--- Day changed Tue Jan 12 2016
00:03 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:04 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:31 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:32 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:41 -!- Quent [~Quent@unaffiliated/quent] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
00:41 -!- Quent [~Quent@unaffiliated/quent] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:47 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:57 -!- randy-waterhouse [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/randy-waterhouse] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
01:05 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:10 -!- dcousens [~anon@d110-33-200-231.mas801.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:10 -!- dcousens [~anon@d110-33-200-231.mas801.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Client Quit]
01:10 -!- dcousens [~anon@d110-33-200-231.mas801.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:18 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
01:29 -!- Amnez777 [~Amnez777@unaffiliated/amnez777] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
01:36 < GitHub168> [bitcoin] chriswheeler opened pull request #7329: Trivial: fix typo (master...typofix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7329
01:37 -!- jtimon [~quassel@126.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:47 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:49 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:49 -!- neilf_ [~neilf@40.121.88.219] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
01:50 -!- neilf_ [~neilf@40.121.88.219] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:50 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:52 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
01:52 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:53 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-gfanfzttnlduggox] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
01:53 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:53 -!- baldur_ [~baldur@pool-173-52-43-219.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
01:55 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:06 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-djnbtucaznrwlaur] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:10 -!- adam3us [~Adium@63.138.18.50] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:15 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:16 -!- Amnez777 [~Amnez777@37.157.216.149] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:16 -!- Amnez777 [~Amnez777@37.157.216.149] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
02:16 -!- Amnez777 [~Amnez777@37.157.216.149] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:18 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-djnbtucaznrwlaur] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
02:18 -!- Amnez777 [~Amnez777@37.157.216.149] has quit [Changing host]
02:18 -!- Amnez777 [~Amnez777@unaffiliated/amnez777] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:21 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:31 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-spytojzsmsqduopu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:47 -!- adam3us [~Adium@172.56.27.42] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:53 -!- dcousens [~anon@d110-33-200-231.mas801.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
02:53 -!- p15 [~p15@49.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
02:54 -!- dcousens [~anon@d110-33-200-231.mas801.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:55 -!- p15 [~p15@114.244.155.141] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:55 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
02:56 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:58 -!- adam3us [~Adium@172.56.27.42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
02:58 -!- MarcoFalke [c3523fc8@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.195.82.63.200] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:07 -!- adam3us [~Adium@172.56.27.42] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:17 -!- Thireus [~Thireus@vps-92.197.170.217.stwvps.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:27 -!- adam3us [~Adium@172.56.27.42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
03:33 -!- jcorgan is now known as jcorgan|away
03:44 -!- adam3us [~Adium@12.130.116.118] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:54 -!- baldur_ [~baldur@pool-173-52-43-219.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:35 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:36 -!- midnightmagic [~midnightm@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:52 -!- adam3us [~Adium@12.130.116.118] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:56 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.53] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
04:57 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.54] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:03 -!- MarcoFalke [c3523fc8@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.195.82.63.200] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
05:07 -!- SmiteMeSmith_ [~SmiteMeSm@WLLDON1606W-LP140-02-1279535220.dsl.bell.ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:11 -!- SmiteMeSmith [~SmiteMeSm@WLLDON1606W-LP140-02-1279535220.dsl.bell.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
05:11 -!- p15 [~p15@114.244.155.141] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:12 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-spytojzsmsqduopu] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:21 < GitHub118> [bitcoin] btcdrak closed pull request #7328: Update README.md website link (master...website) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7328
05:22 < GitHub36> [bitcoin] btcdrak reopened pull request #7328: Update README.md website link (master...website) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7328
05:29 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-ydzhujybzchvrrmf] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:13 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.54] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
06:15 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.53] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:22 < morcos> wumpus: is the only hold up for RC1 my 2 PR's? (sorry)  anything i can do to help move things along?
06:22 < morcos> i'm happy to try to get jonasschnelli's gui/rpc output improvements in if you think that makes it better for 0.12...
06:40 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:44 < jonasschnelli> morcos: you mean the listtransaction and GUI transaction detail improvements?
06:44 < jonasschnelli> Not sure if we need them for 0.12.
06:45 -!- adam3us [~Adium@96.93.176.203] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:45 < jonasschnelli> "listtransactions" abandoned-category maybe
06:45 < morcos> jonasschnelli: yes, thats what i meant, just wanted to let wumpus know if he preferred to have those for 0.12, that was fine by me
06:45 < morcos> jonasschnelli: did you see my question about it seemed like you were only allowing that for "send" txs, but any tx can be abandoned
06:45 < jonasschnelli> What I don't like in the GUI is, that abandoned transactions are still in the tx-list, but don't count for the balance (obviously).
06:46 < morcos> jonasschnelli: that is the same as it as always been.  in 0.11 any tx not in the mempool counts as conflicted and in 0.11 and 0.12 all conflicted txs don't count towards balance
06:46 < morcos> so while i agree that maybe this could be improved, i think its a much bigger change
06:47 < jonasschnelli> Yes... somehow i think a transaction-list sum should be the balance.
06:47 < morcos> if anything abandoning a tx causes the behavior to be exactly the same as the 0.11 behavior
06:47 < jonasschnelli> okay... yes. Let's keep the listtransaction and GUI stuff for 0.13.
06:48 < jonasschnelli> And your right,... listtransaction abandoned category only gets detected for "sending" tx.
