcircuit: Thank you, good to know, I guess those nodes with 16GB+ may be fine (unless they keep it up a week, but it's already cost them 10BTC in fees)
26 2015-10-08T00:19:39 *** moli has quit IRC
27 2015-10-08T00:20:32 <phantomcircuit> shrug
28 2015-10-08T00:20:53 <phantomcircuit> there's lots of work going on now to efficiently limit the memory pool
29 2015-10-08T00:22:14 <xiando> if you guys somehow limit what they are doing with tx like 2ed476173dccf7a07ef4a0709229a8757b6dfcba318af77638e222744f1fde7e then great, there's been spam before but this time they made sure each tx is 14790B not 2-300B like most
30 2015-10-08T00:22:18 *** adam3us1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
31 2015-10-08T00:22:24 *** adam3us has quit IRC
32 2015-10-08T00:23:06 *** ludx has quit IRC
33 2015-10-08T00:23:07 *** dagurval_ has quit IRC
34 2015-10-08T00:23:14 *** dagurval has joined #bitcoin-dev
35 2015-10-08T00:23:29 *** jaromil_ has quit IRC
36 2015-10-08T00:23:51 *** kinlo has quit IRC
37 2015-10-08T00:24:09 *** Happzz has quit IRC
38 2015-10-08T00:25:33 *** kinlo has joined #bitcoin-dev
39 2015-10-08T00:26:06 *** flyingkiwi has quit IRC
40 2015-10-08T00:26:34 *** flyingkiwi has joined #bitcoin-dev
41 2015-10-08T00:27:14 *** Happzz has joined #bitcoin-dev
42 2015-10-08T00:29:09 *** jaromil has joined #bitcoin-dev
43 2015-10-08T00:29:49 <nanotube> xiando: minrelaytxfee=, not minrelayfee=, afaik
44 2015-10-08T00:30:30 *** ludx has joined #bitcoin-dev
45 2015-10-08T00:31:23 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
46 2015-10-08T00:32:14 <denisx> setting these values live would be nice
47 2015-10-08T00:32:29 *** tawster has joined #bitcoin-dev
48 2015-10-08T00:33:34 *** robink_ is now known as robink
49 2015-10-08T00:33:39 *** rmwb_ has quit IRC
50 2015-10-08T00:34:32 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-dev
51 2015-10-08T00:35:32 *** OneFixt has joined #bitcoin-dev
52 2015-10-08T00:36:35 *** davispuh has quit IRC
53 2015-10-08T00:36:54 *** rmwb has joined #bitcoin-dev
54 2015-10-08T00:38:35 *** snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-dev
55 2015-10-08T00:40:41 *** esneider has quit IRC
56 2015-10-08T00:41:12 *** rmwb has quit IRC
57 2015-10-08T00:41:51 *** dcousens has left #bitcoin-dev
58 2015-10-08T00:42:42 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
59 2015-10-08T00:44:40 <ProfMac> is there a code beautifier that supports whatever style the developers use?
60 2015-10-08T00:44:58 <ProfMac> I have used uncrustify recently.
61 2015-10-08T00:45:36 *** esneider has quit IRC
62 2015-10-08T00:46:36 *** brson has quit IRC
63 2015-10-08T00:47:15 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
64 2015-10-08T00:47:52 *** kgk has quit IRC
65 2015-10-08T00:48:23 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-dev
66 2015-10-08T00:49:29 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-dev
67 2015-10-08T00:50:15 *** Khayman has joined #bitcoin-dev
68 2015-10-08T00:50:47 *** Hasimir has quit IRC
69 2015-10-08T00:51:19 *** molly has quit IRC
70 2015-10-08T00:51:36 *** FredEE has quit IRC
71 2015-10-08T00:51:45 *** Khayman is now known as Hasimir
72 2015-10-08T00:54:34 *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
73 2015-10-08T00:54:38 *** Goathill has joined #bitcoin-dev
74 2015-10-08T00:55:51 *** YoY has quit IRC
75 2015-10-08T00:57:54 *** YoY has joined #bitcoin-dev
76 2015-10-08T01:00:12 *** FredEE has joined #bitcoin-dev
77 2015-10-08T01:00:47 <BlueMatt> thoughts on running low-s mutation on the network?
78 2015-10-08T01:01:05 <BlueMatt> ie trying to counter the all-s-mutation that people have been running by mutating everything to low-s
79 2015-10-08T01:02:46 *** esneider has quit IRC
80 2015-10-08T01:04:12 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
81 2015-10-08T01:04:16 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
82 2015-10-08T01:07:26 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, ACK
83 2015-10-08T01:08:18 *** Goathill has quit IRC
84 2015-10-08T01:10:49 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
85 2015-10-08T01:13:44 *** kermit has quit IRC
86 2015-10-08T01:16:02 *** copumpkin has joined #bitcoin-dev
87 2015-10-08T01:16:34 *** kermit has joined #bitcoin-dev
88 2015-10-08T01:16:37 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
89 2015-10-08T01:17:13 *** esneider has quit IRC
90 2015-10-08T01:18:05 *** FredEE has quit IRC
91 2015-10-08T01:22:43 *** belcher has quit IRC
92 2015-10-08T01:25:52 *** hardyred has quit IRC
93 2015-10-08T01:26:31 *** jimpo has joined #bitcoin-dev
94 2015-10-08T01:29:32 *** Guest73396 has quit IRC
95 2015-10-08T01:31:15 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-dev
96 2015-10-08T01:33:59 *** moli has quit IRC
97 2015-10-08T01:37:21 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
98 2015-10-08T01:39:10 *** jimpo has quit IRC
99 2015-10-08T01:40:45 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
100 2015-10-08T01:40:48 *** denisx_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
101 2015-10-08T01:43:10 *** twixisowned is now known as trixisowned
102 2015-10-08T01:43:19 *** denisx has quit IRC
103 2015-10-08T01:43:19 *** denisx_ is now known as denisx
104 2015-10-08T01:45:24 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
105 2015-10-08T01:51:58 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
106 2015-10-08T01:56:09 *** hashtagg has quit IRC
107 2015-10-08T01:56:10 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
108 2015-10-08T01:57:41 *** hashtag has joined #bitcoin-dev
109 2015-10-08T01:59:19 *** Dr-G2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
110 2015-10-08T01:59:20 *** Dr-G has quit IRC
111 2015-10-08T01:59:34 *** antizionist__ has quit IRC
112 2015-10-08T02:01:01 *** jimpo has joined #bitcoin-dev
113 2015-10-08T02:04:10 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
114 2015-10-08T02:05:01 *** hardyred has joined #bitcoin-dev
115 2015-10-08T02:06:10 *** jimpo has quit IRC
116 2015-10-08T02:13:18 *** esneider has quit IRC
117 2015-10-08T02:14:11 *** rsuty_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
118 2015-10-08T02:16:23 *** hardyred has quit IRC
119 2015-10-08T02:17:21 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
120 2015-10-08T02:18:47 *** rsuty_ has quit IRC
121 2015-10-08T02:20:55 *** tawster has quit IRC
122 2015-10-08T02:21:13 *** rdymac has quit IRC
123 2015-10-08T02:22:27 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
124 2015-10-08T02:22:37 *** jimpo has joined #bitcoin-dev
125 2015-10-08T02:23:14 *** go1111111 has quit IRC
126 2015-10-08T02:24:33 *** Transisto2 has quit IRC
127 2015-10-08T02:26:01 *** leakypat has quit IRC
128 2015-10-08T02:26:38 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
129 2015-10-08T02:31:10 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
130 2015-10-08T02:31:19 *** esneider has quit IRC
131 2015-10-08T02:35:12 *** Subo1977_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
132 2015-10-08T02:35:20 *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-dev
133 2015-10-08T02:39:11 *** Subo1977 has quit IRC
134 2015-10-08T02:42:38 *** denisx has quit IRC
135 2015-10-08T02:50:46 *** Guest73396 has joined #bitcoin-dev
136 2015-10-08T02:52:06 *** Burrito has quit IRC
137 2015-10-08T02:53:32 *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
138 2015-10-08T02:54:38 *** afk11 has quit IRC
139 2015-10-08T02:55:30 *** contrapumpkin has joined #bitcoin-dev
140 2015-10-08T02:56:00 *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-dev
141 2015-10-08T02:58:36 *** copumpkin has quit IRC
142 2015-10-08T02:58:43 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
143 2015-10-08T03:00:22 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-dev
144 2015-10-08T03:02:59 *** jimpo has quit IRC
145 2015-10-08T03:03:39 *** molly has quit IRC
146 2015-10-08T03:04:15 *** won9 has quit IRC
147 2015-10-08T03:04:28 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-dev
148 2015-10-08T03:04:50 *** sparetire_ has quit IRC
149 2015-10-08T03:05:59 *** porquilho has joined #bitcoin-dev
150 2015-10-08T03:06:39 *** moli has quit IRC
151 2015-10-08T03:07:05 *** jimpo has joined #bitcoin-dev
152 2015-10-08T03:07:44 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-dev
153 2015-10-08T03:10:39 *** molly has quit IRC
154 2015-10-08T03:11:36 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
155 2015-10-08T03:11:49 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-dev
156 2015-10-08T03:13:39 *** moli has quit IRC
157 2015-10-08T03:14:09 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-dev
158 2015-10-08T03:16:39 *** molly has quit IRC
159 2015-10-08T03:18:30 *** rmwb has joined #bitcoin-dev
160 2015-10-08T03:19:44 *** matsjj has quit IRC
161 2015-10-08T03:21:10 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
162 2015-10-08T03:25:11 *** seba_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
163 2015-10-08T03:25:21 <seba_> hi
164 2015-10-08T03:26:12 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-dev
165 2015-10-08T03:26:43 *** seba_ has quit IRC
166 2015-10-08T03:27:31 *** Newyorkadam has quit IRC
167 2015-10-08T03:29:39 *** PRab has quit IRC
168 2015-10-08T03:35:55 *** [7] has quit IRC
169 2015-10-08T03:36:04 *** TheSeven has joined #bitcoin-dev
170 2015-10-08T03:43:39 <zmanian> BlueMatt: The usability for software users who haven't upgraded / maintained their software will probably be harmed. But they probably need to be motivated to act.
171 2015-10-08T03:45:44 *** won9 has joined #bitcoin-dev
172 2015-10-08T03:46:23 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
173 2015-10-08T03:48:14 *** robink has quit IRC
174 2015-10-08T03:49:01 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
175 2015-10-08T03:53:10 *** Guest73396 has quit IRC
176 2015-10-08T03:54:22 *** robink_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
177 2015-10-08T03:56:40 *** Guest73396 has joined #bitcoin-dev
178 2015-10-08T03:58:55 *** baldur_ has quit IRC
179 2015-10-08T03:59:22 *** baldur has joined #bitcoin-dev
180 2015-10-08T04:05:28 *** stasku has quit IRC
181 2015-10-08T04:06:12 *** stasku has joined #bitcoin-dev
182 2015-10-08T04:09:05 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
183 2015-10-08T04:12:22 *** adam3us has joined #bitcoin-dev
184 2015-10-08T04:15:22 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
185 2015-10-08T04:15:35 *** adam3us1 has quit IRC
186 2015-10-08T04:20:07 *** ludx has quit IRC
187 2015-10-08T04:20:08 *** ludx has joined #bitcoin-dev
188 2015-10-08T04:20:57 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
189 2015-10-08T04:24:21 *** ratbaneb_ has quit IRC
190 2015-10-08T04:24:57 *** snthsnth has quit IRC
191 2015-10-08T04:25:47 *** snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-dev
192 2015-10-08T04:26:49 *** matsjj has quit IRC
193 2015-10-08T04:27:34 *** robink_ is now known as robink
194 2015-10-08T04:28:52 <xiando> c
195 2015-10-08T04:29:03 *** pbase has joined #bitcoin-dev
196 2015-10-08T04:30:13 <pbase> Why doesn't bitcoin protocol reward users for contributing bandwidth and hosting the node data? Why does it assume it as a free service?
197 2015-10-08T04:30:35 *** agricocb has quit IRC
198 2015-10-08T04:32:25 <justanotheruser> pbase: because it's impossible
199 2015-10-08T04:33:01 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
200 2015-10-08T04:34:16 <pbase> justanotheruser: how?
201 2015-10-08T04:34:24 <justanotheruser> #bitcoin
202 2015-10-08T04:34:36 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
203 2015-10-08T04:39:25 *** kadoban has quit IRC
204 2015-10-08T04:43:39 *** jimpo has quit IRC
205 2015-10-08T04:46:00 *** koobs has quit IRC
206 2015-10-08T04:46:49 *** forrestv has quit IRC
207 2015-10-08T04:47:00 *** Goathill has joined #bitcoin-dev
208 2015-10-08T04:48:29 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
209 2015-10-08T04:49:10 *** contrapumpkin has quit IRC
210 2015-10-08T04:49:48 *** agricocb has joined #bitcoin-dev
211 2015-10-08T04:51:22 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
212 2015-10-08T04:51:57 *** forrestv has joined #bitcoin-dev
213 2015-10-08T04:52:43 *** bitdevsnyc has quit IRC
214 2015-10-08T04:52:46 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
215 2015-10-08T04:53:03 *** Guest73396 has quit IRC
216 2015-10-08T04:53:06 *** malduron has joined #bitcoin-dev
217 2015-10-08T04:58:49 *** NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-dev
218 2015-10-08T05:02:26 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
219 2015-10-08T05:12:22 *** neozaru has joined #bitcoin-dev
220 2015-10-08T05:13:46 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
221 2015-10-08T05:14:03 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
222 2015-10-08T05:27:30 *** jimpo has joined #bitcoin-dev
223 2015-10-08T05:30:35 *** Lightsword has quit IRC
224 2015-10-08T05:31:26 *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-dev
225 2015-10-08T05:32:11 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
226 2015-10-08T05:38:16 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-dev
227 2015-10-08T05:46:57 *** jimpo has left #bitcoin-dev
228 2015-10-08T05:47:25 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
229 2015-10-08T05:48:01 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
230 2015-10-08T05:51:47 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
231 2015-10-08T05:51:49 *** snthsnth has quit IRC
232 2015-10-08T05:52:18 *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
233 2015-10-08T05:53:06 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
234 2015-10-08T05:54:32 *** jmcn has joined #bitcoin-dev
235 2015-10-08T05:57:42 <warren> btcdrak: jgarzik: I agree the noise is intolerable, I finally have the call scheduled for Thursday morning, this will be taken care of soon.
236 2015-10-08T05:58:05 *** koobs has joined #bitcoin-dev
237 2015-10-08T06:03:40 *** gielbier has joined #bitcoin-dev
238 2015-10-08T06:03:51 *** gielbier has joined #bitcoin-dev
239 2015-10-08T06:07:59 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
240 2015-10-08T06:10:05 *** Steam_Powered_H has joined #bitcoin-dev
241 2015-10-08T06:11:49 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
242 2015-10-08T06:12:00 *** Guest73396 has joined #bitcoin-dev
243 2015-10-08T06:15:18 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
244 2015-10-08T06:16:18 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
245 2015-10-08T06:16:50 *** NewLiberty has quit IRC
246 2015-10-08T06:18:03 <BlueMatt> zmanian: yea, its a hard call to make...hence why i asked for opinions
247 2015-10-08T06:18:18 <BlueMatt> zmanian: its also informed by the recent all-s-mutations that have been happening on the network
248 2015-10-08T06:18:26 <BlueMatt> plus the upcoming non-standardness of high-s
249 2015-10-08T06:18:34 <warren> upcoming?
250 2015-10-08T06:18:48 <phantomcircuit> note: i am running this on mainnet right now
251 2015-10-08T06:19:00 <phantomcircuit> warren, it's still IsStandard
252 2015-10-08T06:19:12 <phantomcircuit> which needs to be changed
253 2015-10-08T06:19:18 *** moa has joined #bitcoin-dev
254 2015-10-08T06:19:31 <warren> sorry I haven't been following that issue for a while, do we plan on it becoming a consensus rule instead?
255 2015-10-08T06:19:47 <phantomcircuit> warren, yes it's part of BIP 66
256 2015-10-08T06:19:49 <phantomcircuit> er
257 2015-10-08T06:19:50 <phantomcircuit> 62?
258 2015-10-08T06:19:59 *** lianj has quit IRC
259 2015-10-08T06:20:03 <phantomcircuit> it's part of BIP 62
260 2015-10-08T06:20:04 <warren> that's a planned soft fork?
261 2015-10-08T06:20:09 <phantomcircuit> yes
262 2015-10-08T06:20:11 <warren> awesome
263 2015-10-08T06:20:23 <warren> are there other known vectors of malleability after that?
264 2015-10-08T06:20:32 <phantomcircuit> historically we're made things !IsStandard long before a soft fork
265 2015-10-08T06:20:48 <phantomcircuit> warren, that's the last known vector for standard P2PKH transactions
266 2015-10-08T06:22:04 <BlueMatt> its long-term planned as a soft fork
267 2015-10-08T06:22:11 <BlueMatt> but there are no immediate deployment plans
268 2015-10-08T06:22:13 <warren> oh
269 2015-10-08T06:22:21 <BlueMatt> however, its already non-standard on master
270 2015-10-08T06:22:26 <warren> what are the desired 4 things for a near-term soft fork?
271 2015-10-08T06:22:30 <BlueMatt> so next release (incl backports) it will be non-standard
272 2015-10-08T06:22:54 <BlueMatt> warren: all the planned ones are related to locktime
273 2015-10-08T06:23:08 <BlueMatt> malleability may be a good series of soft forks for versionbits, actually
274 2015-10-08T06:23:27 <BlueMatt> just split bip62 into ten softforks and deploy them shotgun-style
275 2015-10-08T06:23:35 <warren> but that later soft fork is only possible after the non-versionbits softfork locks in?