06:48 < jonasschnelli> (need to be fixed)
06:48 -!- adam3us [~Adium@96.93.176.203] has quit [Client Quit]
07:05 -!- guest21333 [~02@107.150.94.2] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:07 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
07:07 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:24 -!- Squidicuz [~squid@pool-173-48-117-206.bstnma.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:34 -!- dcousens [~anon@d110-33-200-231.mas801.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
07:43 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.53] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:45 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
07:47 -!- guest21333 [~02@107.150.94.2] has quit [Quit: Bye]
07:51 -!- MarcoFalke [~marco@2001:4ca0:0:f226:76da:38ff:fe1b:3db1] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:53 -!- USfV5 [8af60275@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.117] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:55 -!- deego [~user@unaffiliated/deego] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:56 -!- MarcoFalke [~marco@2001:4ca0:0:f226:76da:38ff:fe1b:3db1] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
07:56 -!- MarcoFalke [~marco@2001:4ca0:0:f226:76da:38ff:fe1b:3db1] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:59 -!- USfV5 [8af60275@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.117] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
08:10 -!- tripleslash_d [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:12 -!- tripleslash_v [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
08:18 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:19 -!- MarcoFalke [~marco@2001:4ca0:0:f226:76da:38ff:fe1b:3db1] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
08:19 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
08:24 -!- MarcoFalke [8af60275@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.117] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:33 -!- lecusemble [~lecusembl@f9beb4d9.violates.me] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
08:37 -!- lecusemble [~lecusembl@f9beb4d9.violates.me] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:49 -!- brg444 [415ce066@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.224.102] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:56 -!- murch [~murch@p4FE396D8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:03 < wangchun> where is the "bitcoin" classic 2MB patch? I've checked their master branch but MAX_BLOCK_SIZE remains at 1000000 bytes
09:05 < morcos> wangchun: i'm not sure this is the right channel for that question, as this is for the Core implementation.  But I think there are a couple of pull requests open on their github repo which have the changes.
09:07 < wangchun> morcos: I only see BIP101 style doubling every 2 years from pull reqs but only start from 2MB
09:07 < wangchun> From their intros on the website, it should be fixed 2MB right?
09:08 < morcos> wangchun: sorry i didn't look at their actual code.  i don't know what they are doing.   I've been helping the Core team with segregated witness as I think it gives us the effective increase of 2MB with a much safer rollout
09:09 < morcos> while at the same time fixing long standing issues and adding needed security toools
09:10 < morcos> happy to help with any questions you have about that! :)
09:11 < btcdrak> wangchun: they dont seem to have any code for it. However there is a 2MB patch in Core
09:11 < instagibbs> wangchun, http://bitcoinco.re/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/
09:11 < btcdrak> wangchun: Here is a 2MB patch in Core https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451
09:12 < btcdrak> wangchun: there is Chinese version of the FAQ http://bitcoinco.re/zh_CN/2015/12/21/%E7%B3%BB%E7%BB%9F%E6%89%A9%E5%B1%95%E5%B8%B8%E8%A7%81%E9%97%AE%E9%A2%98%E8%A7%A3%E7%AD%94/
09:16 -!- tripleslash_d [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
09:20 < wangchun> btcdrak: #6451 looks good to me. It would be nice if we mix this with segwit. May I have an update why many devs want to deploy segwit as a softfork?
09:21 < sipa> wangchun: because a softfork does not require the entire world to agree
09:21 < btcdrak> wangchun: a hard fork will take longer to deploy. Even if we do 2MB hard fork, segwit would deploy first
09:21 < sipa> because it allows us to make progress right now, without needing to force one choice or another
09:22 < wangchun> sipa: But Antpool/BW/BTCC already voted for 2MB, it shouldn't be hard to push that out right?
09:22 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:23 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:23 < sipa> wangchun: that's 3 people, not the whole world
09:23 < sipa> wangchun: for a hardfork not only miners have to agree
09:23 < btcdrak> wangchun: all 5000 fullnodes must also upgrade
09:23 < wangchun> Should we ACK Bitcoin Classic? I think it might be a good thing...
09:23 < sipa> wangchun: segwit SF gives 2 MB blocks, but without forcing anyone to change
09:24 < sipa> wangchun: what benefit does it have?
09:24 < wangchun> If the Classic get succeed, we have 2MB, and then we merge it back into core, we have segwit
09:24 < wangchun> win-win
09:24 < sipa> that makes no sense
09:24 < sipa> then you'll have 4 MB blocks, with all latency problems that causes, and still need to force the world to adopt a change
09:25 < wangchun> With 2MB, we'll have 8MB blocks, that is better
09:25 < wangchun> And it is not 8MB in fact. not every tx is p2sh
09:26 < wangchun> much like 5MB or so
09:26 < sipa> what block sizes are you confortable with?
09:27 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:28 < wangchun> 2MB+segwit would be nice
09:28 < sipa> what effective block size are you comfortable wit
09:28 < sipa> the size of blocks going over the wire
09:28 < wangchun> 5MB is good
09:29 < sipa> well then you'll need a hard fork, and need to convince everyone to accept that
09:29 < wangchun> I think hardfork is much more desirable as it makes many things cleaner
09:29 < wangchun> I heard you guys want every coinbase tx to have an additional OP_RETURN vout, that is so ugly
09:29 < sipa> there are alternatives to that, i am very open to discuss
09:30 < btcdrak> wangchun: BTCC is selling advertising in the coinbase =__=
09:30 < wangchun> i also know many people who want to see a hardfork version of segwit
09:31 < wangchun> btcdrak: i know, if we enlarge coinbase string from 100 bytes to 256, they will be very happy
09:32 < wangchun> btcdrak: actually in the past we also sold a few coinbases, for 1 BTC each
09:32 -!- zookolaptop [~user@c-24-9-79-61.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:32 < btcdrak> wow
09:32 < wangchun> in 2013
09:32 < sipa> wangchun: the problem is that for a hard fork, everyone has to agree precisely on what the new rule will be
09:33 < sipa> wangchun: and that takes time
09:33 < JackH> it could get ugly, and in worst case scenario put us back months if not everyone upgrades
09:34 < sipa> a softfork is safe and possible with just miners accepting it
09:34 < sipa> which is why we strongly favor softforks where possible
09:34 < morcos> wangchun: Everyone in core would prefer to see segwit as a hard fork rather than a soft fork.  but we take very seriously the notion that we should not be forcing the rules of bitcoin to change for people who might not agree
09:34 < sipa> it does not rule out doing a hardfork later
09:34 -!- brg444 [415ce066@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.224.102] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
09:35 < morcos> wangchun: so hopefully one day, there will be widespread consensus about a hardfork, whether its cleaning up segwit or whether its a block size increase, or both or other things.
09:36 < morcos> but given that we can get all the benefits of segwit without that, it seems clearly the right next step.   it doesn't preclude everyone coming to agreement on some hard fork, but it allows progress to happen without waiting for that
09:36 < wangchun> then we may consider support the classic hope it get 2MB to be deployed sooner than segwit
09:37 < wangchun> but i think it is unlikely
09:37 < sipa> we already have a test version of segwit up and running
09:38 < wangchun> a race is better to everyone
09:38 < sipa> wangchun: you can support a 2 MB HF, but you can only run it when you know everyone agrees 
09:38 < sipa> wangchun: you can run segwit immediately
09:38 < wangchun> there will be a 95% threshold i suppose
09:38 < morcos> wangchun: i think its great to announce you support 2MB HF blocks if thats what you want.  but its risky to run code that will switch to that if only 75% of miners agree.  it runs the risk of forkinig the network and creating two coins.
09:39 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:39 < morcos> wangchun: they are proposing i believe a 75% or lower threshold.  and of course that only measures miner support, not support from the rest of the community
09:39 < wangchun> I agree 75% is not enough
09:39 < wangchun> if 95% miner support it, i believe others will follow
09:40 < sipa> wangchun: a hard fork requires everyone to agree, not just miners
09:40 < sipa> wangchun: even 100% of miners cannot decide a hard fork
09:40 < wangchun> if 95% miners support it, others have no choice :)
09:40 < helo> there should be no "hopefully others will follow"
09:40 < helo> others may not want to follow, and they may be right in not doing so
09:41 < wangchun> 5% hashrate cannot secure their own branch
09:41 < helo> that doesn't mean they are incorrect
09:41 < petertodd> wangchun: it's not a question about them securing that branch, it's a question of whether or not more blocks are added to it
09:42 < wangchun> anyway practically, if we got 95% hashrate in one branch, the other branch is over
09:42 < sipa> wangchun: not necessarily true for a hard fork
09:42 < sipa> for a softfork, yes
09:42 < petertodd> wangchun: 95% is probably high enough that's it's unlikely to end up with people being forked off, but that's not really certain in a hardfork case
09:42 < morcos> wangchun: regardless of whether you support the 2MB HF, I'd like to encourage you to help us with the segregated witness soft fork.
09:43 < wangchun> morcos: sure
09:43 < sipa> wangchun: and input on where you want the witness commitment is very welcome
09:44 < wangchun> witness commitment?
09:44 < petertodd> wangchun: now, if we had a 100% threshold that might put us in a better place. It also might be good to get a small % of hashing power willing to mine empty blocks on top of the old chain in the event that some miners still mine it. (aka, 51% attack it to ensure it stays dead)
09:44 < sipa> wangchun: segregated witness needs a 32-byte value somewhere in coinbase
09:44 < morcos> i'd like to avoid the outcome where neither happens because people are too entrenched in having their solution.  it seems to me that the only objection to segregated witness as a soft fork is what you said about it being ugly compared to doing it as a hard fork.
09:44 < sipa> wangchun: this can go in an OP_RETURN output, or in the scriptSig
09:45 < wangchun> scriptSig of course
09:45 < sipa> wangchun: but others may not want to loose so much scriptSig space
09:45 < morcos> but i think t hats a very small price to pay for being able to get it implemented.  if we tried to do it as a hard fork it would be hard to get it rolled out in any reasonable time period. 
09:45 < wangchun> but the coinbase string max size limit should be lifted in the very next hard fork
09:45 < sipa> wangchun: ok, but we can't do that now
09:46 < wangchun> sipa: how many bytes? 32? 36?
09:46 < sipa> 32
09:46 < sipa> plus a header
09:46 < wangchun> header?