276 2015-10-08T06:23:42 <BlueMatt> and, yes, I'm running the malleate-to-low-s patch on mainnet as well
277 2015-10-08T06:23:42 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, bleh max ancestors should be like 2 not 25
278 2015-10-08T06:23:55 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: more like 5
279 2015-10-08T06:23:56 <BlueMatt> but, yeaaaa
280 2015-10-08T06:24:09 <BlueMatt> warren: yea, but its only a few months
281 2015-10-08T06:24:12 * phantomcircuit goes to change it to 2 on his nodes
282 2015-10-08T06:26:05 <CodeShark_> warren, it's possible to deploy IsSuperMajority softforks alongside versionbits softforks
283 2015-10-08T06:26:21 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, serica/digitaltangibles == colored coins?
284 2015-10-08T06:26:37 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: possible? I dont recall exactly
285 2015-10-08T06:26:50 <BlueMatt> I think it may be, though
286 2015-10-08T06:27:46 <phantomcircuit> k... then im going to be pushing back on that now...
287 2015-10-08T06:28:12 <phantomcircuit> also it sounds like they're doing something hugely suboptimal as some sort of regulator dodge
288 2015-10-08T06:29:47 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
289 2015-10-08T06:30:46 <CodeShark_> +
290 2015-10-08T06:31:30 *** CodeShark is now known as _CodeShark_
291 2015-10-08T06:31:36 *** CodeShark_ has quit IRC
292 2015-10-08T06:31:59 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-dev
293 2015-10-08T06:34:01 *** neozaru has quit IRC
294 2015-10-08T06:34:33 *** wpalczynski has quit IRC
295 2015-10-08T06:38:55 *** wpalczynski has joined #bitcoin-dev
296 2015-10-08T06:40:33 <warren> did we decide what to do about the block version conflict thing?
297 2015-10-08T06:42:21 *** koobs has quit IRC
298 2015-10-08T06:42:25 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-dev
299 2015-10-08T06:43:45 *** Guest73396 has quit IRC
300 2015-10-08T06:45:39 *** moli has quit IRC
301 2015-10-08T06:47:18 *** Steam_Powered_H has quit IRC
302 2015-10-08T06:47:48 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
303 2015-10-08T06:48:25 *** matsjj has quit IRC
304 2015-10-08T06:51:11 *** [hecatex] has quit IRC
305 2015-10-08T06:56:08 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
306 2015-10-08T07:02:11 *** melvster1 has quit IRC
307 2015-10-08T07:02:32 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
308 2015-10-08T07:03:11 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
309 2015-10-08T07:05:27 *** pbase has quit IRC
310 2015-10-08T07:06:47 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
311 2015-10-08T07:09:26 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
312 2015-10-08T07:15:42 *** melvster1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
313 2015-10-08T07:16:01 *** antiatom has quit IRC
314 2015-10-08T07:16:14 *** nivah has joined #bitcoin-dev
315 2015-10-08T07:16:58 *** antiatom has joined #bitcoin-dev
316 2015-10-08T07:17:35 <Luke-Jr> warren: you mean XT? I thought we were just going to ignore it since nobody is mining it
317 2015-10-08T07:19:07 *** gill3s has joined #bitcoin-dev
318 2015-10-08T07:19:21 *** Goathill has quit IRC
319 2015-10-08T07:22:06 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-dev
320 2015-10-08T07:22:51 <phantomcircuit> warren, yeah id say just ignore it
321 2015-10-08T07:22:57 <phantomcircuit> nobody is using or mining on xt
322 2015-10-08T07:28:21 *** nibor has quit IRC
323 2015-10-08T07:29:13 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: naa, theres a block or two now and again
324 2015-10-08T07:29:16 <BlueMatt> but, yea, thats about it
325 2015-10-08T07:30:07 <phantomcircuit> BlueMatt, shrug
326 2015-10-08T07:30:10 <phantomcircuit> irrelevant
327 2015-10-08T07:30:25 <Luke-Jr> BlueMatt: it's less than any pre-softfork block rate :P
328 2015-10-08T07:30:53 <BlueMatt> heh, indeed
329 2015-10-08T07:31:55 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
330 2015-10-08T07:36:49 *** NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-dev
331 2015-10-08T07:38:14 *** Guest73396 has joined #bitcoin-dev
332 2015-10-08T07:38:33 *** Grouver has joined #bitcoin-dev
333 2015-10-08T07:39:33 *** n0n0__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
334 2015-10-08T07:43:58 *** koobs has joined #bitcoin-dev
335 2015-10-08T07:46:07 *** akrmn has quit IRC
336 2015-10-08T07:49:34 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
337 2015-10-08T07:49:58 *** matsjj has quit IRC
338 2015-10-08T07:51:54 *** xiando is now known as zeeandO_o
339 2015-10-08T07:56:30 *** CoinMuncher has joined #bitcoin-dev
340 2015-10-08T07:57:33 *** Nothing0 has quit IRC
341 2015-10-08T07:57:54 *** IAmNotDorian has joined #bitcoin-dev
342 2015-10-08T07:57:54 *** IAmNotDorian has joined #bitcoin-dev
343 2015-10-08T08:00:04 *** tarantillo_ has quit IRC
344 2015-10-08T08:00:20 *** tarantillo_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
345 2015-10-08T08:03:20 *** Palsson has quit IRC
346 2015-10-08T08:10:15 *** malduron has quit IRC
347 2015-10-08T08:12:21 *** Nothing0 has joined #bitcoin-dev
348 2015-10-08T08:13:57 *** Nothing0 is now known as Nothing-
349 2015-10-08T08:15:34 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
350 2015-10-08T08:16:00 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
351 2015-10-08T08:22:26 *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
352 2015-10-08T08:23:05 *** _CodeShark_ has quit IRC
353 2015-10-08T08:23:12 *** CodeShark_ has quit IRC
354 2015-10-08T08:23:26 *** _CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
355 2015-10-08T08:23:27 *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
356 2015-10-08T08:23:35 *** _CodeShark_ has quit IRC
357 2015-10-08T08:23:49 *** CodeShark_ has quit IRC
358 2015-10-08T08:24:00 *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
359 2015-10-08T08:25:45 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
360 2015-10-08T08:26:16 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-dev
361 2015-10-08T08:29:07 *** CodeShark_ has quit IRC
362 2015-10-08T08:29:17 *** StormDev has joined #bitcoin-dev
363 2015-10-08T08:36:39 *** Guest73396 has quit IRC
364 2015-10-08T08:36:42 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
365 2015-10-08T08:36:57 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
366 2015-10-08T08:37:20 *** d_t has quit IRC
367 2015-10-08T08:40:38 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-dev
368 2015-10-08T08:41:35 *** ParadoxSpiral has joined #bitcoin-dev
369 2015-10-08T08:43:52 *** Dr-G2 has quit IRC
370 2015-10-08T08:47:06 *** Steam_Powered_H has joined #bitcoin-dev
371 2015-10-08T08:48:01 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
372 2015-10-08T08:49:22 *** Dr-G has joined #bitcoin-dev
373 2015-10-08T08:51:07 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
374 2015-10-08T08:55:29 *** matsjj has quit IRC
375 2015-10-08T08:58:23 *** Belxjander has quit IRC
376 2015-10-08T09:14:57 *** Belxjander has joined #bitcoin-dev
377 2015-10-08T09:24:10 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-dev
378 2015-10-08T09:29:40 *** one_zero has quit IRC
379 2015-10-08T09:38:02 *** Palsson has joined #bitcoin-dev
380 2015-10-08T09:40:36 *** impulse has quit IRC
381 2015-10-08T09:45:06 *** melvster1 has quit IRC
382 2015-10-08T09:49:09 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
383 2015-10-08T09:49:09 *** esneider has quit IRC
384 2015-10-08T09:50:17 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
385 2015-10-08T09:50:25 *** damethos has joined #bitcoin-dev
386 2015-10-08T09:52:12 *** esneider has quit IRC
387 2015-10-08T09:59:09 *** melvster1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
388 2015-10-08T10:00:08 *** NewLiberty has quit IRC
389 2015-10-08T10:10:40 *** Palsson has quit IRC
390 2015-10-08T10:13:17 *** Guest73396 has joined #bitcoin-dev
391 2015-10-08T10:18:54 *** Steam_Powered_H has quit IRC
392 2015-10-08T10:19:16 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
393 2015-10-08T10:28:45 *** giel__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
394 2015-10-08T10:31:26 *** antiatom has quit IRC
395 2015-10-08T10:31:59 *** gielbier has quit IRC
396 2015-10-08T10:34:36 *** antiatom has joined #bitcoin-dev
397 2015-10-08T10:35:15 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
398 2015-10-08T10:35:57 *** Guest73396_a has joined #bitcoin-dev
399 2015-10-08T10:38:08 *** Guest73396 has quit IRC
400 2015-10-08T10:38:24 *** matsjj has quit IRC
401 2015-10-08T10:38:59 *** antiatom has quit IRC
402 2015-10-08T10:39:46 *** pfallenop has quit IRC
403 2015-10-08T10:44:11 *** nsh has quit IRC
404 2015-10-08T10:47:03 *** c0rw1n has quit IRC
405 2015-10-08T10:47:24 *** c0rw1n has joined #bitcoin-dev
406 2015-10-08T10:49:14 *** RazielZ has joined #bitcoin-dev
407 2015-10-08T10:50:40 *** Raziel has quit IRC
408 2015-10-08T10:51:34 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
409 2015-10-08T10:54:00 *** goregrin1 is now known as goregrind
410 2015-10-08T10:56:40 *** antiatom has joined #bitcoin-dev
411 2015-10-08T10:57:19 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
412 2015-10-08T10:59:57 *** pfallenop has joined #bitcoin-dev
413 2015-10-08T11:01:07 *** antiatom has quit IRC
414 2015-10-08T11:04:46 *** nsh has quit IRC
415 2015-10-08T11:07:35 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
416 2015-10-08T11:08:47 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
417 2015-10-08T11:11:57 *** Guest73396_a has quit IRC
418 2015-10-08T11:12:25 *** sipi has joined #bitcoin-dev
419 2015-10-08T11:14:40 *** dom__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
420 2015-10-08T11:15:18 <dom__> help
421 2015-10-08T11:16:11 *** dom__ has quit IRC
422 2015-10-08T11:20:17 *** _CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
423 2015-10-08T11:20:21 *** _CodeShark_ is now known as CodeShark
424 2015-10-08T11:21:28 *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
425 2015-10-08T11:21:53 *** nsh has quit IRC
426 2015-10-08T11:24:11 *** Squidicuz has joined #bitcoin-dev
427 2015-10-08T11:25:06 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
428 2015-10-08T11:33:18 *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
429 2015-10-08T11:33:33 *** cryptapus_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
430 2015-10-08T11:33:51 *** NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-dev
431 2015-10-08T11:34:10 *** PRab has joined #bitcoin-dev
432 2015-10-08T11:34:35 *** pfallenop has quit IRC
433 2015-10-08T11:36:19 *** go1111111 has quit IRC
434 2015-10-08T11:36:53 *** YOU-G has joined #bitcoin-dev
435 2015-10-08T11:39:34 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
436 2015-10-08T11:42:01 *** pfallenop has joined #bitcoin-dev
437 2015-10-08T11:43:46 *** matsjj has quit IRC
438 2015-10-08T11:46:57 *** Guest73396 has joined #bitcoin-dev
439 2015-10-08T11:47:48 *** CodeShark_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
440 2015-10-08T11:49:10 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
441 2015-10-08T11:51:50 *** giel___ has joined #bitcoin-dev
442 2015-10-08T11:52:11 *** bedeho has quit IRC
443 2015-10-08T11:55:19 *** giel__ has quit IRC
444 2015-10-08T12:02:20 *** nsh has quit IRC
445 2015-10-08T12:06:49 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
446 2015-10-08T12:08:42 *** B0g4r7 has joined #bitcoin-dev
447 2015-10-08T12:13:59 *** Steam_Powered_H has joined #bitcoin-dev
448 2015-10-08T12:15:00 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
449 2015-10-08T12:15:01 *** Beef has quit IRC
450 2015-10-08T12:15:10 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
451 2015-10-08T12:20:00 *** Beef has joined #bitcoin-dev
452 2015-10-08T12:26:41 *** sparetire_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
453 2015-10-08T12:27:37 *** giel___ is now known as gielbier
454 2015-10-08T12:27:44 *** gielbier has joined #bitcoin-dev
455 2015-10-08T12:30:07 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
456 2015-10-08T12:35:51 *** davispuh has joined #bitcoin-dev
457 2015-10-08T12:38:06 *** nivah has quit IRC
458 2015-10-08T12:39:47 *** esneider_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
459 2015-10-08T12:42:52 *** esneider has quit IRC
460 2015-10-08T12:47:49 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
461 2015-10-08T12:48:59 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
462 2015-10-08T12:50:43 *** Palsson has joined #bitcoin-dev
463 2015-10-08T12:53:40 *** dexx has joined #bitcoin-dev
464 2015-10-08T12:54:47 *** dexx is now known as dexX7
465 2015-10-08T12:54:49 *** Steam_Powered_H has quit IRC
466 2015-10-08T12:55:08 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
467 2015-10-08T12:59:12 *** esneider_ has quit IRC
468 2015-10-08T13:00:45 *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-dev
469 2015-10-08T13:02:46 *** won9 has quit IRC
470 2015-10-08T13:02:46 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
471 2015-10-08T13:03:22 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
472 2015-10-08T13:11:03 *** nivah has joined #bitcoin-dev
473 2015-10-08T13:14:25 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
474 2015-10-08T13:15:04 *** harding_ is now known as harding
475 2015-10-08T13:21:05 *** DatBeeDoe has joined #bitcoin-dev
476 2015-10-08T13:21:33 *** DatBeeDoe has quit IRC
477 2015-10-08T13:22:10 *** koobs has quit IRC
478 2015-10-08T13:25:26 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-dev
479 2015-10-08T13:27:54 *** antizionist__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
480 2015-10-08T13:27:56 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
481 2015-10-08T13:28:20 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
482 2015-10-08T13:30:05 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
483 2015-10-08T13:31:49 *** sipi has quit IRC
484 2015-10-08T13:32:42 *** _yoy_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
485 2015-10-08T13:33:01 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
486 2015-10-08T13:36:25 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
487 2015-10-08T13:36:28 *** esneider has quit IRC
488 2015-10-08T13:36:47 *** YoY has quit IRC
489 2015-10-08T13:37:38 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
490 2015-10-08T13:40:53 *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-dev
491 2015-10-08T13:44:20 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
492 2015-10-08T13:46:21 *** AaronvanW has quit IRC
493 2015-10-08T13:46:29 *** koobs has joined #bitcoin-dev
494 2015-10-08T13:46:52 *** malduron has joined #bitcoin-dev
495 2015-10-08T13:47:34 *** ThomasKeller has quit IRC
496 2015-10-08T13:47:51 *** hanti has quit IRC
497 2015-10-08T13:50:59 *** astio has joined #bitcoin-dev
498 2015-10-08T13:51:45 *** billotronic has joined #bitcoin-dev
499 2015-10-08T13:54:53 *** hanti has joined #bitcoin-dev
500 2015-10-08T13:54:53 *** hanti has joined #bitcoin-dev
501 2015-10-08T13:56:20 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
502 2015-10-08T13:57:12 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-dev
503 2015-10-08T13:58:21 *** hanti has quit IRC
504 2015-10-08T13:59:39 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-dev
505 2015-10-08T13:59:59 *** molly has quit IRC
506 2015-10-08T14:00:09 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
507 2015-10-08T14:00:35 *** sporkman has joined #bitcoin-dev
508 2015-10-08T14:00:56 *** hanti has joined #bitcoin-dev
509 2015-10-08T14:00:56 *** hanti has joined #bitcoin-dev
510 2015-10-08T14:02:59 *** sneak has quit IRC
511 2015-10-08T14:03:53 *** sneak has joined #bitcoin-dev
512 2015-10-08T14:06:10 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
513 2015-10-08T14:06:21 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-dev
514 2015-10-08T14:09:42 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
515 2015-10-08T14:09:53 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-dev
516 2015-10-08T14:11:44 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
517 2015-10-08T14:19:45 *** sipi has joined #bitcoin-dev
518 2015-10-08T14:19:47 *** YOU-G has quit IRC
519 2015-10-08T14:22:47 *** damethos has quit IRC
520 2015-10-08T14:27:41 *** esneider_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
521 2015-10-08T14:27:55 *** esneider has quit IRC
522 2015-10-08T14:29:11 *** Hasimir has quit IRC
523 2015-10-08T14:31:21 *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-dev
524 2015-10-08T14:33:56 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
525 2015-10-08T14:34:43 *** TheAdversary has joined #bitcoin-dev
526 2015-10-08T14:34:57 *** matsjj has quit IRC
527 2015-10-08T14:36:23 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
528 2015-10-08T14:37:55 *** Steam_Powered_H has joined #bitcoin-dev
529 2015-10-08T14:39:35 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
530 2015-10-08T14:39:49 *** Palsson has quit IRC
531 2015-10-08T14:40:05 *** nsh has quit IRC
532 2015-10-08T14:44:50 *** Steam_Powered_H has quit IRC
533 2015-10-08T14:44:54 *** davec has quit IRC
534 2015-10-08T14:45:02 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
535 2015-10-08T14:45:39 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-dev
536 2015-10-08T14:46:48 *** davec has joined #bitcoin-dev
537 2015-10-08T14:47:23 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
538 2015-10-08T14:49:11 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
539 2015-10-08T14:51:35 *** Guest73396 has quit IRC
540 2015-10-08T14:54:24 *** OxADADA has quit IRC
541 2015-10-08T14:54:32 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
542 2015-10-08T14:54:57 *** Starduster_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
543 2015-10-08T14:55:27 *** agricocb has quit IRC
544 2015-10-08T14:56:51 *** OxADADA has joined #bitcoin-dev
545 2015-10-08T14:57:00 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
546 2015-10-08T14:57:16 *** Starduster has quit IRC
547 2015-10-08T14:58:38 *** User_2546 has joined #bitcoin-dev
548 2015-10-08T14:58:55 *** OxADADA has joined #bitcoin-dev
549 2015-10-08T15:00:12 *** esneider_ has quit IRC
550 2015-10-08T15:01:07 *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-dev
551 2015-10-08T15:01:35 *** hanti has quit IRC
552 2015-10-08T15:02:12 *** Guest73396 has joined #bitcoin-dev
553 2015-10-08T15:04:24 *** Madars has quit IRC
554 2015-10-08T15:04:35 *** User_2546 has quit IRC
555 2015-10-08T15:08:06 *** JackH has quit IRC
556 2015-10-08T15:08:21 *** gill3s has quit IRC
557 2015-10-08T15:10:16 *** c0rw1n is now known as c0
558 2015-10-08T15:10:22 *** agricocb has joined #bitcoin-dev
559 2015-10-08T15:11:48 *** Guest73396 has quit IRC
560 2015-10-08T15:12:10 *** c0 is now known as c0rw1n
561 2015-10-08T15:12:59 *** damethos has joined #bitcoin-dev
562 2015-10-08T15:15:23 *** Burrito has joined #bitcoin-dev
563 2015-10-08T15:17:36 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-dev
564 2015-10-08T15:18:51 *** IAmNotDorian has quit IRC
565 2015-10-08T15:18:53 *** hanti has joined #bitcoin-dev
566 2015-10-08T15:18:53 *** hanti has joined #bitcoin-dev
567 2015-10-08T15:20:16 *** Madars has joined #bitcoin-dev
568 2015-10-08T15:20:33 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
569 2015-10-08T15:26:42 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-dev
570 2015-10-08T15:28:58 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
571 2015-10-08T15:30:36 *** FredEE has joined #bitcoin-dev
572 2015-10-08T15:36:07 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
573 2015-10-08T15:36:48 *** Emcy_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
574 2015-10-08T15:37:16 *** damethos has quit IRC
575 2015-10-08T15:37:42 *** damethos has joined #bitcoin-dev
576 2015-10-08T15:38:46 *** Emcy has quit IRC
577 2015-10-08T15:40:43 *** matsjj has quit IRC
578 2015-10-08T15:41:59 *** c-cex-yuriy has quit IRC
579 2015-10-08T15:43:30 *** bsm1175321 has joined #bitcoin-dev
580 2015-10-08T15:44:01 *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-dev
581 2015-10-08T15:44:28 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
582 2015-10-08T15:45:07 *** patcon has joined #bitcoin-dev
583 2015-10-08T15:45:33 *** esneider has quit IRC
584 2015-10-08T15:47:25 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
585 2015-10-08T15:47:37 *** tawster has joined #bitcoin-dev
586 2015-10-08T15:48:44 *** treehug88 has joined #bitcoin-dev
587 2015-10-08T15:51:14 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-dev
588 2015-10-08T15:51:37 *** phungus_ is now known as phungus
589 2015-10-08T15:53:29 *** ThomasV has joined #bitcoin-dev
590 2015-10-08T15:56:04 *** moa has quit IRC
591 2015-10-08T15:56:21 *** esneider has quit IRC
592 2015-10-08T15:56:31 *** Elglobonoob has quit IRC
593 2015-10-08T15:56:51 *** Elglobonoob has joined #bitcoin-dev
594 2015-10-08T15:56:59 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
595 2015-10-08T15:57:11 *** Elglobo has quit IRC
596 2015-10-08T15:57:13 *** helpmeeee has joined #bitcoin-dev
597 2015-10-08T15:57:19 *** moli has quit IRC
598 2015-10-08T15:57:30 <helpmeeee> helpppp anyone here uses bitpay insight-api ?