09:46 < sipa> 36 is ok
09:46 < sipa> magic bytes to say "here follows the witness commitment"
09:46 < jl2012> the "header" could be put in nLockTime
09:46 < wangchun> hmm
09:46 < jl2012> some 32 is the minimum
09:46 < wangchun> it's only 100 bytes... we cannot have a header
09:46 < jl2012>  s/some/so/
09:46 < wangchun> put it immeidately follow the height bytes
09:46 < petertodd> wangchun: alternative to a header is to have it in a fixed position
09:47 < petertodd> wangchun: I think that makes sense
09:47 < sipa> wangchun: that is why i believe an OP_RETURN is easier to get accepted, even if it is uglier
09:47 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:47 < sipa> immediately after the height is also possible
09:47 < wangchun> i've talked to jl2012 earlier
09:47 < sipa> ok
09:47 < wangchun> if people want more bytes, put extranonce to op_return
09:48 < jl2012> would it break some mining hardware?
09:48 < wangchun> or do like what we do, put extranonce to nsequence
09:48 < wangchun> jl2012: extranonce in nsequence is not breaking any hardware
09:49 < wangchun> i suppose extranonce in op_return should be fine too
09:49 < morcos> wangchun: i don't know how much all the miners talk to each other, but this seems a concern that affects them the most
09:50 < morcos> perhaps it would be useful for them to discuss among each other
09:50 < wangchun> so we have 4 bytes height + 32 bytes segwit + 44 bytes merged mining
09:50 < wangchun> 80 bytes
09:50 < wangchun> 20 bytes left for signature, no advertisement space for sell
09:50 < jl2012> what is the 44 bytes look like?
09:51 < wangchun> 4 bytes magic header + 32 bytes hash + 4 bytes merkle branch length + 4 bytes nonce
09:51 < sipa> wangchun: indeed, i thought the lack of ad space would be a problem
09:51 < wangchun> 4 bytes merkle branch length is a waste, 1 byte is enough, 4 bytes nonce is completely useless
09:52 < sipa> wangchun: we're working on a replacement for the MM header
09:52 < sipa> that can be used for more things
09:52 < jl2012> it's the mm of namecoin?
09:52 < sipa> yes
09:52 < wangchun> sipa: namecoin is planning the same thing, you may want to talk to them
09:52 < sipa> wangchun: i'm aware
09:52 < petertodd> wangchun: potentially, the witness commitment could be arranged to also work for MM, as well as any other future commitment
09:53 < wangchun> sipa: not just namecoin, we also have ixcoin, i0coin, groupcoin, 611, uno, huc, and some other dead ones
09:54 < jl2012> they should only commit 32 bytes in bitcoin, and leave the rest of meta data in their own header
09:54 < wangchun> anyway, it the size limit should be lifted in the next hard fork
09:54 -!- brg444 [18257df2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.24.37.125.242] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:54 < wangchun> 256 bytes is preferred
09:56 < wangchun> satoshi likes decimals..
09:58 < sipa> wangchun: that seems like a reasonable thing
09:59 < sipa> but for now, we need a solution
09:59 < wangchun> put everything in coinbase is acceptable
09:59 < wangchun> BTCC and Antpool are not merged mining
09:59 < wangchun> so i think they will be fine
10:00 < wangchun> for those who do merge, 20 bytes for signature is just enough
10:00 < sipa> i thought BTCC was the one who suggested not using scriptSig :)
10:00 < jl2012> Samson told me that would kill their service
10:01 < wangchun> You can told them a hard fork to make their service shining is not very far
10:01 < sipa> we don't know that
10:01 < wangchun> s/told/tell/
10:01 < sipa> a hard fork will only happen if everyone agrees
10:01 < JackH> it would be interesting to see how many nodes we loose in a hardfork
10:02 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
10:03 < wangchun> BTCC still has 64 bytes for sale
10:03 < wangchun> 63 bytes
10:04 < wangchun> extranonce1 cannot be empty, otherwise it may break some stupid stratum proxies
10:05 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:15 -!- MarcoFalke [8af60275@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.117] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
10:15 -!- MarcoFalke [8af60275@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.117] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:17 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
10:33 < Quent> if you excuse my comment - - - interesting isn't it, the hierarchy, one can say developers are employed by miners as shown by this little chat, with miners employed by users, while at the same time, like a quantum particle, everyone holding and not holding power at the same time.
10:34 -!- sipa [~pw@2a02:348:86:3011::1] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
10:42 < Luke-Jr> morcos: what? segwit softfork is so much cleaner than a hardfork
10:42 < midnightmagic> :-(
10:43 < midnightmagic> Quent: Highly offtopic for in here.
10:44 < morcos> Luke-Jr: I wasn't referring to the act of forking but to what the protocol specification is at the end.  By definition you can make anything you want as a hardfork, so clearly whatever optimal format is you could do that with a hard fork.
10:45 < Luke-Jr> morcos: if we had 100% of Bitcoin users convinced to do either a hardfork or softfork for segwit, the softfork would still be better
10:45 < morcos> Luke-Jr: b/c of rollout risk?
10:45 < Luke-Jr> morcos: because of backward compatibility with present wallets
10:46 < Luke-Jr> the ideal segwit structure would break current signatures
10:47 < morcos> Luke-Jr: ok, perhaps you are correct that the case for doing a HF isn't as straight forward as i implied.  Regardless, its academic.  SF is clearly the only reasonable choice for segwit now.
10:59 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:00 -!- MarcoFalke [8af60275@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.117] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
11:06 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:07 < wangchun> not just backward compatiblility, in the case of segwit
11:07 < wangchun> segwit tx is anyone spendable to older clients
11:08 < wangchun> imagine some 0-conf tx service that still running old software after the activation
11:08 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-ydzhujybzchvrrmf] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
11:09 < wangchun> a hard fork is safer for them
11:10 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
11:11 < zookolaptop> wangchun: could you explain how such an older, 0-conf-accepting client would be in danger in the soft-fork deployment?
11:11 < instagibbs> wangchun, they will simply get trivially double-spent being left behind on the old chain
11:11 < instagibbs> (in hard fork scenario)
11:12 < brg444> right, they have to upgrade in both scenarios else they can get cheated. not sure I see the difference?
11:12 < wangchun> i can send coins i can't move under the new rule
11:13 < zookolaptop> wangchun: hm.
11:13 < instagibbs> wangchun, in both hardfork/softfork, if user upgrades, great. In the non-upgraded scenario, they both have some drawbacks
11:13 < wangchun> and if someone mine a block on the old fork, it can even get a confirm
11:13 < wangchun> to old clients
11:14 < instagibbs> then can certainly get confirmations on the dead chain
11:15 < instagibbs> in hardfork
11:15 < wangchun> as segwit-enabled tx flies on the new fork, the old fork would become a mess
11:17 < Luke-Jr> wangchun: no, a hardfork does not make ANYTHING safer, EVER
11:17 < Luke-Jr> and that's ignoring the fact that unconfirmed transactions are never safe
11:18 < wangchun> Luke-Jr: softfork version of segwit != hardfork version of segwit, we don't have to use anyone can spend tx if it is a hardfork
11:18 < Luke-Jr> wangchun: that doesn't matter though
11:18 < instagibbs> wangchun, why do you care?
11:18 < instagibbs> it's not your money
11:18 < Luke-Jr> if it's a hardfork, those old nodes lose ALL security
11:19 < zookolaptop> One fact that matters to me is that Ethereum has done a series of hard fork upgrades over the last year or so.
11:19 < zookolaptop> I like to try to learn from empirical evidence.
11:20 < zookolaptop> Although of course, you could still be right, and one or another lucky break or special condition allowed Ethereum to succeed at that where Bitcoin wouldn't be able to do the same. Who knows.
11:20 < wangchun> many altcoins do hardfork upgrades regularly
11:20 < moli> wangchun: yes, but they're altcoins with not as large markets as bitcoin
11:20 < zookolaptop> I think it is easy for people, especially smart people, to convince themselves strongly of some belief, and paying attention to empirical evidence like that can help shake one's confidence.
11:21 < instagibbs> a closer example would be Bitcoin in the first or second year and Ethereum
11:21 < Luke-Jr> again, softfork segwit is superior to hardfork segwit even if both were equally possible
11:21 < moli> i went through many hardforks with an altcoin, where devs can never get consensus with miners, have to use a closed source dirty trick
11:22 < zookolaptop> moli: interesting. :-)
11:22 < zookolaptop> moli: thanks for giving me yet more empirical evidence for my hoard.
11:23 < zookolaptop> moli: was it just that the miners were unaware, disinterested, etc., or did the miners actively object to the change?
11:23 < zookolaptop> I would assume it was the former.
11:23 < instagibbs> Are you really surprised that Vitalik could get unanimous consensus for hardforks? 
11:23 < instagibbs> we know it could theoretically be done, but it's not the same
11:24 < zookolaptop> Right, that's the limitation of trying to learn from empirical evidence: there are always reasons why the prior experience may not apply to your case.
11:24 < moli> zookolaptop: i can tell you in pm if you want 
11:24 < instagibbs> in 6 years it'll def be interesting
11:25 < instagibbs> Esp if Vitalik doesn't vanish :P
11:25 -!- fkhan_ [weechat@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-wbdsvzrpxkxbgwkl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:28 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
11:29 < brg444> Bitcoin as a considerably stronger inertia than any other altcoins for very good reasons. It's important to take this in consideration when pondering the eventuality of a hard fork.
11:29 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:30 < Quent> on the other hand bitcoin has stronger incentive based self interest than any other altcoin
11:31 < morcos> any chance we could move this discussion back to bitcoin-dev?  unless anyone wants to review #7296 or #7312 so we can move forward with getting 0.12 released?
11:32 < jl2012> just for record, segwit tx are non standard to existing nodes
11:33 < instagibbs> morcos, agreed, sorry
11:41 < Luke-Jr> morcos: simply changing getrawmempool does not appear to fix the problems btw
12:05 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
12:06 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:15 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
12:16 -!- max__ [d41a898c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.212.26.137.140] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:17 -!- max__ is now known as Guest93153
12:19 -!- Guest93153 [d41a898c@gateway/web/freenode/ip.212.26.137.140] has quit [Client Quit]
12:47 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:49 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
12:53 < JackH> if we hard fork, it would spiral the price down and all we have been working for could be reduced back to 100
12:54 < JackH> as a Bitcoin business representative, this is THE most scary thing we can do with Bitcoin
12:54 < JackH> especially since it all works so fine right now
12:54 < JackH> and the perception of it at the end of 2015 started to really get more positive
12:54 -!- tripleslash_v [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:57 -!- tripleslash_v [~triplesla@unaffiliated/imsaguy] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:58 < brg444> JackH agreed, but unfortunately I'm worried this is being done on purpose
12:59 < brg444> I'm very concerned with the prospects of a hard fork severely undermining the investors trust
13:00 < paveljanik> Everyone can fork. Please remember this is dev list... You can fork on github easily...