599 2015-10-08T15:57:31 *** Elglobo has joined #bitcoin-dev
600 2015-10-08T15:57:59 <helpmeeee> stuck with orphan block error.... need help with resync from prev block
601 2015-10-08T15:58:04 <helpmeeee> if that's possible
602 2015-10-08T15:58:10 <helpmeeee> tryed this "sudo INSIGHT_NETWORK="livenet" util/sync.js --start 00000000000000000f77c227f84b4e62f3672e29d3d1ed1fd8b61f28c3000f34"
603 2015-10-08T15:58:42 <nwilcox> helpmeeee: I'm not familiar with that API, but I'm almost certain people consider this off topic. This channel is just for bitcoin-core dev.
604 2015-10-08T15:59:10 <helpmeeee> is there a dev for bitpay? already tried on #bitcore no help
605 2015-10-08T15:59:20 <helpmeeee> :( i reindexed bitcoind too
606 2015-10-08T16:00:16 <helpmeeee> nwilcox: does a orphaned blocked cause bitcoind to break.. and one has to reindexing?
607 2015-10-08T16:03:16 *** Elglobonoob has quit IRC
608 2015-10-08T16:03:30 *** tawster has quit IRC
609 2015-10-08T16:03:36 *** Elglobonoob has joined #bitcoin-dev
610 2015-10-08T16:03:37 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
611 2015-10-08T16:04:12 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
612 2015-10-08T16:05:37 <paveljanik> nwilcox, this is generic Bitcoin development channel. Bitcoin Core has its own channel.
613 2015-10-08T16:08:27 *** Goathill has joined #bitcoin-dev
614 2015-10-08T16:11:03 <nwilcox> paveljanik: Oh, I see.
615 2015-10-08T16:11:36 <nwilcox> helpmeeee: If orphaned blocks caused bitcoind to break, bitcoin would not be possible (assuming most nodes are bitcoind).
616 2015-10-08T16:13:31 *** zooko has quit IRC
617 2015-10-08T16:15:11 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-dev
618 2015-10-08T16:17:21 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
619 2015-10-08T16:18:28 <helpmeeee> nwilcox: yup... just wanted to know I wasted hours reindexing bitcoind instead of fixing insight :( thx
620 2015-10-08T16:18:44 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
621 2015-10-08T16:18:52 *** bit2017 has joined #bitcoin-dev
622 2015-10-08T16:19:04 * helpmeeee looks at sky
623 2015-10-08T16:20:35 *** nivah has quit IRC
624 2015-10-08T16:21:17 <Luke-Jr> paveljanik: nwilcox: that being said, *using* APIs is not development topic :p
625 2015-10-08T16:22:20 *** tawster has joined #bitcoin-dev
626 2015-10-08T16:23:26 <paveljanik> it is, but not bitcoin development.
627 2015-10-08T16:23:46 <paveljanik> the Q is, if this channel will be about developing bitcoin or developing around bitcoin
628 2015-10-08T16:24:20 *** d_t has quit IRC
629 2015-10-08T16:24:43 <Belxjander> I always thought this channel was "bitcoin core development" and related materials...anything "around bitcoin" can have its own project channels elsewhere...am I wrong?
630 2015-10-08T16:26:52 *** Palsson has joined #bitcoin-dev
631 2015-10-08T16:27:44 <Luke-Jr> Belxjander: yeah, not Core-specific
632 2015-10-08T16:27:54 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
633 2015-10-08T16:28:08 <Luke-Jr> Belxjander: eg, btcd, libbitcoin, Electrum, etc are fine
634 2015-10-08T16:28:24 *** Sosumi has quit IRC
635 2015-10-08T16:29:12 *** noobfikt has quit IRC
636 2015-10-08T16:29:20 *** ThomasV has quit IRC
637 2015-10-08T16:29:48 <Belxjander> so any "implementation" of a bitcoin client/server but not the APIs for using them ?
638 2015-10-08T16:30:47 <btcdrak> helpmeeee: check your PM
639 2015-10-08T16:30:51 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
640 2015-10-08T16:31:00 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
641 2015-10-08T16:31:09 *** Grouver has quit IRC
642 2015-10-08T16:31:18 <Luke-Jr> Belxjander: basically
643 2015-10-08T16:31:47 <Luke-Jr> Belxjander: the distinction is whether it's development of Bitcoin stuff, or development of unrelated stuff that happens to be *using* Bitcoin
644 2015-10-08T16:34:21 *** Palsson has quit IRC
645 2015-10-08T16:34:44 <Belxjander> bitcoin or use of bitcoin...
646 2015-10-08T16:34:48 <Belxjander> I get the distinction
647 2015-10-08T16:34:54 <Belxjander> it's a layercake thing
648 2015-10-08T16:35:22 <Belxjander> the bitcoin stack or the app on top :)
649 2015-10-08T16:40:02 <ProfMac> Is there a standard directory where people download their gits? such as ~/projects or ~/SF or whatever?
650 2015-10-08T16:40:29 *** robink has quit IRC
651 2015-10-08T16:40:36 <Belxjander> ProfMac: entirely up to you as to where you store what you clone
652 2015-10-08T16:41:50 <Luke-Jr> ProfMac: Projects/Tonal/Bitcoin/
653 2015-10-08T16:41:59 <Luke-Jr> :P
654 2015-10-08T16:42:01 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
655 2015-10-08T16:42:02 *** weems has joined #bitcoin-dev
656 2015-10-08T16:42:03 <coin_trader> any of you guys know how the 'estimatefee' cli/rpc command works in core? and what could cause certain values to fail and report back -1?
657 2015-10-08T16:42:20 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
658 2015-10-08T16:42:23 <ProfMac> Luke-Jr: "Tonal" ?
659 2015-10-08T16:42:25 <Luke-Jr> coin_trader: insufficient balance?
660 2015-10-08T16:42:38 <Luke-Jr> ProfMac: yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonal_system
661 2015-10-08T16:42:46 <coin_trader> Luke-Jr: it has nothing to do with balance
662 2015-10-08T16:42:47 *** weems has quit IRC
663 2015-10-08T16:42:59 <coin_trader> estimatefee is just a cli command
664 2015-10-08T16:43:03 <Luke-Jr> â¦
665 2015-10-08T16:43:20 <coin_trader> something to do with how many blocks the node has 'seen' .. but it is giving me wonky results
666 2015-10-08T16:43:35 <coin_trader> and i dont know if there's some cache file that got fucked and i need to flush it
667 2015-10-08T16:43:38 <paveljanik> help estimatefee: A negative value is returned if not enough transactions and blocks have been observed to make an estimate.
668 2015-10-08T16:43:52 <Luke-Jr> oh, that one
669 2015-10-08T16:43:53 <coin_trader> yea except it gives me -1 for one block estimate, and values up until 24 blocks
670 2015-10-08T16:44:03 <coin_trader> root@node:~# bitcoin-cli estimatefee 1 = -1.00000000
671 2015-10-08T16:44:03 <coin_trader> root@node:~# bitcoin-cli estimatefee 2 = 0.00019771
672 2015-10-08T16:44:09 *** robink_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
673 2015-10-08T16:44:20 <coin_trader> why would n=1 be broken?
674 2015-10-08T16:44:26 <coin_trader> but n=2....24 works
675 2015-10-08T16:44:32 <coin_trader> or at least reports back non -1
676 2015-10-08T16:44:47 <ProfMac> Luke-Jr: Ah. I once made a postscript that printed a semilog chart with 16 division per cycle ...
677 2015-10-08T16:44:56 <coin_trader> but i have other nodes running which work fine and report different vlaues
678 2015-10-08T16:44:59 <coin_trader> so i'm very confused
679 2015-10-08T16:45:03 <coin_trader> (4 nodes total)
680 2015-10-08T16:45:06 <Luke-Jr> coin_trader: insufficient data != broken
681 2015-10-08T16:45:19 <Luke-Jr> coin_trader: has it been running 24/7 for long?
682 2015-10-08T16:45:21 <paveljanik> coin_trader, maybe there was no transaction that got into the block almost immediattely
683 2015-10-08T16:45:21 <coin_trader> fair enough, but if i have data for ETA on 2 blocks, not 1?
684 2015-10-08T16:45:37 <paveljanik> ... after your node seen it?
685 2015-10-08T16:45:40 <coin_trader> luke on 3 nodes i can start and stop and restart and it give values regardless because it's in sync
686 2015-10-08T16:46:00 <Luke-Jr> coin_trader: it needs to observe the network live; syncing after the fact won't help
687 2015-10-08T16:46:05 <coin_trader> the one in question that reports the errors has the most uptime strangely
688 2015-10-08T16:46:15 <coin_trader> t's been over 247 for awhile now
689 2015-10-08T16:46:32 <coin_trader> same issue, whereas the other core nodes seem to report back legit estimates
690 2015-10-08T16:46:54 *** MoALTz has quit IRC
691 2015-10-08T16:47:24 <coin_trader> root@different-node:~# bitcoin-cli estimatefee 1 = 0.00038832
692 2015-10-08T16:47:24 <coin_trader> root@different-node:~# bitcoin-cli estimatefee 2 = 0.00016540
693 2015-10-08T16:47:32 <coin_trader> so like.. what gives?
694 2015-10-08T16:48:42 *** snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-dev
695 2015-10-08T16:48:48 <coin_trader> i'm saying all nodes been interacting and sending transactions for many many hours
696 2015-10-08T16:48:58 <coin_trader> but one is not giving estimatefee results correct
697 2015-10-08T16:49:21 <coin_trader> there is a fee_estimates.dat file, what does that have to do with anything -- anyone know?
698 2015-10-08T16:49:31 *** neozaru has joined #bitcoin-dev
699 2015-10-08T16:51:09 *** Qatz has quit IRC
700 2015-10-08T16:51:42 *** robink_ has quit IRC
701 2015-10-08T16:53:19 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
702 2015-10-08T16:53:28 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
703 2015-10-08T16:53:55 *** brson has joined #bitcoin-dev
704 2015-10-08T16:54:54 *** robink_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
705 2015-10-08T16:59:02 *** kadoban has quit IRC
706 2015-10-08T16:59:19 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-dev
707 2015-10-08T16:59:32 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-dev
708 2015-10-08T17:00:11 *** FredEE has quit IRC
709 2015-10-08T17:02:19 *** molly has quit IRC
710 2015-10-08T17:02:34 *** FredEE has joined #bitcoin-dev
711 2015-10-08T17:04:33 *** Qatz has joined #bitcoin-dev
712 2015-10-08T17:04:48 *** rnvk1 has joined #bitcoin-dev
713 2015-10-08T17:04:51 *** snthsnth has quit IRC
714 2015-10-08T17:08:23 *** rnvk has quit IRC
715 2015-10-08T17:14:41 <maaku> coin_trader: those estimates are entirely node-dependent
716 2015-10-08T17:15:20 <coin_trader> i'm aware - and if i notice that one node is showing me consistently for estimatefee = 1 it's incorrect -1, and other values work... can i copy the dat from one node to another?
717 2015-10-08T17:15:28 <coin_trader> can i delete the dat and have it regenerate?
718 2015-10-08T17:16:19 *** esneider has quit IRC
719 2015-10-08T17:16:32 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
720 2015-10-08T17:17:04 *** esneider has quit IRC
721 2015-10-08T17:19:45 <maaku> sure
722 2015-10-08T17:19:51 <maaku> you won't gain much from it though
723 2015-10-08T17:19:59 <maaku> those estimates get better over time, not worse
724 2015-10-08T17:20:13 <coin_trader> any insight as to why estimatefee 1 would result in -1 and estimatefee 2 would result in valid numbers?
725 2015-10-08T17:20:20 *** trippysalmon has joined #bitcoin-dev
726 2015-10-08T17:20:31 <coin_trader> logic would imply if node can make estimate for 2 node inclusion, surely it can do 1
727 2015-10-08T17:20:43 <coin_trader> so if it's reporting back -1 .... for days...... then i dont know what to do to fix
728 2015-10-08T17:21:23 *** snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-dev
729 2015-10-08T17:23:46 <paveljanik> coin_trader, what options are set in the config file?
730 2015-10-08T17:24:09 <coin_trader> specifically which are you asking for?
731 2015-10-08T17:24:10 <paveljanik> any fee/relay prios?
732 2015-10-08T17:24:20 <coin_trader> minrelay is set for 00002
733 2015-10-08T17:24:25 <coin_trader> htat is all
734 2015-10-08T17:24:38 <paveljanik> ie 2 BTC? per kb? ;-)
735 2015-10-08T17:24:42 *** rnvk1 has left #bitcoin-dev
736 2015-10-08T17:25:26 <coin_trader> err no .00002 :)
737 2015-10-08T17:26:01 <coin_trader> i think default is .00001 so to mitigate the spam BS i doubled it -- but i did that on all nodes and no problems were on those estimatefee
738 2015-10-08T17:26:18 <coin_trader> again, i run 4 full nodes, and only 1 is reporting back the weird estimatefee results
739 2015-10-08T17:26:27 *** Lightsword has quit IRC
740 2015-10-08T17:30:44 *** c0rw1n is now known as c0rw|afk
741 2015-10-08T17:32:26 *** meLon has quit IRC
742 2015-10-08T17:33:38 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-dev
743 2015-10-08T17:36:36 *** supasonic has joined #bitcoin-dev
744 2015-10-08T17:36:42 <btcdrak> well so much for XT's mempool limiter with their nodes dropping off at the same % as the rest of the network..
745 2015-10-08T17:41:46 *** sipi has quit IRC
746 2015-10-08T17:51:52 *** CheckDavid has joined #bitcoin-dev
747 2015-10-08T17:52:47 *** sipa has joined #bitcoin-dev
748 2015-10-08T17:52:49 *** Goathill has quit IRC
749 2015-10-08T17:53:14 *** Dizzle_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
750 2015-10-08T17:53:43 *** Emzy has joined #bitcoin-dev
751 2015-10-08T17:55:36 *** Goathill has joined #bitcoin-dev
752 2015-10-08T18:00:08 *** nsh has quit IRC
753 2015-10-08T18:00:42 *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-dev
754 2015-10-08T18:01:42 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
755 2015-10-08T18:01:44 *** Dizzle_ is now known as Dizzle
756 2015-10-08T18:03:40 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
757 2015-10-08T18:03:43 *** d_t has joined #bitcoin-dev
758 2015-10-08T18:06:09 *** rnvk has joined #bitcoin-dev
759 2015-10-08T18:07:46 *** esneider has quit IRC
760 2015-10-08T18:07:52 *** dstadulis has joined #bitcoin-dev
761 2015-10-08T18:08:22 *** Dizzle has quit IRC
762 2015-10-08T18:09:22 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
763 2015-10-08T18:11:27 *** astio has quit IRC
764 2015-10-08T18:12:11 *** c0rw|afk has quit IRC
765 2015-10-08T18:13:51 *** bedeho has joined #bitcoin-dev
766 2015-10-08T18:14:32 *** helpmeeee has quit IRC
767 2015-10-08T18:15:08 *** esneider has quit IRC
768 2015-10-08T18:16:56 *** antiatom has joined #bitcoin-dev
769 2015-10-08T18:19:41 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
770 2015-10-08T18:22:11 *** dstadulis has quit IRC
771 2015-10-08T18:23:12 *** dstadulis has joined #bitcoin-dev
772 2015-10-08T18:25:28 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
773 2015-10-08T18:26:25 *** noobfikt has joined #bitcoin-dev
774 2015-10-08T18:27:22 *** wumpus has joined #bitcoin-dev
775 2015-10-08T18:28:15 <dstadulis> anyone know if wladimir setup meetbot for today's meeting?