13:01 < brg444> That is why claiming that hard forks are cleaner from a technical standpoint is misleading and ignores the socio-economic nightmare they entail
13:02 < brg444> paveljanik Right, I won't continue this discussion here
13:02 < Quent> it has to be done, it was always intended, the only mistake is that this wasn't included in versions long ago
13:02 < Quent> but then no one could foresee the atmosphere that developed in 2013
13:02 < JackH> yeah the whole cleaner debate is just WRONG brg444 
13:02 < JackH> personally I would wait for payment channels and skip any blocksize
13:03 < JackH> but, someone outside is influencing people to do a hardfork
13:03 < JackH> very sad to see people following the sheep mentality
13:03 < brg444> it should be done on sound technical grounds. a mere 100% increase in throughput is not valid reason to force every node on the network to upgrade, IMO
13:03 < Quent> yes, satoshi is influencing them and they say you are the outsider jackh, those sort of comments do not assist
13:04 < JackH> I am just saying it is not safe, period
13:04 < JackH> therefore it should not be done
13:04 < JackH> the system works perfect
13:04 < Quent> you said outsiders influence them!
13:04 < JackH> and payment channels solve all and any scale
13:04 < Quent> that's nazi tactics
13:04 < Quent> dehumanising etc
13:04 < paveljanik> do you speak C++?
13:04 < brg444> Quent Satoshi has left years ago, he should not influence anyone anymore and if he wish to do so then may he come back and provide input
13:05 < Quent> satoshi laid out how bitcoin is to scale, what he stated then remains relevant
13:05 < instagibbs> how do we call for mods again
13:05 < Quent> omg, people have different opinions, we out to only groupthink here
13:06 < Quent> ought*
13:06 < instagibbs> it's completely off-topic
13:06 < instagibbs> stop it
13:06 < Quent> it was for quite some time, yet you said nothing!
13:06 < JackH> Quent, stop telling people what Satoshi thought
13:06 < Quent> what you afraid of? words?
13:06 < JackH> you are not Satoshi
13:06 < JackH> you dont know what he thought
13:07 < instagibbs> !admin
13:07 < gribble> Error: "admin" is not a valid command.
13:07 < JackH> you were not even there back then
13:07 < instagibbs> !mods
13:07 < gribble> Error: "mods" is not a valid command.
13:07 < JackH> your arguments should come from a technical perspective where you tell us WHY we need a hard fork
13:07 < Quent> jackH, it's not even about satoshi
13:07 < JackH> not that: Satoshi may have thought
13:07 < Quent> 2mb is nothing
13:07 < JackH> then what is it about
13:07 < JackH> exactly I agree
13:07 < Quent> whats this obsession with no fork ever then?
13:07 < JackH> 2mb is a waste of time and excessively dangerous for absolutely nothing in return
13:07 < JackH> why do you want a fork?
13:07 < Quent> capacity?
13:08 < JackH> how much
13:08 < Quent> is this to be an irrelevant project or a world changing project?
13:08 < Quent> 1mb - 2mb - 4mb - 8mb -10 -100 -even 1gb in time...
13:08 < Quent> we want to change the world!
13:08 < JackH> ok so
13:08 < brg444> !op
13:08 < gribble> Error: You don't have the #bitcoin-core-dev,op capability. If you think that you should have this capability, be sure that you are identified before trying again. The 'whoami' command can tell you if you're identified.
13:08 < JackH> how many nodes can handle the load you think?
13:09 < instagibbs> JackH, please stop feeding him
13:09 < JackH> I am not, and he will understand why he is wrong
13:09 < Quent> what sort of nodes?
13:09 < JackH> this will end with a sound debate where he understands 
13:09 < JackH> full nodes, stop playing stupid, if you want this conversation
13:09 < JackH> propagating nodes
13:09 < instagibbs> #bitcoin or stop
13:09 < Quent> are you talking basement nodes?
13:09 < JackH> ok, on to bitcoin then
13:09 < Quent> some basement kid?
13:09 < Quent> or are you talking nodes which actually matter?
13:10 < JackH> #bitcoin
13:10 < Quent> checkmated were you?
13:10 < helo> Quent: go toss a pebble if you want to change the world. this channel is for bitcoin core dev discussion.
13:10 < Quent> helo, brg44, instagibbs and all the other trolls
13:10 < Quent> you have no power in this chan!
13:10 < Quent> so keep your authoritarian tounge
13:10 < Quent> telling people to shut up
13:11 < brg444> ...
13:11 < Quent> if the mod here wants to warn he is welcome to
13:11 < Quent> if you who have been scaremongering for 3 years now want to debate you are welcome to
13:11 < Quent> but dont try to silence me when I call your bullshit
13:11 < Quent> as I called jackh out on his insinuation there is some outside influence
13:12 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
13:12 < Quent> you have been deceiving for 3 years
13:12 -!- nkuttler [~nkuttler@unaffiliated/nkuttler] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:12 < Quent> and look where your deception has gotten us!
13:12 < Quent> stand to light or shut your tongue
13:12 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:13 < instagibbs> wumpus, please zap
13:13 < JackH> and here I was, naive to think this guy was serious
13:16 < Quent> you should have been more naive JackH to think man would do anything else but what is self evidently obvious and good
13:16 < Anduck> please quit with the offtopic Quent
13:16 < Quent> I said it all the way back, I said it when theymost started his games
13:17 < Quent> because it applies to bitcoin first and foremost, what is self evidently good and in the interest of man shall prevail
13:17 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:18 < Quent> you have the whole people up in arms
13:18 < Quent> they hate rbf
13:18 < Quent> they hate the breach of 0confs non 100% securtiy
13:18 < Quent> they hate the rigidness in regards to the blocksize debate
13:19 < Quent> what on earth you lot are thinking they understand not because it has no basis in reason or bitcoins design
13:19 < Quent> but on what peter todd and peter todd alone has been feeding you for some 3 years now
13:19 < Quent> with his character assasination attempts of gavin
13:19 < Quent> at every opprotunity 
13:20 < Quent> with his hate for spv wallets, for oconf transactions, for all that makes bitcoin convenient
13:24 < Quent> the way was lost in 2013 when the developers segregated themselves, isolated themselves to the mailing list and dividied themselves from the users, creating an extreme group think, to the point where the developers started thinking they are gods, they are in charge, they can order around, leading to the great wall which Jeff says is greatest he has seen in 20 years of open source development
13:25 < Quent> we ought to learn from what has and is happening and forge a path forward where we can cooperate and do things better rather than enage in venemous accusations of socpupets or "outsiders" influencing etc
13:25 < paveljanik> this looks like C# 8)
13:28 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:29 -!- adam3us [~Adium@70.158.101.143] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:29 -!- adam3us [~Adium@70.158.101.143] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
13:29 -!- adam3us [~Adium@70.158.101.143] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:34 -!- mode/#bitcoin-core-dev [+o Luke-Jr] by ChanServ
13:34 <@Luke-Jr> Quent: please take this to #bitcoin or not at all
13:34 -!- mode/#bitcoin-core-dev [-o Luke-Jr] by Luke-Jr
13:45 -!- ryitpm [~ryitpm@87.121.52.41] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:49 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:55 < btcdrak> Quent: please take this to #bitcoin
13:57 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
13:57 < zookolaptop> Hello folks: per https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7330#issuecomment-171069106, could you please tell me who authored https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement?
13:59 < morcos> Luke-Jr: I think you'll have to be a bit more explicit as to what the problem is.  but i think entry.GetPriority(chainActive.Height + 1) should always return the correct answer
14:00 < Luke-Jr> zookolaptop: I do not see a reason to disclose that, and it seems possibly harmful to do so.
14:00 < Luke-Jr> morcos: I haven't figured out what the problem is. At this time I am trying to extend the test to cover reorganisations
14:01 < morcos> Luke-Jr: well modulo the change so that inputs included in blocks after the transaction originally entered the mempool won't age unless you are using 7149
14:01 < morcos> Luke-Jr: ah!  let me take a look at that again.  7149 should handle that properly
14:01 < morcos> Luke-Jr: but you might be right that the code in master will not handle that correctly
14:01 < Luke-Jr> I am testing on top of 7149
14:02 -!- MarcoFalke [c3523fc8@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.195.82.63.200] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:02 < morcos> Luke-Jr: I flagged that originally with the code that got merged, but perhaps not clearly enough
14:02 < morcos> Well 7149 is meant to work properly with that situation, but I can't guarantee it does.   The difficulty of getting that right is why I keep saying 7149 is too complicated
14:03 < kanzure> zookolaptop: and you just ignored my comment or something? what
14:03 < MarcoFalke> morcos, if you still plan to squash 7296, you should do it now, I guess.
14:03 < kanzure> zookolaptop: why should i even bother replying to you if you are going to ignore me? :-(
14:04 < morcos> MarcoFalke: I have no preference as to whether it is squashed or not.
14:04 < zookolaptop> kanzure: I'm sorry, which comment?
14:04 < morcos> MarcoFalke: I've been trying to take the approach that changing the PR's less will make them more likely to get merged
14:04 < kanzure> zookolaptop: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7330#issuecomment-171060441
14:04 < MarcoFalke> I like it unsquashed, generally.
14:05 < MarcoFalke> But I don't like the SQUASHME in git blame either
14:05 < morcos> MarcoFalke: :)  eh...  priorities
14:06 < MarcoFalke> Let's just leave the SQUASHME out of the commits in the future. ;)
14:06 < zookolaptop> kanzure: thanks for that!
14:07 < MarcoFalke> wumpus, is there anything particular holding back 7296?
14:07 < kanzure> zookolaptop: it is morally dubious for you to claim that the names of 2000000 authors would for some reason change the merits of the content. it's just wrong. stop wasting our time.
14:09 -!- murch [~murch@p4FE396D8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
14:10 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:12 < morcos> kanzure: (i'll keep this in core-dev for the time being since it is specifically about core development even if not technical) i disagree.  and i sympathize with zooko's request.
14:12 < morcos> however i dont think there is any easy way to satisfy his request
14:12 < morcos> Bitcoin Core is not well defined
14:13 < kanzure> what exactly do you think is not well defined?