776 2015-10-08T18:28:30 <dstadulis> He mentioned to me last week he was planning to set it up
777 2015-10-08T18:30:00 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
778 2015-10-08T18:30:20 <dstadulis> as a backup, I have a 'Topics to be Discussed' section in meeting minutes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hCDuOBNpqrZ0NLzvgrs2kDIF3g97sOv-FyneHjQellk/edit
779 2015-10-08T18:30:59 <wumpus> dstadulis: nope, no meetbot, we had one in #bitcoin-core-dev for a while but I don't think so anymore
780 2015-10-08T18:31:33 *** esneider has quit IRC
781 2015-10-08T18:32:15 <dstadulis> wumpus any reason not to use meetbot?
782 2015-10-08T18:32:31 <wumpus> no particular reason, except that we have none
783 2015-10-08T18:32:31 *** antiatom has quit IRC
784 2015-10-08T18:32:51 *** ParadoxSpiral_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
785 2015-10-08T18:33:08 *** |Clown| has quit IRC
786 2015-10-08T18:33:22 <wumpus> #startmeeting
787 2015-10-08T18:33:22 <lightningbot`> Meeting started Thu Oct 8 18:33:22 2015 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
788 2015-10-08T18:33:22 <lightningbot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
789 2015-10-08T18:33:26 <wumpus> oh, we do
790 2015-10-08T18:33:34 <dstadulis> :]
791 2015-10-08T18:33:49 <wumpus> #endmeeting
792 2015-10-08T18:33:49 <lightningbot`> Meeting ended Thu Oct 8 18:33:49 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
793 2015-10-08T18:33:49 <lightningbot`> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-10-08-18.33.html
794 2015-10-08T18:33:49 <lightningbot`> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-10-08-18.33.txt
795 2015-10-08T18:33:49 <lightningbot`> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-10-08-18.33.log.html
796 2015-10-08T18:34:07 <wumpus> thought it was not set up here
797 2015-10-08T18:34:32 *** antiatom has joined #bitcoin-dev
798 2015-10-08T18:35:43 *** MoALTz has joined #bitcoin-dev
799 2015-10-08T18:35:44 *** Grouver has joined #bitcoin-dev
800 2015-10-08T18:35:48 *** ParadoxSpiral has quit IRC
801 2015-10-08T18:36:50 *** antiatom has joined #bitcoin-dev
802 2015-10-08T18:38:04 *** molly has joined #bitcoin-dev
803 2015-10-08T18:38:09 *** noobfikt has quit IRC
804 2015-10-08T18:38:19 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
805 2015-10-08T18:40:34 *** btwlf has joined #bitcoin-dev
806 2015-10-08T18:40:59 *** moli has quit IRC
807 2015-10-08T18:41:48 *** Palsson has joined #bitcoin-dev
808 2015-10-08T18:42:10 *** tawster has quit IRC
809 2015-10-08T18:42:21 *** kgk has joined #bitcoin-dev
810 2015-10-08T18:43:35 *** Lightsword has quit IRC
811 2015-10-08T18:44:47 *** nullbyte has joined #bitcoin-dev
812 2015-10-08T18:48:53 <morcos> coin_trader: estimatefee is more likely to return -1 when you ask about 1 block because it is often the case that there is not enough data points to reliably tell you what fee you would need to put on a tx and have it confirmed in the next block
813 2015-10-08T18:49:02 *** belcher has joined #bitcoin-dev
814 2015-10-08T18:49:15 <coin_trader> morcos: please expound upon that theory
815 2015-10-08T18:49:34 <morcos> it determines this by looking at the lowest fee rate over some historical window that has had 85% of txs of that fee rate or higher confirmed in the desired number of blocks
816 2015-10-08T18:49:36 <coin_trader> i do not quite follow how estimate 2 = valid and estimate 1 doesnt
817 2015-10-08T18:49:56 <morcos> it requires some minimum number of data points
818 2015-10-08T18:50:24 <morcos> so suppose by the time it has look at the 100 highest fee txs over the last 2 days, only 84 of them were confirmed in 1 block
819 2015-10-08T18:50:29 <morcos> then it can't give you an answer for 1
820 2015-10-08T18:50:52 <morcos> but would be very rare for of those same 100 txs, less than 85 of them have been confirmed in 2 blocks
821 2015-10-08T18:51:02 <morcos> 100 and 2 days are examples and not the actual values used
822 2015-10-08T18:51:36 <coin_trader> what i'm confused about is that if this requires X data points, it implies to me that the call would return -1 AFTER a certain number - not before and after a valid range?
823 2015-10-08T18:51:51 <coin_trader> i get -1 for estimatefee 1, and then 25 and above
824 2015-10-08T18:51:57 <coin_trader> from 2 .... 24 i get values....
825 2015-10-08T18:52:02 <coin_trader> i am confused at that discrepancy
826 2015-10-08T18:52:07 <morcos> 25 and above it doesn't track stats for
827 2015-10-08T18:52:11 <coin_trader> ohhhhhhhh
828 2015-10-08T18:52:16 <morcos> i suppose it could give the 24 answer for 25 and above
829 2015-10-08T18:52:20 <coin_trader> so it will ALWAYS go -1 for 25 and above?
830 2015-10-08T18:52:23 <morcos> but i didn't change that logic
831 2015-10-08T18:52:25 <morcos> correct
832 2015-10-08T18:52:32 <coin_trader> oh ho well then that'll explain that side
833 2015-10-08T18:52:48 <coin_trader> and now for the -1 you're saying (approx) i need to 'witness' how many tx...
834 2015-10-08T18:52:55 <coin_trader> you say a certain % of 'highest tx' ?
835 2015-10-08T18:52:59 <coin_trader> i dont follow what that means
836 2015-10-08T18:53:06 *** rdymac has joined #bitcoin-dev
837 2015-10-08T18:53:20 <coin_trader> also, does minrelayfee affect this estimate in any way?
838 2015-10-08T18:53:20 <morcos> i think its an average of 1 tx per block over approx the last 500 blocks
839 2015-10-08T18:53:43 <morcos> its an exponential moving average
840 2015-10-08T18:54:03 <morcos> but pretend it was a simple average over the last 500 blocks, it would need 500 txs to have a data pt
841 2015-10-08T18:54:39 <morcos> so it looks at all the txs with fee rate 10M+ and say their are 3, and then 9M-10M and there are 100 more, and then 8M-9M and so on until it has 500 txs.
842 2015-10-08T18:54:53 <coin_trader> i feel you on the EMA and how it requires a set of data for a single point that is the result of a function on the series. i'm just confused why it cant get me value for 1 but it can for 2
843 2015-10-08T18:55:09 *** |Clown| has joined #bitcoin-dev
844 2015-10-08T18:55:20 <morcos> and if its at 4M sat /kb then suppose, it could return that answer if over 85% of them were confirmed in 1 block, and when it does then next 500 down, its less than 85%
845 2015-10-08T18:55:36 <morcos> no minrelay fee will not affect it other than none of your answers will ever be less than minrelay fee
846 2015-10-08T18:56:53 <morcos> its look at the same data points for both of them, but less than 85% of them were confirmed in 1 block, and more than 85% were confirmed in 2 blocks, so it keeps looking at lower and lower fee txs for the 2 block answer until it falls below 85% and then returns the lowest fee that was above 85%
847 2015-10-08T18:56:57 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
848 2015-10-08T18:57:00 <morcos> i think the algo is spelled out in the code
849 2015-10-08T18:57:11 <morcos> i mean in the comments
850 2015-10-08T18:57:12 <morcos> :)
851 2015-10-08T18:57:28 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
852 2015-10-08T18:57:49 <coin_trader> hmm i should probably look over it - do you know which file i can look into on the github and read it?
853 2015-10-08T18:58:27 <morcos> policy/fees.cpp or something approx like that
854 2015-10-08T18:58:36 <morcos> maybe .h for the comments
855 2015-10-08T18:58:46 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
856 2015-10-08T18:58:58 *** Goathill has quit IRC
857 2015-10-08T18:59:18 <wumpus> time to start the meeting, I think
858 2015-10-08T18:59:31 *** nsh has quit IRC
859 2015-10-08T18:59:32 *** moli has joined #bitcoin-dev
860 2015-10-08T18:59:38 <wumpus> #startmeeting
861 2015-10-08T18:59:38 <lightningbot`> Meeting started Thu Oct 8 18:59:38 2015 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
862 2015-10-08T18:59:38 <lightningbot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
863 2015-10-08T18:59:47 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
864 2015-10-08T18:59:47 *** rnvk has quit IRC
865 2015-10-08T19:00:20 *** gmaxwell has joined #bitcoin-dev
866 2015-10-08T19:00:23 <btcdrak> are we ready?
867 2015-10-08T19:00:26 <wumpus> let's start with the action items from last time
868 2015-10-08T19:00:32 *** esneider has quit IRC
869 2015-10-08T19:00:38 <dstadulis> I have a 'Topics to be Discussed' section in meeting minutes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hCDuOBNpqrZ0NLzvgrs2kDIF3g97sOv-FyneHjQellk/edit
870 2015-10-08T19:00:51 <dstadulis> and action items from last meeting are in that link too
871 2015-10-08T19:00:57 <wumpus> yes, thanks dstadulis
872 2015-10-08T19:01:19 <wumpus> #topic Mempool limiting
873 2015-10-08T19:01:24 *** rnvk has joined #bitcoin-dev
874 2015-10-08T19:01:42 <sipa> there seem to be some comments on the proposed reduction of chain limits
875 2015-10-08T19:02:07 <morcos> ok well i think we've pretty much concentrated on 6722 at this point. matt's pull. and it seems to be nice and simple. i haven't reviewed his latest changes yet though, so i don't know that we're 100% there yet
876 2015-10-08T19:02:42 <sipa> my mempool is 2.5G... we better get some solution!
877 2015-10-08T19:02:49 <gmaxwell> We should at least mention the lowS change (and maybe small discussion on backport release schedule.)
878 2015-10-08T19:02:57 <sipa> gmaxwell: ack
879 2015-10-08T19:02:59 *** molly has quit IRC
880 2015-10-08T19:03:04 <petertodd> gmaxwell: ack
881 2015-10-08T19:03:08 <morcos> have others been reviewing it? i'd like to get it merged as soon as possible after its ready
882 2015-10-08T19:03:13 <morcos> perhaps before next weeks meeting
883 2015-10-08T19:03:23 <sipa> morcos: do we have any theoretical upper limits on the iteration counts given certain chain limits?
884 2015-10-08T19:03:31 <petertodd> morcos: I did some review of it, but not enough to say I'd ack it
885 2015-10-08T19:03:37 <morcos> you mean for runtime complexity sipa?
886 2015-10-08T19:03:41 <wumpus> gmaxwell: yes, that can come later
887 2015-10-08T19:03:43 <sipa> morcos: yes
888 2015-10-08T19:03:55 <morcos> the way it works now is it just boots the first package period
889 2015-10-08T19:03:56 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I just meant as a proposed agenda item.
890 2015-10-08T19:04:05 *** c0rw|afk has joined #bitcoin-dev
891 2015-10-08T19:04:11 <sipa> morcos: because runtime performance is what drives the decision to reduce the chain limits?
892 2015-10-08T19:04:19 <morcos> sipa: no, not really
893 2015-10-08T19:04:30 <coin_trader> morcos: thanks on the source file tip - reading now
894 2015-10-08T19:04:46 <gmaxwell> sipa: also long chains bypass fees meaning anything because the tx at the end will never go in.
895 2015-10-08T19:04:49 <morcos> i think run time performance is probably ok with limits as high as 100/100
896 2015-10-08T19:05:25 <morcos> the concern is more that with higher limits you can create degenerate sets of txs that look like high fee rate for eviction and low fee rate for mining
897 2015-10-08T19:05:31 <morcos> so they neither get mined or evicted
898 2015-10-08T19:05:34 <sipa> got it
899 2015-10-08T19:05:57 <morcos> to be quite honest, i'm not sure if 25/25 is safe, but perhaps this isn't the place for that discussion
900 2015-10-08T19:06:02 <petertodd> gmaxwell: re "never go in" is that really true?
901 2015-10-08T19:06:16 <morcos> i think getting limits as small as we can reasonably get is important
902 2015-10-08T19:06:25 *** c0rw|afk is now known as c0rw1n
903 2015-10-08T19:06:28 <gmaxwell> petertodd: with high probablity, at least.
904 2015-10-08T19:06:42 <sipa> petertodd: with the current tx selection they are unlikely to go in fast, which is what matters - i think - if they don't, there's no need for them to be in the mempool yet
905 2015-10-08T19:06:45 <morcos> petertodd: its also important to think about what will be mined using existing code and using code that would do CPFP. CPFP would be way better, but may actually be worse at certain cases
906 2015-10-08T19:06:59 *** Dizzle has joined #bitcoin-dev
907 2015-10-08T19:07:21 <petertodd> sipa: right, so this is because of the current mining node, not necessarily a fundemental problem
908 2015-10-08T19:07:25 <morcos> we did almost all of our attack analysis assuming CPFP mining. we should probably do it again without, but i don't know what we'll be able to do about that
909 2015-10-08T19:07:27 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
910 2015-10-08T19:07:36 <sipa> so, action item: review/test #6722?
911 2015-10-08T19:07:40 *** josiah- has joined #bitcoin-dev
912 2015-10-08T19:07:45 <morcos> yes!
913 2015-10-08T19:07:46 <gmaxwell> petertodd: e.g. (CPFP example is easiest) you have a chain with 10mb of low fee transactions, and a high fee at the end. The collection has high fee rate, but no miner cares, and the tx at the end may well get doublespent first; so they never pay their fee.
914 2015-10-08T19:08:01 <morcos> and help try to get as low chain limits as possible pushed through
915 2015-10-08T19:08:09 <sipa> gmaxwell: CPFP mining would fix that, though
916 2015-10-08T19:08:10 <petertodd> sipa: re: 'in the mempool' I'd expect most of the argument there being companies want to be "messaging" people they're sending funds too, so they see the tx immediately
917 2015-10-08T19:08:27 <bsm117532> Is the current malleability attack due to chains? Or malleability? (see http://motherboard.vice.com/read/i-broke-bitcoin) If the former, we should discuss bip62 as well.
918 2015-10-08T19:08:40 <bsm117532> *is the current mempool explosion due to malleability or chains...
919 2015-10-08T19:08:41 <sipa> bsm117532: yes, we will discuss that
920 2015-10-08T19:08:50 <sipa> gmaxwell: unless the package becomes so large that it doesn't fit in a block anymore
921 2015-10-08T19:08:57 <morcos> the current mempool explosion is due to a low relay rate and no mempool limiting
922 2015-10-08T19:09:00 <gmaxwell> sipa: thats what I just described, 10mb.
923 2015-10-08T19:09:10 <petertodd> gmaxwell: oh sure, but I mean, with lower limits - ie 100, 300 byte txs I'd expect to get mined reasonably fast so long as they had reasonable fees
924 2015-10-08T19:09:11 <sipa> gmaxwell: ugh, i need to learn to read
925 2015-10-08T19:09:14 <morcos> chain limited code still has very large mempools right now
926 2015-10-08T19:09:16 <sipa> anything else on mempool?
927 2015-10-08T19:09:34 <petertodd> gmaxwell: total size I think matters re: "will they get mined", not # of txs, which is just a performance issue
928 2015-10-08T19:10:08 *** Arnavion has quit IRC
929 2015-10-08T19:10:11 <morcos> petertodd: yes total size is a bigger problem than just count of txs, and there doesn't seem to be any push back on that, except to make 100 -> 101
930 2015-10-08T19:10:13 <petertodd> bsm117532: bit62 is still fairly far off I think; low-s fixes most of the issue at least
931 2015-10-08T19:10:23 <wumpus> yes, lows will be next topic
932 2015-10-08T19:10:29 <sipa> petertodd, bsm117532: anything else on mempool?
933 2015-10-08T19:10:34 <morcos> but count of txs is a problem on its own
934 2015-10-08T19:10:36 <bsm117532> According to the above article, the current attack is due to malleating...
935 2015-10-08T19:10:44 <dstadulis> #action review/test PR #6722
936 2015-10-08T19:10:46 <sipa> bsm117532: please stick to topic
937 2015-10-08T19:10:47 <coin_trader> different attack bsm
938 2015-10-08T19:10:58 *** Arnavion has joined #bitcoin-dev
939 2015-10-08T19:11:04 <petertodd> morcos: so I'd think a 101 size limit is fine, and then base the count of txs on measured performance with a reasonable margin (which I haven't done)
940 2015-10-08T19:11:10 <morcos> not just for performance reasons
941 2015-10-08T19:11:24 <wumpus> malleating has nothing to do with mempool limiting, let's not get off topic
942 2015-10-08T19:11:30 <dstadulis> +!
943 2015-10-08T19:11:36 <phantomcircuit> morcos, in general i would say that the assumption should be that miners are sorting on a strict feerate basis for transactions with no dependents
944 2015-10-08T19:11:44 <morcos> its for the ability of the tx to look different when viewed as an ancestor package or a descendant package. the structure of the package can be more complex with more txs and thus more evil almost
945 2015-10-08T19:11:45 <petertodd> phantomcircuit: +1
946 2015-10-08T19:11:58 <sipa> phantomcircuit: how hard would that be to change?
947 2015-10-08T19:12:30 <phantomcircuit> sipa, pretty hard to change
948 2015-10-08T19:12:32 <morcos> sipa: i don't think its impossible to imagine we could have CPFP mining for 0.12, but its a stretch
949 2015-10-08T19:12:49 <morcos> at least as a patch not long after maybe
950 2015-10-08T19:12:51 <sipa> phantomcircuit: if getblocktemplate would return a CPFP-aware set, isn't that enough?
951 2015-10-08T19:12:58 <petertodd> morcos: RBF seems more likely, and it could help negate some of the cases where you want lots of txs in a row
952 2015-10-08T19:13:10 <phantomcircuit> sipa, you'd need to have multiple CreateBlock strategies and then decide which to use based on which has the highest total fees
953 2015-10-08T19:13:20 <phantomcircuit> sipa, it's significantly more effort than it initially seems
954 2015-10-08T19:13:21 <sipa> phantomcircuit: assume that's done
955 2015-10-08T19:13:24 <morcos> petertodd: it has nothing to do with RBF or using CPFP to get txs boosted in priority
956 2015-10-08T19:13:32 <morcos> it has to do with maximizing miners income
957 2015-10-08T19:13:32 <sipa> phantomcircuit: i wonder about anything outside of bitcoind
958 2015-10-08T19:13:46 <petertodd> morcos: I mean, it helps make the argument that a smaller limit to total txchain depth is OK
959 2015-10-08T19:13:55 <phantomcircuit> sipa, the CPFP set aware getblocktemplate is going to have higher latency than the naive strategy for sure
960 2015-10-08T19:14:31 <sipa> phantomcircuit: i'm not convinced about that - i think we can do significantly better than the current GBT implementation
961 2015-10-08T19:14:33 <gmaxwell> There is no reason gbt latency should have anything to do with the time CNB takes.
962 2015-10-08T19:14:38 *** shaul has joined #bitcoin-dev
963 2015-10-08T19:14:42 <phantomcircuit> there's also the issue that mutated transaction in the chain will cause block validation and relay to take longer
964 2015-10-08T19:14:52 <gmaxwell> (because the result can be precomputed and it can return an empty template if thats the best precomputation it has right now.)
965 2015-10-08T19:14:54 <sipa> phantomcircuit: also, CPFP indexing would happen ahead of time, so GBT would only iterate and assemble
966 2015-10-08T19:14:56 <morcos> anyway, improving mining is a bit far off for now. suffice it to say, i think we should consider whether there are crippling attacks with the existing mining code still possible once we have lower chain limits and 6722 merged
967 2015-10-08T19:15:05 <morcos> and if so, maybe we need some short term fix for them...
968 2015-10-08T19:15:05 <wumpus> how can we make progress with mempool limiting? as sipa said, it appears to be getting quite urgent, at some point we have to make a decision about strategies
969 2015-10-08T19:15:07 <sipa> morcos: agree
970 2015-10-08T19:15:12 <btcdrak> morcos: +1
971 2015-10-08T19:15:19 <petertodd> morcos: +1
972 2015-10-08T19:15:35 <sipa> what about those chain limits then?
973 2015-10-08T19:15:39 <phantomcircuit> morcos, yes
974 2015-10-08T19:16:23 <sipa> are there any known use cases where 25 is not enough?
975 2015-10-08T19:16:31 <morcos> lets work on trying to convince the people who are opposed to 25. i'd feel a lot better about 25 than 100. but can't give you a proof why its better
976 2015-10-08T19:16:54 <phantomcircuit> sipa, i dont believe there's any known use case for which 5 would not be enough
977 2015-10-08T19:17:07 <morcos> what do you think about the possiblity that some nodes have low limits and some have high
978 2015-10-08T19:17:22 <morcos> lets say you had a 50% chance of having 10/10 and a 50% chance of having 100/100
979 2015-10-08T19:17:23 <petertodd> sipa: so, an interesting argument re: them, is that senders need to take into account that a receiver might respend an output, blowing up the chian limit; in short they should be able to queue txs for broadcast ontheir own
980 2015-10-08T19:17:25 <btcdrak> yeah, I think the argument was not less than 5, but that 25 is plenty.
981 2015-10-08T19:17:27 <morcos> as a default
982 2015-10-08T19:17:42 <petertodd> sipa: (unless I'm completley misunderstanding this)
983 2015-10-08T19:17:43 <morcos> then attacks dont' cripple relay across the network if 10 nodes are immune
984 2015-10-08T19:17:44 <gmaxwell> morcos: inconsistency isn't great; you waste bandwidth forwardings things that get dropped.
985 2015-10-08T19:17:53 <morcos> and long chains can still be relayed across the 100 nodes
986 2015-10-08T19:18:13 <morcos> gmaxwell: yeah, but the long chains are relatively rare
987 2015-10-08T19:18:29 <sipa> well rare is not an argument for not protecting against
988 2015-10-08T19:18:36 <gmaxwell> ultimately you're setting yourself up for extreme vulerablity to malleability and double spend when you make long chains; so there are plenty of other factors that limit utility of long chains as well.
989 2015-10-08T19:18:42 <btcdrak> morcos: rare unless you're an attacker.
990 2015-10-08T19:18:52 <wumpus> +1 gmaxwell
991 2015-10-08T19:19:10 <dstadulis> +1 gribble
992 2015-10-08T19:19:10 <bsm117532> A chain limit only impacts mempool, not relayed blocks, correct? (otherwise it could cause a hard fork)
993 2015-10-08T19:19:11 <btcdrak> gmaxwell: agreed
994 2015-10-08T19:19:15 <dstadulis> +1 gmaxwell
995 2015-10-08T19:19:16 <wumpus> so, all in all, 25 ought to be enough for everyone, for now
996 2015-10-08T19:19:19 <morcos> bsm117532: correct
997 2015-10-08T19:19:28 <btcdrak> wumpus: ack
998 2015-10-08T19:19:33 *** trippysalmon has quit IRC
999 2015-10-08T19:19:40 <petertodd> wumpus: alright, aack
1000 2015-10-08T19:19:40 <sipa> morcos: if the driving reason for chain limits is to not make mempool selection and mining selection diverge too much... there is no real reason why the optimal value would differ between nodes
1001 2015-10-08T19:19:45 <wumpus> bsm117532: yes, see the topic "mempool behavior"
1002 2015-10-08T19:19:56 <morcos> wumpus: i agree for sure, but maybe we should have some more ACKs on the pull then, a decent number of comments are opposed
1003 2015-10-08T19:20:07 <gmaxwell> If there is too much more debate on this, I'm going to begin advancing the view that we shouldn't relay transactions spending unconfirmed inputs at all.
1004 2015-10-08T19:20:16 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
1005 2015-10-08T19:20:19 <morcos> sipa: diverge under attack
1006 2015-10-08T19:20:27 <petertodd> gmaxwell: long run I have a lot of symapthy for that view
1007 2015-10-08T19:20:29 <sipa> morcos: that's the only thing that matters :)
1008 2015-10-08T19:20:36 <wumpus> morcos: do they mention an actual application?
1009 2015-10-08T19:20:48 <morcos> i'm just saying its ok if we sacrifice half the nodes in an attack.. :)
1010 2015-10-08T19:20:54 <gmaxwell> lets just all take homework to go look.
1011 2015-10-08T19:20:58 <coin_trader> yea with regards to long chains of unconfirmed, i'm ok to pre-split large coin chunks into small.. i feel other service operators can also mod their systems to accommodate this requirement. Kinda sucks, but whatever. it's not too difficult to mitigate
1012 2015-10-08T19:21:13 <sipa> ok, next topic?
1013 2015-10-08T19:21:16 <morcos> wumpus: sort of, i didn't follow exactly
1014 2015-10-08T19:21:19 <morcos> ack
1015 2015-10-08T19:21:20 <wumpus> #topic LowS deployment
1016 2015-10-08T19:21:23 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, I've yet to hear anybody articulate a strong reason for using unconfirmed inputs at all
1017 2015-10-08T19:21:40 <coin_trader> phantomcircuit: it just makes using a default node "easier" for someone with high activity
1018 2015-10-08T19:21:42 <warren> Who is tracking the current topic?
1019 2015-10-08T19:21:44 <coin_trader> that is all i can tell from personal experience
1020 2015-10-08T19:21:52 <wumpus> warren: lightningbot`
1021 2015-10-08T19:21:52 <gmaxwell> Minor OT notice: This issue https://github.com/feross/buffer/pull/81 has made most JS bitcoin software vulnerable to generating incorrect public keys.
1022 2015-10-08T19:21:55 *** nsh has quit IRC
1023 2015-10-08T19:21:57 <btcdrak> wumpus: is there anything stopping us rolling a release almost immediately?
1024 2015-10-08T19:22:14 <wumpus> btcdrak: no, we could do a 0.10.3 and 0.11.1 now
1025 2015-10-08T19:22:17 <dstadulis> Topics listed here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hCDuOBNpqrZ0NLzvgrs2kDIF3g97sOv-FyneHjQellk/edit
1026 2015-10-08T19:22:28 <dstadulis> and lightningbot`
1027 2015-10-08T19:22:31 <gmaxwell> LowS deployment. We've merged the change that makes lowS a standarness requirement. I believe this completely eliminates third party malleability annoyance attacks.
1028 2015-10-08T19:22:34 <btcdrak> wumpus: then I think we should release it.
1029 2015-10-08T19:22:38 <gmaxwell> (obviously miners can still malleate)
1030 2015-10-08T19:22:52 <petertodd> wumpus: a release sounds fine to me
1031 2015-10-08T19:23:00 *** esneider has quit IRC
1032 2015-10-08T19:23:00 <gmaxwell> Measurements show 95% of transactions already conforming; and thats before I went and got several more things to fix themselves (including electrum).
1033 2015-10-08T19:23:14 <morcos> a release now and then another in a couple of weeks for soft-fork
1034 2015-10-08T19:23:17 <morcos> ?
1035 2015-10-08T19:23:21 <wumpus> right, this is about pull #6769
1036 2015-10-08T19:23:22 <sipa> morcos: or for mempool limiting...
1037 2015-10-08T19:23:23 <petertodd> morcos: that's fine by me
1038 2015-10-08T19:23:24 <btcdrak> morcos: sure, why not
1039 2015-10-08T19:23:26 <wumpus> (and its backports)
1040 2015-10-08T19:23:32 <BlueMatt> several people are also running https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/tree/seed, which malleates to low-s on mainnet
1041 2015-10-08T19:23:36 <sipa> i think both mempool limit and malleability are very short term concerns
1042 2015-10-08T19:23:37 <BlueMatt> to counter the guy malleating everything
1043 2015-10-08T19:23:50 *** JackH has quit IRC
1044 2015-10-08T19:23:57 <petertodd> BlueMatt: +1
1045 2015-10-08T19:24:05 <morcos> sipa: mempool limiting is not easily backportable
1046 2015-10-08T19:24:09 <btcdrak> BlueMatt: I'll get one spun up then
1047 2015-10-08T19:24:22 <sipa> morcos: good point - and also much more likely to need fixes post merge
1048 2015-10-08T19:24:28 <gmaxwell> Wumpus backported the change to older versions and we need to decide when to deploy. If we release now we stop the attacks sooner which will make people happier. Though it might be polite to slow roll somewhat due to giving the stragglers time to upgrade. At the same time upgrades take time and as matt just mentioned there is a compatiblity hack that prevents jamming.
1049 2015-10-08T19:24:39 <coin_trader> BlueMatt: LOL that's hilarious :)
1050 2015-10-08T19:25:11 <wumpus> yes, mempool limiting is riskier, whereas the LowS change is straightforward (it was already in the code, it just needed to be made standard), if we want a fast release, then we should postpone that for later
1051 2015-10-08T19:25:28 <petertodd> and mempool limiting can be handled by just increasing the minimum relay fee too
1052 2015-10-08T19:25:30 <morcos> i'm all for a release, but i think it should include CLTV
1053 2015-10-08T19:25:30 <BlueMatt> I'm not as concerned with low-s
1054 2015-10-08T19:25:45 <gmaxwell> So questions are: how comfortable are we with potentially causing blocking of up to 5% of transactions for a short window while people upgrade.
1055 2015-10-08T19:25:46 <petertodd> I don we can handle a decent % of nodes dropping offline
1056 2015-10-08T19:25:56 <btcdrak> morcos: still not enough reviewers on the backports for CLTV
1057 2015-10-08T19:26:00 <petertodd> er, I don't see any reason why we can't handle a decent % of nodes dropping offline, at least temporarily
1058 2015-10-08T19:26:01 <phantomcircuit> possibly the lows change should be backported and we do minor releases for backported versions but not a new major release?
1059 2015-10-08T19:26:07 <gmaxwell> If we do a backport we could increment min relay fee.
1060 2015-10-08T19:26:09 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I would be, if we had auto-malleating-to-standard nodes up all over the place
1061 2015-10-08T19:26:10 <sipa> petertodd: wallets, not nodes...
1062 2015-10-08T19:26:18 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: it's been backported, and right thats possible.
1063 2015-10-08T19:26:22 <petertodd> sipa: I mean re: mempool limiting
1064 2015-10-08T19:26:23 <morcos> gmaxwell: +1
1065 2015-10-08T19:26:27 <wumpus> coupling with CLTV would be possible, although the deadline for that that was scheduled together with CSV for end of this month
1066 2015-10-08T19:26:33 <petertodd> sipa: like, upping minrelay fee quicly stops the attack
1067 2015-10-08T19:26:38 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I'm not a fan at all of rolling out low-s limits today
1068 2015-10-08T19:26:45 <BlueMatt> we can get it on a miner or two
1069 2015-10-08T19:26:48 <BlueMatt> to make the attack harder
1070 2015-10-08T19:26:50 <btcdrak> BlueMatt: why?
1071 2015-10-08T19:26:54 <BlueMatt> but rolling it out on the network....ehhhhh
1072 2015-10-08T19:27:10 <wumpus> also not sure we want to couple it with softforks, to avoid confusion between mempool policy changes and softforks
1073 2015-10-08T19:27:18 <btcdrak> BlueMatt: the attack is so bad it knocked out 1000 nodes
1074 2015-10-08T19:27:19 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ack
1075 2015-10-08T19:27:22 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Yes, another option is to just get some miners on it... has basically optimal behavior. esp as it will allow the l[Dto-ow-S malleators to do their thing.
1076 2015-10-08T19:27:34 <BlueMatt> btcdrak: low-s didnt nock off nodes, mempool size did
1077 2015-10-08T19:27:55 <btcdrak> fair
1078 2015-10-08T19:28:01 <gmaxwell> btcdrak: people on reddit are totally confused and have mixed up the lowS stuff with the mempool flooding stuff. They're unrelated technically.
1079 2015-10-08T19:28:02 <wumpus> again, let's not confuse mempool size with LowS/malleating
1080 2015-10-08T19:28:03 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yea, maybe we should be convincing miners to do low-s malleating
1081 2015-10-08T19:28:28 <morcos> btw, its not really fair to call this mempool stuffing an attack right?
1082 2015-10-08T19:28:32 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: lowS enforcement is very easy to use, as the code has been around forever and requires only a trivial patch to activate it.
1083 2015-10-08T19:28:33 <morcos> aren't these all good txs
1084 2015-10-08T19:28:43 <morcos> they seem to mostly reduce the utxo 100->1
1085 2015-10-08T19:28:56 <BlueMatt> morcos: oh? lol
1086 2015-10-08T19:29:10 <coin_trader> technically this new attack was all 'legit' transactions with over 1 satoshi per byte
1087 2015-10-08T19:29:13 <gmaxwell> morcos: not sure in this case; I'd _assumed_ they were being created with the specific goal of knocking out nodes.
1088 2015-10-08T19:29:16 <coin_trader> but there was just "so many" of them...
1089 2015-10-08T19:29:36 <coin_trader> it's like ddos
1090 2015-10-08T19:29:45 <phantomcircuit> morcos, it's clearly an attack, but yes it should shrink the utxo set
1091 2015-10-08T19:29:56 <gmaxwell> But it's hard to sort out people cheering about the effects vs the intent. Doesn't really matter what it "is", all that matters is what it does. :)
1092 2015-10-08T19:29:59 *** meLon has joined #bitcoin-dev
1093 2015-10-08T19:30:07 <wumpus> whether it's an attack or not, we need mempool limiting to protect against it (but that was last topic)
1094 2015-10-08T19:30:12 <coin_trader> ^ +1
1095 2015-10-08T19:30:16 <phantomcircuit> yup
1096 2015-10-08T19:30:18 <gmaxwell> In any case, is there anything more to say about lowS ? I'll go get miners to run at least lowS enforcement.
1097 2015-10-08T19:30:32 <wumpus> so, deploy new 0.10 and 0.11 release asap?
1098 2015-10-08T19:30:34 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I'd prefer they do malleation
1099 2015-10-08T19:30:42 <BlueMatt> wumpus: ehhhh, I'd prefer not
1100 2015-10-08T19:30:44 <gmaxwell> And we'll not rush a release on that, but lowS enforcement will go out with whatever goes out next?
1101 2015-10-08T19:30:50 <BlueMatt> yea
1102 2015-10-08T19:30:51 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
1103 2015-10-08T19:31:02 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: miners doing just lowS enforcement doesnt help
1104 2015-10-08T19:31:04 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: After you insisted to me that I don't need to review that code... ? :P
1105 2015-10-08T19:31:05 <wumpus> 'whatever goes out next' will be CSV and CLTV softforks likely
1106 2015-10-08T19:31:07 <sipa> of the wallet software that is presumed not to produce lows... does it deal well with malleation?
1107 2015-10-08T19:31:08 <BlueMatt> if a tx is malleated, now they just dont mine it
1108 2015-10-08T19:31:16 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it does, when coupled with other people doing lowS malleation.
1109 2015-10-08T19:31:17 <wumpus> so that will couple it to softfork minor releases
1110 2015-10-08T19:31:18 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: well now I'm changing my tune since I think it may be a good solution
1111 2015-10-08T19:31:29 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: but only if they're direct peers
1112 2015-10-08T19:31:31 <phantomcircuit> sipa, no that's the only reason there's a problem to start with
1113 2015-10-08T19:32:04 <BlueMatt> sipa: there isnt much we can do there :(
1114 2015-10-08T19:32:06 <sipa> well... what is worst to them? no confirmation, or malleated confrm?
1115 2015-10-08T19:32:09 <wumpus> which is ok with me, but as I said above it may confuse people to combine softfork backports with high-porfile other (non forking) changes
1116 2015-10-08T19:32:11 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: Getting people to run unreleased code is a challenge, esp if its non-trivial.
1117 2015-10-08T19:32:29 *** shaul has quit IRC
1118 2015-10-08T19:32:37 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I'm aware
1119 2015-10-08T19:32:39 *** Newyorkadam has joined #bitcoin-dev
1120 2015-10-08T19:32:43 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: they can run it on their border nodes, however
1121 2015-10-08T19:32:47 <BlueMatt> no need to run it on your mining node
1122 2015-10-08T19:32:56 *** rnvk has quit IRC
1123 2015-10-08T19:32:58 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I think at least its similar in kind, in that its a standardness change.
1124 2015-10-08T19:33:02 <wumpus> but ok - no one in favor of doing releases for lows enforcements, so that's off the map
1125 2015-10-08T19:33:08 <BlueMatt> sipa: my point is, if miners are only enforcing lowS and not changing it themselves, it is malleated
1126 2015-10-08T19:33:19 <sipa> BlueMatt: i don't understand?
1127 2015-10-08T19:33:21 <BlueMatt> assuming someone is attacking everything, then it just means delayed + malleated confirms
1128 2015-10-08T19:33:23 <wumpus> gmaxwell: consensus changes are IMO completely different from standardness changes
1129 2015-10-08T19:33:40 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I think we can get 95% of the benefit of a short lowS release via a mix of asking a few miners to apply local fixes.
1130 2015-10-08T19:34:05 <BlueMatt> sipa: if someone is attacking and malleates a tx to highS all over the network, miners who are enforcing will reject it and not hear about the lowS version
1131 2015-10-08T19:34:08 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it means people running updated software (95% of transactions) become largely protected.
1132 2015-10-08T19:34:09 <BlueMatt> others will take it and mine it
1133 2015-10-08T19:34:26 <btcdrak> I agree with BlueMatt, miners should be fixing the transactions as well, it solves a lot of the disruption.
1134 2015-10-08T19:34:26 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: nope
1135 2015-10-08T19:34:40 <gmaxwell> please stop. The code to go and rewrite transactions is not trivial.
1136 2015-10-08T19:34:43 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: only if the miners have a peer with someone who knows the lowS version
1137 2015-10-08T19:35:15 <BlueMatt> that's true...ok, well at a minimum miners who are doing highS should have 1 border node that does rewriting
1138 2015-10-08T19:35:19 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: sure. I don't think this is a huge assumption. Esp assuming the existance of some small amount of lowS converter nodes.
1139 2015-10-08T19:35:20 <BlueMatt> or should addnode my node that does it
1140 2015-10-08T19:35:22 <BlueMatt> or something
1141 2015-10-08T19:35:24 <sipa> i don't think that highs->lows would be hard to add as a patch to mempool acceptance
1142 2015-10-08T19:35:27 <gmaxwell> Sure sure, I can suggest that.
1143 2015-10-08T19:35:27 <morcos> gmaxwell: i have to admit i don't understand how a few miners running lowS enforcement solves the problem
1144 2015-10-08T19:35:41 <morcos> what about the rest of the miners?
1145 2015-10-08T19:35:58 <BlueMatt> morcos: it doesnt solve it, but means you're proportionally less likely to suffer it
1146 2015-10-08T19:36:04 <morcos> yeah ok
1147 2015-10-08T19:36:11 *** snthsnth has quit IRC
1148 2015-10-08T19:36:15 <gmaxwell> morcos: thats the 'largely'. A 'few miners' may mean 75% of the hashpower.
1149 2015-10-08T19:36:27 <gmaxwell> the attack is also not so interesting when its much less effective.
1150 2015-10-08T19:36:32 <bsm117532> A better solution is not to relay highS transactions, no?
1151 2015-10-08T19:36:43 <gmaxwell> And even the remaining hashpower will often hear the lowS first.
1152 2015-10-08T19:36:44 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: bitcoin-seednode.bluematt.me has reasonable relay/maxconnections capacity and is running it
1153 2015-10-08T19:36:53 <gmaxwell> bsm117532: Git master already does this.
1154 2015-10-08T19:37:14 <phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, it would be just as or more effective to do minor releases of the backported lows change
1155 2015-10-08T19:37:24 <wumpus> bsm117532: that is the code that is currently merged in 0.10, 0.11, and master (pull #6769)
1156 2015-10-08T19:37:35 <wumpus> I was suggesting to do a release with that, but people haev other plans
1157 2015-10-08T19:37:42 <gmaxwell> bsm117532: As to backports that will eventually become subsiquent releases. But that alone is not sufficient because it will still block ~5% of all transactions (at this moment), and because it is not in a release version.
1158 2015-10-08T19:37:49 *** JackH has joined #bitcoin-dev
1159 2015-10-08T19:38:05 <phantomcircuit> i dont see any reason to try to target miners
1160 2015-10-08T19:38:13 <btcdrak> wumpus: were there objections to releasing that as is?
1161 2015-10-08T19:38:15 <gmaxwell> I think doing a release that just does that might be okay, but since nodes are actually going offline due to mempool stuff I feel like it's missing the forrest for the trees.
1162 2015-10-08T19:38:20 <phantomcircuit> that's just going to confuse people when their transactions aren't mined
1163 2015-10-08T19:38:22 <wumpus> btcdrak: yes, at least from BlueMatt and gmaxwell
1164 2015-10-08T19:38:36 <phantomcircuit> if they're rejected by a node they relay to at least maybe they'll figure it out
1165 2015-10-08T19:38:50 <wumpus> I prefer clarity too phantomcircuit
1166 2015-10-08T19:39:11 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I am not opposed. I do not think it is essential right now. And I am somewhat concerned about update exhaustion with what might end up being three mandatory updates in short succession.
1167 2015-10-08T19:39:22 <BlueMatt> phantomcircuit: yes, that is why I was saying it must be coupled with each miner who is doing it running a malleate-to-low-s node somewhere so that they dont just reject
1168 2015-10-08T19:39:24 <BlueMatt> but also mine them
1169 2015-10-08T19:39:30 <gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: in practice that isn't how much software works.
1170 2015-10-08T19:39:31 <wumpus> gmaxwell: people can decide for themselves whether to update or not
1171 2015-10-08T19:39:33 <sipa> how about we do backports in the stable branches, but don't release, and instead ask around and look whether the highS wallets on the network goes down?
1172 2015-10-08T19:39:51 <gmaxwell> sipa: we can no longer measure it due to attacks.
1173 2015-10-08T19:39:52 <sipa> oh... i guess with a ->highS malleation going on, that's harder to observe
1174 2015-10-08T19:39:54 <sipa> right
1175 2015-10-08T19:39:58 <wumpus> it is already backported to the stable branches
1176 2015-10-08T19:40:11 <wumpus> the only thing that has to be done is stage a relase (or not)
1177 2015-10-08T19:40:40 *** FredEE has quit IRC
1178 2015-10-08T19:40:42 *** Newyorkadam has quit IRC
1179 2015-10-08T19:40:47 <btcdrak> gmaxwell: I dont think users are going to object to seeing more frequent security/maintenance releases. If anything it would be good PR
1180 2015-10-08T19:40:56 <morcos> i'd vote for doing one release before 12, with lowS enforcement, increased min relay fee and CLTV soft fork
1181 2015-10-08T19:41:03 <wumpus> any other topics?
1182 2015-10-08T19:41:04 <dstadulis> ### TIMECHECK 66% through the meeting
1183 2015-10-08T19:41:17 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
1184 2015-10-08T19:41:22 <gmaxwell> My preference is along the lines of what morcos suggests.
1185 2015-10-08T19:41:31 <gmaxwell> (actually, exactly what he suggests)
1186 2015-10-08T19:41:38 <BlueMatt> I dont disagree, just suggesting that we not rush into it
1187 2015-10-08T19:41:43 <wumpus> ok - target for the releases on 0.10.x and 0.11.x is end of this month then
1188 2015-10-08T19:41:44 *** SteamPoweredH has joined #bitcoin-dev
1189 2015-10-08T19:41:46 <gmaxwell> and a little more delay does give more time for other things to updat.e
1190 2015-10-08T19:41:55 <petertodd> along those lines, I just rebased all the CLTV branches
1191 2015-10-08T19:42:01 <wumpus> then see whether CLTV and CSV make it in
1192 2015-10-08T19:42:04 <dstadulis> wumpus: Next topics: CLTV backport reviews and CSV reviews
1193 2015-10-08T19:42:06 <wumpus> as proposed last week
1194 2015-10-08T19:42:18 <gmaxwell> Basically there are wallet vendors who totally missed the first generation attacks, and the bip62 discussion, and "hey you need to lowS" was news to them..
1195 2015-10-08T19:42:45 <morcos> well i have to say i'm a NACK on CSV for release this month. i just don't think they are settled and ready enough.
1196 2015-10-08T19:42:59 <morcos> maaku, were you considering changing the semantics to save more bits?
1197 2015-10-08T19:43:07 <wumpus> #topic CLTV backport reviews and CSV reviews
1198 2015-10-08T19:43:11 <petertodd> morcos: I was just reviewing the code today, and it struck me that there isn't even clarity on what everything looks like when all three pull-reqs are merged
1199 2015-10-08T19:43:39 <wumpus> I also think CSV is quite risky to deploy on such short notice
1200 2015-10-08T19:43:47 <morcos> petertodd: yeah agreed with that too. and the bug sdaftuar found was actually just an assumption of what would be a bug when the soft fork pulls were created, which don't exist yet
1201 2015-10-08T19:43:57 <gmaxwell> I am concerned that the CLTV sequence restriction violations are currently not quite non-standard. (unless I've missed something)
1202 2015-10-08T19:43:57 <sipa> we can do mempool-only CSV/sequence
1203 2015-10-08T19:43:58 <btcdrak> morcos: there are loads of bits free, set the MSB and remaining 31 bits are free.
1204 2015-10-08T19:44:07 <gmaxwell> er CSV!
1205 2015-10-08T19:44:09 <gmaxwell> (not CLTV)
1206 2015-10-08T19:44:19 <gmaxwell> (sorry, autopilot)
1207 2015-10-08T19:44:36 <morcos> but there are not loads of bits free if you want to keep the CSV and nSequence meaning and yet use some more of the bits for another soft fork
1208 2015-10-08T19:44:37 <wumpus> sipa: sure, but there's no reason to do that in an intermediate minor release
1209 2015-10-08T19:44:41 <morcos> it uses more than it needs to
1210 2015-10-08T19:44:52 <morcos> gmaxwell: it requires increased tx version
1211 2015-10-08T19:44:53 <wumpus> sipa: I'm all for mempool only CSV in say, master, when it's ready to merge
1212 2015-10-08T19:44:54 *** Palsson has quit IRC
1213 2015-10-08T19:45:04 <petertodd> gmaxwell: sequence restriction violations?
1214 2015-10-08T19:45:06 <morcos> i think the semantics should change
1215 2015-10-08T19:45:07 <wumpus> we followed the same for CLTV
1216 2015-10-08T19:45:09 <gmaxwell> morcos: oh derp! there we go, sorry.
1217 2015-10-08T19:45:26 *** afk11 has quit IRC
1218 2015-10-08T19:45:40 <gmaxwell> (I did know that... had just forgotten the implication)
1219 2015-10-08T19:45:41 <GreenIsMyPepper> afaik it's worst-case half the bits available?
1220 2015-10-08T19:45:41 <wumpus> ok - so CSV semantics are n't even finalized yet?
1221 2015-10-08T19:45:42 <petertodd> gmaxwell: OP_CLTV is itself non-standard, so any tx using that behavior at all will immediately be dropped
1222 2015-10-08T19:45:52 <petertodd> wumpus: I would say no, IMO
1223 2015-10-08T19:45:56 <gmaxwell> petertodd: I know, I autotyped that. :P
1224 2015-10-08T19:45:57 <morcos> no
1225 2015-10-08T19:45:58 <btcdrak> indeed, softfork deploymment aside, we can get the mempool PRs for CSV merged.
1226 2015-10-08T19:46:21 <sipa> wumpus: i think the current proposal is final by the author... things can change if there are concerns of course
1227 2015-10-08T19:46:21 <morcos> last i talked to maaku i believe he wanted to change the semantics
1228 2015-10-08T19:46:25 <sipa> morcos: ?
1229 2015-10-08T19:46:31 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
1230 2015-10-08T19:46:32 <sipa> morcos: afaik that's long done
1231 2015-10-08T19:46:44 <petertodd> btcdrak: well... I'm not sure that's a good thing, because it'd make changing those semantics later tricky - CLTV had the same issue, and the plan was we'd pick a new opcode if that happened
1232 2015-10-08T19:46:44 *** NewLiberty has quit IRC
1233 2015-10-08T19:46:44 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
1234 2015-10-08T19:46:50 <btcdrak> morcos: I'm not sure he did want to change, he was just taking on board what you were saying.
1235 2015-10-08T19:47:05 <morcos> he and i discussed on IRC the other day, and he had thought it was a soft fork to change time resolution from 1s to 512s for instance and not the other way around
1236 2015-10-08T19:47:08 <petertodd> sorry, I need to go :(
1237 2015-10-08T19:47:16 <morcos> btcdrak: i agree it wasn't 100% clear
1238 2015-10-08T19:47:25 <wumpus> meeting only has 15 minutes to go
1239 2015-10-08T19:47:28 <gmaxwell> okay, so the takeaway is that this needs to get clarified.
1240 2015-10-08T19:47:31 <GreenIsMyPepper> CSV can similarly use a different opcode, half the bits with nSequence?
1241 2015-10-08T19:48:09 <sipa> CSV is a different opcode...
1242 2015-10-08T19:48:10 <morcos> i think its really close to good, but it just seems a bit odd to me to use 25 bits for time, when we might want to save those for something else later.
1243 2015-10-08T19:48:11 <btcdrak> GreenIsMyPepper: more complex than that, txver=2, msb not set, then the remaining bits are used according to bip68, otherwise all bits are free
1244 2015-10-08T19:48:12 <gmaxwell> GreenIsMyPepper: CSV has an additional constraint, becuase it is both the nlocktime and the checklocktime parts that we're discussing.
1245 2015-10-08T19:48:26 <btcdrak> morcos: ok, let's get maaku to clarify this week
1246 2015-10-08T19:48:34 <gmaxwell> We cannot simply 'use another optcode' to change the nSequence interpertation.
1247 2015-10-08T19:48:36 <morcos> also we should all chime in on what we think
1248 2015-10-08T19:48:40 <GreenIsMyPepper> yes, i mean the nSequence part is more restrained, but the impact w/r/t CSV is similar to CLTV
1249 2015-10-08T19:48:55 <gmaxwell> GreenIsMyPepper: yes, other than the sequence part, the two are almost the same.
1250 2015-10-08T19:49:11 <morcos> if we can save 14 bits of nSequence for further soft forks regardles of time/block sequence type, that seems great
1251 2015-10-08T19:49:12 <GreenIsMyPepper> ok
1252 2015-10-08T19:49:27 <btcdrak> I know a number of people are still making their way through the locktime PRs (3 of them), so we'll get more feedback this week.
1253 2015-10-08T19:49:31 *** shaul has joined #bitcoin-dev
1254 2015-10-08T19:49:34 *** nsh has quit IRC
1255 2015-10-08T19:49:38 <gmaxwell> GreenIsMyPepper: More review efforts from you on CSV would be super helpful.
1256 2015-10-08T19:49:47 <btcdrak> for reference the PRs are as follows
1257 2015-10-08T19:49:52 <btcdrak> Mempool-only sequence number constraint verification https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6312
1258 2015-10-08T19:49:52 <btcdrak> Mempool-only CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564
1259 2015-10-08T19:49:52 <btcdrak> Mempool-only Median time-past as endpoint for lock-time calculations https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6566
1260 2015-10-08T19:49:58 <GreenIsMyPepper> gmaxwell: ok i've been taking a look yesterday
1261 2015-10-08T19:50:05 <GreenIsMyPepper> btcdrak: thanks
1262 2015-10-08T19:50:08 <gmaxwell> GreenIsMyPepper: K.
1263 2015-10-08T19:50:57 <gmaxwell> Can we put my "Minor OT notice" from earlier in the notes. This is an ecosystem threat with the potential to cause millions of dollars in losses that needs higher visibility; though it's not a bitcoin core / bitcoin network issue.
1264 2015-10-08T19:51:05 <wumpus> ok, any other topics to discuss?
1265 2015-10-08T19:51:09 <dstadulis> gmaxwell will do
1266 2015-10-08T19:51:25 <wumpus> we can make it the topic gmaxwell
1267 2015-10-08T19:51:30 *** nsh has joined #bitcoin-dev
1268 2015-10-08T19:51:35 <morcos> jgarzik isn't here i guess
1269 2015-10-08T19:51:46 <morcos> i'd like to make it clear who exactly are the moderators for the mailing lists
1270 2015-10-08T19:51:52 <morcos> and then i can hound them
1271 2015-10-08T19:51:56 <wumpus> if there's more to discuss about it
1272 2015-10-08T19:52:01 <btcdrak> ping warren:
1273 2015-10-08T19:52:12 <morcos> b/c i know there is not another list yet, but there is some stuff that is inapproiate for any list happening
1274 2015-10-08T19:52:17 *** Bird2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1275 2015-10-08T19:52:27 <btcdrak> warren: has a meeting with LF today btw for the new list.
1276 2015-10-08T19:52:29 <morcos> i'm this clsoe to unsubscribing myself
1277 2015-10-08T19:52:43 <gmaxwell> wumpus: I think htere is nothing more to discuss. Common, critical, JS code is broken that may cause the generation of incorrect pubkeys (among other issues). Anyone who cares for a JS implementation should read that PR.
1278 2015-10-08T19:52:47 <warren> Had a call with them this morning. The plan is now:
1279 2015-10-08T19:52:52 <warren> 1) create bitcoin-discuss list
1280 2015-10-08T19:52:53 <btcdrak> morcos: warren assures we'll have the new list this week.
1281 2015-10-08T19:53:02 *** robink_ is now known as robink
1282 2015-10-08T19:53:03 <wumpus> morcos: +1
1283 2015-10-08T19:53:04 <warren> 2) we need to decide who are moderators for that and bitcoin-dev list
1284 2015-10-08T19:53:17 <wumpus> #topic bitcoin-discuss mailing list
1285 2015-10-08T19:53:22 *** Bird2 has quit IRC
1286 2015-10-08T19:53:32 *** Adiabat has joined #bitcoin-dev
1287 2015-10-08T19:53:47 *** Bird2 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1288 2015-10-08T19:53:48 <wumpus> gmaxwell: ok, clear
1289 2015-10-08T19:53:57 <warren> 3) They will also host a new domain name with a static web page simply listing all the lists, list policies and whatever other material we put there. We maintain it in github somewhere with pull requests and they'll auto-publish whatever is signed with certain GPG sigs.
1290 2015-10-08T19:54:13 *** porquilho has quit IRC
1291 2015-10-08T19:54:57 <warren> Previously discussed moderators was jgarzik, elombrozo, johnathan, btcdrak, are we still good with this list?
1292 2015-10-08T19:55:04 <wumpus> thanks for letting us know warren
1293 2015-10-08T19:55:29 <warren> Mailman 2 has the drawback of a shared password for moderators, this will become better in ~6 months when they upgrade to Mailman 3 where each user has their own password.
1294 2015-10-08T19:55:47 *** Grouver has quit IRC
1295 2015-10-08T19:55:54 <wumpus> sounds good to me
1296 2015-10-08T19:56:00 <warren> Should be OK to allow more moderators. We probably should agree on a moderation policy where mod actions identify who did it, otherwise there's no transparency?
1297 2015-10-08T19:56:08 <GreenIsMyPepper> has there been general guidelines on what will be ontopic on bitcoin-discuss? is economics-politics ontopic for instance?
1298 2015-10-08T19:56:25 <warren> I nominate GreenIsMyPepper as another moderator.
1299 2015-10-08T19:56:39 <btcdrak> warren: it's important moderators act with one voice. If mod A bans user B, then mod C should not undo that unilaterally
1300 2015-10-08T19:56:56 <warren> how about we have a separate meeting to discuss the list and moderation policy
1301 2015-10-08T19:57:02 <warren> don't need to spend time here
1302 2015-10-08T19:57:13 <wumpus> this meeting is about to end
1303 2015-10-08T19:57:18 <btcdrak> warren: agreed.
1304 2015-10-08T19:57:30 <warren> who else should be moderator?
1305 2015-10-08T19:57:50 <warren> this decision need not be made now
1306 2015-10-08T19:57:53 <wumpus> but I think we discussed everything there was to do, so that's good
1307 2015-10-08T19:58:24 <warren> Could a few of the devs agree to join the moderator meeting because it is about agreeing on list policy?
1308 2015-10-08T19:58:25 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
1309 2015-10-08T19:58:29 <wumpus> I don't know much about moderating mailinglists, but isn't this enough moderators for now?
1310 2015-10-08T19:58:45 <wumpus> too many will be like headless chickens
1311 2015-10-08T19:58:46 <warren> Sure, I'm more concerned that a few devs join the policy setting meeting.
1312 2015-10-08T19:59:03 <warren> Let the moderators implement the policy that is set and written down.
1313 2015-10-08T19:59:17 <wumpus> I'm fine with attending, depending on when it is
1314 2015-10-08T19:59:18 <morcos> you have several devs in your list
1315 2015-10-08T19:59:35 <warren> what time is good tomorrow for a list policy discussion meeting?
1316 2015-10-08T19:59:48 <btcdrak> I'll come whatever the time.
1317 2015-10-08T20:00:26 <warren> I propose same time tomorrow for the list policy meeting.
1318 2015-10-08T20:00:27 *** afk11 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1319 2015-10-08T20:00:34 <morcos> oh i have one quick additional top
1320 2015-10-08T20:00:34 <warren> Is that bad for anyone?
1321 2015-10-08T20:00:43 <wumpus> hmm I don't like meetings on friday evenings
1322 2015-10-08T20:00:53 <warren> would you rather do this Monday?
1323 2015-10-08T20:01:16 <wumpus> yes, absolutely, but never mind me
1324 2015-10-08T20:01:36 <morcos> oh hm, petertodd left already, but i saw hes talking about resurrecting RBF again and I wanted to know what the status of opt-in RBF was. are there any objections to that method of moving forward? isn't it strictly superior?
1325 2015-10-08T20:01:38 <warren> ok Monday same time for list policy meeting, move on.
1326 2015-10-08T20:01:43 <wumpus> #endmeeting
1327 2015-10-08T20:01:43 <lightningbot`> Meeting ended Thu Oct 8 20:01:43 2015 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
1328 2015-10-08T20:01:43 <lightningbot`> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-10-08-18.59.html
1329 2015-10-08T20:01:43 <lightningbot`> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-10-08-18.59.txt
1330 2015-10-08T20:01:43 <lightningbot`> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-10-08-18.59.log.html
1331 2015-10-08T20:02:01 *** FredEE has joined #bitcoin-dev
1332 2015-10-08T20:02:03 *** cryptapus_ has quit IRC
1333 2015-10-08T20:03:49 <btcdrak> looks like we missed a few actionable items with meetbot, better luck next time
1334 2015-10-08T20:04:58 <gmaxwell> morcos: I have the impression that opt in RBF solves problems that PT doesn't much care about, and some of us that care more may need to put some more gas behind it.
1335 2015-10-08T20:05:58 <morcos> gmaxwell: ok, i mean i understand why he didn't love FSS-RBF, but i'm not sure i even know what the downside is of opt-in. but i dont' remember the technical specifics, how do you specify opt-in
1336 2015-10-08T20:06:42 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
1337 2015-10-08T20:06:51 <morcos> ha, an nSequence bit
1338 2015-10-08T20:09:15 *** moa has joined #bitcoin-dev
1339 2015-10-08T20:10:10 <nwilcox> Is this meeting every Thursday from 19:00-20:00 UTC ?
1340 2015-10-08T20:10:40 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
1341 2015-10-08T20:11:30 *** blackjid has quit IRC
1342 2015-10-08T20:11:55 *** blackjid has joined #bitcoin-dev
1343 2015-10-08T20:11:56 *** shaul has quit IRC
1344 2015-10-08T20:12:25 *** giel__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1345 2015-10-08T20:12:32 <dstadulis> yes
1346 2015-10-08T20:12:36 <dstadulis> nwilcox yes
1347 2015-10-08T20:12:44 *** damethos has quit IRC
1348 2015-10-08T20:13:57 <morcos> hmm so i guess he was thinking everything non-maxint as opt'ing in to RBF. so in particular you couldn't use the CSV and nSequence functionality and prevent RBF. but you're likely doing some replacement anyway in that case, i guess that seems pretty reasonable to me
1349 2015-10-08T20:14:09 <morcos> mabye that is what he's planning on doing now?
1350 2015-10-08T20:14:35 <warren> I'm creating a meeting invite for Monday, PM me your address if you want the meeting invite.
1351 2015-10-08T20:14:36 *** damethos has joined #bitcoin-dev
1352 2015-10-08T20:14:45 <warren> Otherwise just show up Monday at 19:00 UTC
1353 2015-10-08T20:15:00 *** blackjid has quit IRC
1354 2015-10-08T20:15:23 *** blackjid has joined #bitcoin-dev
1355 2015-10-08T20:15:30 *** gielbier has quit IRC
1356 2015-10-08T20:15:42 *** snthsnth has joined #bitcoin-dev
1357 2015-10-08T20:17:36 *** InternetFriend has joined #bitcoin-dev
1358 2015-10-08T20:18:29 *** blackjid has quit IRC
1359 2015-10-08T20:18:56 *** blackjid has joined #bitcoin-dev
1360 2015-10-08T20:23:15 *** adam3us has quit IRC
1361 2015-10-08T20:24:22 *** damethos has quit IRC
1362 2015-10-08T20:25:21 *** nibor has joined #bitcoin-dev
1363 2015-10-08T20:29:07 *** dstadulis has quit IRC
1364 2015-10-08T20:30:01 *** neozaru_ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1365 2015-10-08T20:30:29 *** dstadulis has joined #bitcoin-dev
1366 2015-10-08T20:30:41 *** neozaru_ has quit IRC
1367 2015-10-08T20:30:50 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
1368 2015-10-08T20:36:00 *** matsjj has quit IRC
1369 2015-10-08T20:36:53 *** zooko has joined #bitcoin-dev
1370 2015-10-08T20:38:40 *** dstadulis has quit IRC
1371 2015-10-08T20:38:40 *** Bird2 has quit IRC
1372 2015-10-08T20:39:21 *** esneider has quit IRC
1373 2015-10-08T20:41:39 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
1374 2015-10-08T20:42:00 *** CoinMuncher has quit IRC
1375 2015-10-08T20:44:13 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
1376 2015-10-08T20:44:42 *** esneider has quit IRC
1377 2015-10-08T20:45:25 *** Yoghur114 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1378 2015-10-08T20:45:55 *** NewLiberty has joined #bitcoin-dev
1379 2015-10-08T20:46:12 *** Adiabat has quit IRC
1380 2015-10-08T20:46:54 *** FredEE has quit IRC
1381 2015-10-08T20:47:48 *** InternetFriend has quit IRC
1382 2015-10-08T20:52:07 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-dev
1383 2015-10-08T20:52:08 *** treehug88 has quit IRC
1384 2015-10-08T20:52:42 *** josiah- has quit IRC
1385 2015-10-08T20:54:22 *** c-cex-yuriy has joined #bitcoin-dev
1386 2015-10-08T20:54:36 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
1387 2015-10-08T20:55:37 *** sipa has left #bitcoin-dev
1388 2015-10-08T20:56:01 *** CodeShark has quit IRC
1389 2015-10-08T20:57:53 *** neozaru has quit IRC
1390 2015-10-08T21:00:31 *** snthsnth has quit IRC
1391 2015-10-08T21:02:44 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-dev
1392 2015-10-08T21:04:04 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
1393 2015-10-08T21:04:22 *** antiatom has quit IRC
1394 2015-10-08T21:05:11 *** antiatom has joined #bitcoin-dev
1395 2015-10-08T21:05:30 *** FredEE has joined #bitcoin-dev
1396 2015-10-08T21:06:46 *** moa has quit IRC
1397 2015-10-08T21:07:29 *** astio has joined #bitcoin-dev
1398 2015-10-08T21:08:43 *** astio has left #bitcoin-dev
1399 2015-10-08T21:09:05 *** CodeShark has joined #bitcoin-dev
1400 2015-10-08T21:10:18 <maaku> morcos: as far as I'm aware the only downside is burning bits
1401 2015-10-08T21:11:10 <CodeShark> I apologize for missing the weekly dev meeting
1402 2015-10-08T21:11:25 <morcos> maaku: didn't mean to put any words in your mouth about BIP 68, but were you considering a change to the semantics?
1403 2015-10-08T21:13:20 <morcos> it seems to me it would be easier to address critcisms like petertodds about whether or not its a good ides to use our nSequence bits for CSV, if we weren't using as many...
1404 2015-10-08T21:13:38 <maaku> morcos: you convinced me that my reason for insisting on 1s granularity, as I did on the mailing list, was flawed
1405 2015-10-08T21:14:14 <maaku> so that leaves me as indifferent. i kinds wanted to feel out other people's opinions on this before making the change, but it seems like that wasn't settled in the meeting
1406 2015-10-08T21:14:32 <morcos> yeah i don't think other people seemed aware of our discussion, other than btcdrak
1407 2015-10-08T21:14:37 *** rnvk has joined #bitcoin-dev
1408 2015-10-08T21:15:05 <CodeShark> regarding RCLTV, isn't it possible to implement it by checking against the block height or block median time directly?
1409 2015-10-08T21:15:34 <morcos> i think the other question is if we were to make a change, does it make sense to move the 17 bits used by BIP68 to be the low order 17 bits completely
1410 2015-10-08T21:15:40 *** rnvk has left #bitcoin-dev
1411 2015-10-08T21:16:01 <morcos> i guess that would be kind of annoying if we wanted to go to finer time granularity, but certainly doable
1412 2015-10-08T21:16:07 <maaku> CodeShark: that approach is extremely suboptimal because you need to do full script validation to know the validity conditions for the script
1413 2015-10-08T21:16:34 <maaku> the BIP 68 approach you simply look at the transaction and know, same as with nLockTime
1414 2015-10-08T21:17:14 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
1415 2015-10-08T21:17:47 <CodeShark> hmm...I see
1416 2015-10-08T21:17:53 <maaku> It's an interesting property of bitcoin that aside from double-spend, a transaction can be fully validated without block chain context. it would be a shame to break that
1417 2015-10-08T21:18:17 <morcos> maaku: but isn't that broken by needing the blockheights of the inputs?
1418 2015-10-08T21:18:32 *** FredEE has quit IRC
1419 2015-10-08T21:19:04 <maaku> morcos: in the same way that nLockTime is broken by needing the block height / time of the enclosing block
1420 2015-10-08T21:19:30 <CodeShark> I think it's an interesting property...but not necessarily a good one
1421 2015-10-08T21:19:41 <CodeShark> having access to more context makes scripts a lot more powerful
1422 2015-10-08T21:19:50 <maaku> CodeShark: ? it has definate advantages
1423 2015-10-08T21:19:50 <morcos> ok similar way i guess., but a bit more invasive
1424 2015-10-08T21:19:57 <maaku> you only need run script validation -once-
1425 2015-10-08T21:20:12 <maaku> even if the transaction is currently locked, it will finish script execution
1426 2015-10-08T21:21:13 <morcos> yeah so thats the difference right
1427 2015-10-08T21:21:29 <morcos> to verify locktime after script validation, you only need to look at one field
1428 2015-10-08T21:21:30 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: it's possible but it makes script validity no longer a function of the transaction, which means that e.g. mempool state must be able to invalidate script validity.
1429 2015-10-08T21:21:41 *** Soligor has quit IRC
1430 2015-10-08T21:21:46 <morcos> well, i guess you still don't need to look at the scripts for BIP68
1431 2015-10-08T21:22:20 *** billotronic has quit IRC
1432 2015-10-08T21:22:43 <morcos> gmaxwell: do you have any opinion on the different ways bits could be used in BIP68
1433 2015-10-08T21:23:03 *** Emzy has quit IRC
1434 2015-10-08T21:23:20 *** zooko has quit IRC
1435 2015-10-08T21:23:21 *** Emzy has joined #bitcoin-dev
1436 2015-10-08T21:23:46 *** Nothing- is now known as Nothing0
1437 2015-10-08T21:24:03 <morcos> i apologize if i'm rehashing old discussions... but it seems that the biggest outstanding objection to all the CSV related pulls is their use of nSequence bits, so why not make that as minimal as possible.
1438 2015-10-08T21:24:23 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: the mempool issues could be resolved by considering the best known height and median time, no?
1439 2015-10-08T21:25:40 *** IAmNotDorian has joined #bitcoin-dev
1440 2015-10-08T21:25:40 *** IAmNotDorian has joined #bitcoin-dev
1441 2015-10-08T21:26:00 *** skyzer has joined #bitcoin-dev
1442 2015-10-08T21:26:09 <CodeShark> or the estimated height and median time when the transaction will confirm
1443 2015-10-08T21:26:32 <CodeShark> the mempool-only BIP68 already does that, no?
1444 2015-10-08T21:27:01 <gmaxwell> It's an architectural question. Script is a digital signature system, the signatures return true if the data under the signature is acceptable. The data being signed in the transaction. The validity of a signature is a pure function. (and, e.g. can be cached).
1445 2015-10-08T21:27:07 <maaku> I would appreciate someone chiming in about whether to use 1s or 512s granularity for BIP 68
1446 2015-10-08T21:27:18 *** arowser has quit IRC
1447 2015-10-08T21:27:47 <gmaxwell> In the case of CLTV this allowed us to be very confident about the safty and correctness of the design... as absolutely no changes to mempool management was needed, because nothing changed there.. it's just nlocktime.
1448 2015-10-08T21:28:14 *** arowser has joined #bitcoin-dev
1449 2015-10-08T21:28:20 <CodeShark> maaku: I think getting out the door with CSV is sufficiently important and urgent that I don't want to hold it up much longer. but I'm thinking that in the future we might find another mechanism that does not require the nSequence field at which time we can deprecate CSV and recover 31 bits
1450 2015-10-08T21:29:24 <btcdrak> maaku, it's really not worth getting stuck on. I'd go for 512s given blocktimes are so long anyhow.
1451 2015-10-08T21:29:29 <CodeShark> I understand the safety concerns regarding bigger changes to script validation
1452 2015-10-08T21:29:51 <CodeShark> I'm just questioning whether the limitations we currently have are fundamental or just due to the way it's implemented
1453 2015-10-08T21:30:06 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I think it's a good design, even ignoring the software.
1454 2015-10-08T21:30:18 <gmaxwell> As, e.g. it allows fully caching script results (though we do not today)
1455 2015-10-08T21:30:43 <gmaxwell> and doing so in a way which is safeish.
1456 2015-10-08T21:30:47 <maaku> CodeShark: FWIW morcos showed me that 512s granularity is the more permissive choice
1457 2015-10-08T21:31:44 <CodeShark> our time resolution is horrible anyhow :p
1458 2015-10-08T21:32:06 *** FredEE has joined #bitcoin-dev
1459 2015-10-08T21:32:15 <CodeShark> and we can always increase precision, right?
1460 2015-10-08T21:32:18 <CodeShark> but not decrease
1461 2015-10-08T21:33:41 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: setting aside performance optimization issues for a moment, the most general approach to these issues seems to be op codes that push block header information into scripts
1462 2015-10-08T21:33:58 <morcos> yes my vote is to set the highest 15 bits to 0 to indicate BIP 68 view of nSequence valididy. 16th highest bit distinguishes between block and time sequence type, and the 2 low order bytes encode the sequence number (as a multiple of 512 seconds for time)
1463 2015-10-08T21:34:01 <CodeShark> we also need to worry about reorgs, but I think that could be handled
1464 2015-10-08T21:34:32 <CodeShark> also, we can't strictly push onto the stack with a NO_OP
1465 2015-10-08T21:34:35 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: _push_ information into scripts is really a very bad divergence from the computational model as "scripts are verification, a digital signature system, and not a programming language"
1466 2015-10-08T21:35:00 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: the satoshi script sure looks like a programming language ;)
1467 2015-10-08T21:35:20 <CodeShark> a low level one, but a language nonetheless
1468 2015-10-08T21:35:30 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: it doesn't, in a lot of ways. It's just commonly misunderstood, that way by those less familar with other things.
1469 2015-10-08T21:35:38 <gmaxwell> it's not that script isn't programming.
1470 2015-10-08T21:35:57 <gmaxwell> It's that _script in the network_ isn't computation. It's verification. The signer did the computation, we're all just checking that they did it right.
1471 2015-10-08T21:36:16 <CodeShark> yes understood - we're not trying to do what ethereum is trying to di
1472 2015-10-08T21:36:17 <CodeShark> *do
1473 2015-10-08T21:36:23 <gmaxwell> And without that model you can't really fit in things like MAST, (or SNARKS, for that model)
1474 2015-10-08T21:36:57 *** n0n0__ has quit IRC
1475 2015-10-08T21:37:01 <gmaxwell> and handing it the pure way is what does things like makes batch EC verification possible.
1476 2015-10-08T21:37:12 *** matsjj has joined #bitcoin-dev
1477 2015-10-08T21:38:35 <CodeShark> but CHECKSIG already does require greater context, no?
1478 2015-10-08T21:38:53 <CodeShark> it must hash other parts of the transaction
1479 2015-10-08T21:39:39 <CodeShark> it doesn't require block context
1480 2015-10-08T21:39:47 <CodeShark> but it still requires data outside the script itself
1481 2015-10-08T21:39:48 *** giel__ is now known as gielbier
1482 2015-10-08T21:39:49 *** gielbier has joined #bitcoin-dev
1483 2015-10-08T21:39:51 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: The limit of the context is the transaction. Nothing has access outside of that today.
1484 2015-10-08T21:40:20 <morcos> maaku: i have to run for now. i could respond to the mailing list with my thoughts, but i didn't want to start conversation on a whole different tangent if its not a popular direction to go. do you have an opinion on making the high order bits the unused ones?
1485 2015-10-08T21:40:22 <CodeShark> but also taking the block context into account doesn't seem like that big of a stretch (other than mempool issues)
1486 2015-10-08T21:40:29 <gmaxwell> Also, if you ignore double spends, bitcoin works without blocks.
1487 2015-10-08T21:40:34 <CodeShark> lol
1488 2015-10-08T21:40:49 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: its a big streach in that it constantly changes, as blocks show up, and isn't controlled by the signer.
1489 2015-10-08T21:41:04 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: don't laugh, that fact is also part of what makes lightning possible. :)
1490 2015-10-08T21:41:41 *** matsjj has quit IRC
1491 2015-10-08T21:42:10 <CodeShark> well, lightning still requires proving the anchors are not double-spends (or that the outputs even exist in the first place, for that matter)
1492 2015-10-08T21:42:49 <nwilcox> Why isn't BIP 65 in the Accepted state?
1493 2015-10-08T21:43:23 *** n0n0__ has joined #bitcoin-dev
1494 2015-10-08T21:43:24 <gmaxwell> nwilcox: because its not widely deployed in the network.
1495 2015-10-08T21:43:58 <gmaxwell> nwilcox: BIP acceptance means something is a defacto standard.
1496 2015-10-08T21:45:11 *** Emzy has quit IRC
1497 2015-10-08T21:45:21 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: I understand that adding more context to scripts can significantly complicate matters - I just wonder whether it might eventually be possible to overcome these obstacles somehow since it could potentially make scripts a lot more powerful. and yes, I understand we don't want to think of scripts as a general purpose programming language
1498 2015-10-08T21:45:38 <gmaxwell> I think it makes them a lot less powerful, actually.
1499 2015-10-08T21:46:37 *** IAmNotDorian has quit IRC
1500 2015-10-08T21:46:43 <CodeShark> gmaxwell, consider hypothetically an OP CODE that pushes the current block height onto the stack
1501 2015-10-08T21:47:00 <CodeShark> and ignore the reorg issues for a moment
1502 2015-10-08T21:47:18 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: is of negative value compared to an op code that takes the height as an input and an opcode that verifies the agreement.
1503 2015-10-08T21:47:34 <nwilcox> gmaxwell: In that case it's too bad the BIP format doesn't require a "deployment status".
1504 2015-10-08T21:47:51 <nwilcox> What I want to know is "how likely is it that BIP 65 will become a well-adopted standard"?
1505 2015-10-08T21:48:00 <CodeShark> hight
1506 2015-10-08T21:48:07 <CodeShark> err
1507 2015-10-08T21:48:12 <CodeShark> high likelihood
1508 2015-10-08T21:48:12 *** btc_panhandler has joined #bitcoin-dev
1509 2015-10-08T21:48:17 <gmaxwell> nwilcox: the BIP can't tell you that regardless. :) (plus its authors are the wrong people to ask, most likely!)
1510 2015-10-08T21:48:21 <nwilcox> And I guess well-adopted here means accepted by majority miners. ;-)
1511 2015-10-08T21:49:17 <CodeShark> gmaxwell, an opcode that verifies the agreement can force the inequality to only work in one direction...so it can help address some of the reorg issues, I suppose
1512 2015-10-08T21:49:51 <CodeShark> but in principle we could still support an inequality in the other direction and just require maturity of 100
1513 2015-10-08T21:50:03 <CodeShark> to get around reorg issues
1514 2015-10-08T21:50:18 <nwilcox> CodeShark: The BIP says "Upgrade / Testing Plan: TBD"...
1515 2015-10-08T21:50:30 <CodeShark> nwilcox: it still has not been deployed
1516 2015-10-08T21:50:43 <nwilcox> Is there a known soft-fork signaling mechanism for it, or is that blocked on softfork signaling improvements?
1517 2015-10-08T21:50:56 *** aidanh has quit IRC
1518 2015-10-08T21:50:59 <CodeShark> the trigger is practically in the code already...just a couple more lines of code and it's off
1519 2015-10-08T21:51:35 <nwilcox> CodeShark: Ok, thanks.
1520 2015-10-08T21:52:06 *** tantalum has quit IRC
1521 2015-10-08T21:52:28 *** aidanh has joined #bitcoin-dev
1522 2015-10-08T21:52:34 <nwilcox> So is there no place in the BIP format to mention that? (If not, what's the purpose of the Upgrade Plan section?)
1523 2015-10-08T21:52:35 *** Soligor has joined #bitcoin-dev
1524 2015-10-08T21:53:04 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: it's not even a question of directionality, it's a question of the script being verification of computation the signer performed vs random code execution.. and script validity being a pure, cachable, function on the transaction... that it be veriable in arbritary order etc.
1525 2015-10-08T21:54:05 <gmaxwell> (I mean, reorg safty is good too.)
1526 2015-10-08T21:55:07 <maaku> morcos: I prefer using the high order bits for relative lock-time because that lets the unused bits harmlessly pass through CSV for future verification
1527 2015-10-08T21:55:39 <maaku> i see no benefit in terms of future extensibility by moving the unused bits to the high-order range
1528 2015-10-08T21:55:42 *** Eiii| has quit IRC
1529 2015-10-08T21:57:32 <morcos> maaku: i suppose it may just be a preference thing. the only real difference is whether we are using up half of the bit space or 1/32,000 but that seems relatively minor.
1530 2015-10-08T21:57:43 *** josiah- has joined #bitcoin-dev
1531 2015-10-08T21:57:48 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: I am in meetings, but I'll dedicate some time later to convince you of this. :P
1532 2015-10-08T21:58:10 <gmaxwell> CodeShark: (or to let you convince me of otherwise!)
1533 2015-10-08T21:58:11 <CodeShark> gmaxwell: there are two issues here - the directional issue is only regarding reorgs
1534 2015-10-08T21:58:24 <CodeShark> the other issue is more serious, though :)
1535 2015-10-08T21:58:36 <gmaxwell> right. Directionality can be very important; but aren't related to script being computation vs verification.
1536 2015-10-08T21:59:17 <morcos> maaku: as we discussed we'll probably need masking to do the comparisons anyway right... but i think both versions ought to give you full flexibility to do whatever you want with the unused 14 bits (inside of the CSV framework)
1537 2015-10-08T21:59:49 <btcdrak> morcos: maaku: so do we have agreement now?
1538 2015-10-08T21:59:54 <morcos> if they were high order bits you would just redefine CSV to be defined by high order 10 bits set to 0 and you look at low 17 if you wanted to add 5 bits for some other soft fork
1539 2015-10-08T22:00:03 <maaku> morcos: eh, no the question is are we more likely to expand nSequence in a way that requires simultaneous support for relative lock-time or not?
1540 2015-10-08T22:00:05 <morcos> btcdrak: i don't think any one else has chimed in
1541 2015-10-08T22:00:20 <petertodd> morcos: my plan re: RBF was to take my opt-in full-RBF patch w/ FSS-RBF otherwise and rebase it for v0.12 once the other mempool stuff is merged; my guess is the work required to do this will be small, with the one exception that all my unit tests use python-bitcoinlib and are separate to the existing RPC framework (I don't have time to rewrite that)
1542 2015-10-08T22:00:21 <morcos> maaku: yes, understood, thats doable in either case
1543 2015-10-08T22:00:36 <btcdrak> morcos: I think we're splitting hairs.
1544 2015-10-08T22:00:59 <morcos> ok i dont' care about which bits... i'm 99.9% convinced low order is fine
1545 2015-10-08T22:01:00 *** nelisky has joined #bitcoin-dev
1546 2015-10-08T22:01:06 <morcos> but i do care about how many
1547 2015-10-08T22:01:40 <btcdrak> morcos: yes, so I think we agree 512s resolution is fine
1548 2015-10-08T22:01:43 <morcos> petertodd: ah ok, so its opt-in, thats what i like...
1549 2015-10-08T22:01:51 *** justanotheruser has quit IRC
1550 2015-10-08T22:02:06 <btcdrak> petertodd: +1 for optin
1551 2015-10-08T22:02:11 <petertodd> maaku: I'd kinda lean towards 512s resolution, in part because it sends the irght message about what's possible!
1552 2015-10-08T22:02:20 <morcos> ok sorry i really have to go now
1553 2015-10-08T22:02:26 <maaku> morcos: well if we change CSV to mask off bits not used for relative lock-time, then it would not matter, yes
1554 2015-10-08T22:02:39 <maaku> that's not what the code does right now though, but it's a sane question to ask
1555 2015-10-08T22:02:41 <btcdrak> maaku: good.
1556 2015-10-08T22:04:06 <petertodd> morcos: well, I'll definitely propose a pull-req with a CLI flag to make it always full, but yeah, default to opt-in via nSequence (and specifically, nSequence <= maxint-2 so you can still use nLockTime)
1557 2015-10-08T22:04:54 *** FredEE has quit IRC
1558 2015-10-08T22:07:24 *** esneider has quit IRC
1559 2015-10-08T22:07:45 <maaku> morcos: so your proposal above makes it impossible to add another use of nSequence bits that is simultaneously combined with BIP 68 semantics
1560 2015-10-08T22:10:08 <maaku> morcos: rather than requiring all high-order bits to be zero, what about requiring just a specific one to be zero and masking the rest?
1561 2015-10-08T22:11:58 <BlueMatt> msg gavinandresen ping
1562 2015-10-08T22:12:03 <BlueMatt> heh
1563 2015-10-08T22:12:27 <maaku> so bits 0..15 are the relative locktime, bit 30 determines units (0: height, 1: time w/ 512s granularity), and bit 31 toggles BIP 68 (0: on, 1: off)
1564 2015-10-08T22:12:41 <maaku> bits 16..29 are masked off and can take any value
1565 2015-10-08T22:12:59 *** won9 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1566 2015-10-08T22:13:46 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-dev
1567 2015-10-08T22:16:49 *** Subo1977_ has quit IRC
1568 2015-10-08T22:17:49 *** Subo1977 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1569 2015-10-08T22:19:19 *** esneider has joined #bitcoin-dev
1570 2015-10-08T22:22:20 <btcdrak> maaku: +1
1571 2015-10-08T22:22:31 *** Dizzle has quit IRC
1572 2015-10-08T22:22:59 *** n0n0__ has quit IRC
1573 2015-10-08T22:24:58 <maaku> maybe the units bit could be bit 16 instead of 30. I'll think on that or see what comes naturally out of the code
1574 2015-10-08T22:26:03 <CodeShark> lol - the nSequence field is going to look like an IC wiring diagram :p
1575 2015-10-08T22:26:18 <CodeShark> a pinout
1576 2015-10-08T22:27:01 <maaku> design by committee...
1577 2015-10-08T22:27:20 *** bigreddmachine has joined #bitcoin-dev
1578 2015-10-08T22:27:45 *** DougieBot5000 has quit IRC
1579 2015-10-08T22:28:32 <btcdrak> LOL
1580 2015-10-08T22:29:09 <btcdrak> maybe we can do an FPGA prototype before fabbing our own ASICs
1581 2015-10-08T22:32:11 *** won9 has quit IRC
1582 2015-10-08T22:38:29 *** bigreddmachine has quit IRC
1583 2015-10-08T22:42:01 *** btc_panhandler has quit IRC
1584 2015-10-08T22:54:43 *** Yoghur114 has quit IRC
1585 2015-10-08T22:56:16 *** hidden has joined #bitcoin-dev
1586 2015-10-08T22:57:59 *** kgk has quit IRC
1587 2015-10-08T22:59:05 <Luke-Jr> maaku: max maturity period is ~1.25 years?
1588 2015-10-08T23:01:12 <maaku> approximately
1589 2015-10-08T23:02:13 *** kkurokawa has joined #bitcoin-dev
1590 2015-10-08T23:02:14 <maaku> a very conservative number actually, since I had trouble finding anyone with needs for >30days
1591 2015-10-08T23:03:13 *** FredEE has joined #bitcoin-dev
1592 2015-10-08T23:06:33 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
1593 2015-10-08T23:06:40 *** cryptapus has quit IRC
1594 2015-10-08T23:07:59 *** btc_panhandler has joined #bitcoin-dev
1595 2015-10-08T23:10:20 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-dev
1596 2015-10-08T23:10:20 *** cryptapus has joined #bitcoin-dev
1597 2015-10-08T23:11:43 *** davispuh has quit IRC
1598 2015-10-08T23:14:47 *** DougieBot5000 has joined #bitcoin-dev
1599 2015-10-08T23:15:43 *** JackH has quit IRC
1600 2015-10-08T23:15:51 *** Steam_Powered_H has joined #bitcoin-dev
1601 2015-10-08T23:17:53 *** SteamPoweredH has quit IRC
1602 2015-10-08T23:17:54 *** kermit has quit IRC
1603 2015-10-08T23:21:42 *** _tmh has joined #bitcoin-dev
1604 2015-10-08T23:29:05 *** brson has quit IRC
1605 2015-10-08T23:31:09 *** rmwb has quit IRC
1606 2015-10-08T23:33:17 *** rmwb has joined #bitcoin-dev
1607 2015-10-08T23:33:40 *** kkurokawa has quit IRC
1608 2015-10-08T23:33:52 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
1609 2015-10-08T23:35:14 *** kermit has joined #bitcoin-dev
1610 2015-10-08T23:35:38 *** rmwb has joined #bitcoin-dev
1611 2015-10-08T23:36:30 *** josiah- has quit IRC
1612 2015-10-08T23:37:08 *** NewLiberty has quit IRC
1613 2015-10-08T23:38:25 *** romonster has quit IRC
1614 2015-10-08T23:38:35 *** lewellyn has quit IRC
1615 2015-10-08T23:38:38 *** nelisky has quit IRC
1616 2015-10-08T23:40:59 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
1617 2015-10-08T23:42:03 *** missmogg has quit IRC
1618 2015-10-08T23:42:08 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
1619 2015-10-08T23:44:36 *** romonster has joined #bitcoin-dev
1620 2015-10-08T23:44:45 *** lewellyn has joined #bitcoin-dev
1621 2015-10-08T23:45:02 *** Lightsword has joined #bitcoin-dev
1622 2015-10-08T23:48:08 *** missmogg has joined #bitcoin-dev
1623 2015-10-08T23:49:05 *** agricocb has quit IRC
1624 2015-10-08T23:49:39 *** nwilcox has quit IRC
1625 2015-10-08T23:50:06 *** lewellyn has quit IRC
1626 2015-10-08T23:50:25 *** nwilcox has joined #bitcoin-dev
1627 2015-10-08T23:51:03 *** skyzer has quit IRC
1628 2015-10-08T23:53:03 *** btc_panhandler has quit IRC
1629 2015-10-08T23:53:17 *** ParadoxSpiral_ has quit IRC
1630 2015-10-08T23:54:22 *** missmogg has quit IRC
1631 2015-10-08T23:54:23 *** kgk has joined #bitcoin-dev
1632 2015-10-08T23:54:31 *** missmogg has joined #bitcoin-dev
1633 2015-10-08T23:55:07 *** one_zero has joined #bitcoin-dev
1634 2015-10-08T23:59:12 *** kgk has quit IRC