14:13 < morcos> I think it is reasonable in the interim to sign such messages Bitcoin Core but to be able to explain to people what the process for making a decision on them is
14:13 < morcos> or who are the people that stand behind thme
14:13 < morcos> these are things not that we want to hide, but that we don't have clear answers for
14:14 < morcos> actually, on second though, this really shouldn't be in this channel
14:14 < kanzure> i have no idea what you are talking about.
14:14 < kanzure> yes.
14:14 < morcos> not sure where to move it, but happy to continue elsewhere
14:14 < MarcoFalke> #bitcoin ?
14:14 < kanzure> i'll take a pm.
14:14 < morcos> ha ha ha
14:14 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-228.as13285.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
14:14 < zookolaptop> morcos: if you find an appropriate channel let me know. ☺
14:15 < kanzure> morcos: convincing me in pm is useful because then i can resolve problems for you.
14:15 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
14:15 < morcos> i don't know how irc works.   can i just say /join #zookosquestion and then we can discuss there?
14:15 < kanzure> yes, but i don't care about his question.
14:15 < zookolaptop> kanzure: then you know what to do!
14:15 < zookolaptop> Yes, I'll discuss this with morcos and whoever else would like to in #zookosquestion.
14:16 < kanzure> your question has nothing to do with morcos' statement that he was trying to explain to me.
14:22 -!- adam3us [~Adium@70.158.101.143] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
14:27 -!- dcousens [~anon@d110-33-200-231.mas801.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:31 -!- dcousens [~anon@d110-33-200-231.mas801.nsw.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
14:32 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
14:44 -!- MarcoFalke [c3523fc8@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.195.82.63.200] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
14:46 -!- jtimon [~quassel@126.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
15:25 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:25 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
15:59 -!- Thireus [~Thireus@vps-92.197.170.217.stwvps.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
16:01 -!- AtashiCon [arnavion@unaffiliated/arnavion] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:01 -!- AtashiCon [arnavion@unaffiliated/arnavion] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:09 -!- adam3us [~Adium@75.104.70.191] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:22 -!- zookolaptop [~user@c-24-9-79-61.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
16:22 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
16:23 -!- arowser [~quassel@106.120.101.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:39 -!- dcousens [~anon@203-206-217-234.perm.iinet.net.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:56 -!- jcorgan|away is now known as jcorgan
17:16 -!- brg444 [18257df2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.24.37.125.242] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
17:23 -!- zookolaptop [~user@2601:281:8001:26aa:adbe:5d64:a3cf:2459] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:27 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:29 < Anduck> why not bitcoincore.org instead of bitcoinco.re (which imo sucks)?
17:38 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-dkbxwcodzgkqnisq] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
17:38 -!- brg444 [415ce066@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.224.102] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:51 -!- zookolap` [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:53 -!- zookolaptop [~user@2601:281:8001:26aa:adbe:5d64:a3cf:2459] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
18:03 -!- zookolap` is now known as zooko
18:09 -!- adam3us [~Adium@75.104.70.191] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
18:15 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has quit [Quit: The Darkness Will Rise Again.]
18:21 -!- teward [teward@ubuntu/member/teward] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:39 -!- neha [~narula@mint-square.mit.edu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:55 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@104.232.116.217] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:57 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.53] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:06 -!- p15 [~p15@52.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:07 -!- go1111111 [~go1111111@104.200.154.27] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:54 -!- p15 [~p15@52.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
19:56 -!- dcousens [~anon@203-206-217-234.perm.iinet.net.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
19:57 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.53] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
19:59 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.54] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:13 -!- brg444 [415ce066@gateway/web/freenode/ip.65.92.224.102] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
20:29 -!- p15 [~p15@5.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:30 -!- da2ce7_mobile_ [~da2ce7@opentransactions/dev/da2ce7] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
20:30 -!- da2ce7 [~da2ce7@opentransactions/dev/da2ce7] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
20:33 -!- Yoghur114 [~Yoghurt11@131.224.198.111] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:33 -!- Yoghur114 [~Yoghurt11@131.224.198.111] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:37 -!- da2ce7 [~da2ce7@opentransactions/dev/da2ce7] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:40 -!- da2ce7_mobile [~da2ce7@opentransactions/dev/da2ce7] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:45 -!- adam3us [~Adium@c-98-234-64-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:46 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)]
20:47 -!- zookolaptop [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:52 -!- dcousens [~anon@203-206-217-234.perm.iinet.net.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:01 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@119.252.121.74] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:20 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@104.156.228.69] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
21:25 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@119.252.121.74] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
21:40 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@119.252.121.74] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:41 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@119.252.121.74] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
21:51 -!- p15_ [~p15@90.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:54 -!- p15 [~p15@5.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
22:00 -!- jcorgan is now known as jcorgan|away
22:04 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
22:19 -!- moli [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:36 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tmgxyeetykjfwetu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:43 < arowser> bitcoinco
22:44 -!- adam3us [~Adium@c-98-234-64-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
22:47 -!- adam3us [~Adium@c-98-234-64-218.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:39 -!- p15 [~p15@70.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:42 -!- p15_ [~p15@90.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
23:44 -!- jtimon [~quassel@126.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:46 -!- blkdb [~blkdb@2a01:4f8:140:1407::2] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:46 -!- JackH [~Jack@host-80-43-143-228.as13285.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:48 -!- blkdb [~blkdb@2a01:4f8:140:1407::2] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:49 -!- blkdb [~blkdb@2a01:4f8:140:1407::2] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev