--- Day changed Thu Mar 03 2016
00:03 -!- schmidty [~schmidty@unaffiliated/schmidty] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
00:09 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-noldsbvrjeohwzop] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:20 -!- Thireus [~Thireus@vps-92.197.170.217.stwvps.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:27 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:32 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
00:46 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
00:47 -!- p15x [~p15x@111.193.162.142] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:55 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:06 -!- inaltoasinistra [~jonathan@net-188-216-213-213.cust.vodafonedsl.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:15 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3AA9D4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:26 -!- wallet421 [~wallet42@172.56.38.93] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
01:26 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@14.150.broadband14.iol.cz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:26 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@14.150.broadband14.iol.cz] has quit [Changing host]
01:26 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:39 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:59 -!- nickler_ is now known as nickler
02:08 -!- randy-waterhouse [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/randy-waterhouse] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:35 < GitHub33> [bitcoin] elliotolds opened pull request #7635: [Documentation] Add dependency info to test docs (master...docs4) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7635
02:51 < GitHub21> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #7310: MOVEONLY: Move consensus functions out of main (master...consensus-moveonly-0.13.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7310
02:53 < GitHub57> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #6907: Chainparams: Use a regular factory for creating chainparams (master...chainparams-factory-0.12.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6907
02:53 < GitHub133> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #7566: WIP: Implement BIP9 and get BIP113 to be ready to be deployed with it as an example (master...bip9-0.12.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7566
02:55 < GitHub13> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #7565: bip9/bip113/libconsensus-p2a: Deployment preparations forBIP113 + #7552 + Introduce Consensus::VerifyTx() (master...libconsensus-p2a-verifytx-bip113-0.12.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7565
03:01 -!- inaltoas1nistra [~jonathan@net-188-216-213-213.cust.vodafonedsl.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:04 -!- inaltoasinistra [~jonathan@net-188-216-213-213.cust.vodafonedsl.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
03:11 < GitHub153> [bitcoin] makevoid opened pull request #7636: Add bitcoin address label to request payment QR code (master...request_payment_qrcode_address_label) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7636
03:19 < jouke> bitcoind -help-debug checks if bitcoin core is running?
03:19 < jouke> bitcoind -help does not. Intended behaviour?
03:22 < jouke> oh, --help -help-debug
03:22 < jouke> never mind
03:23 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:23 -!- MarcoFalke [8af6020a@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:24 -!- gevs [~greg@unaffiliated/gevs] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:43 -!- randy-waterhouse [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/randy-waterhouse] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
03:45 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
03:45 -!- jannes_ [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:46 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
03:54 < GitHub198> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #7563: libconsensus-p2a: Decouple pow.o from chain.o and move it to the consensus package (master...libconsensus-p2a-chain-cpp-interface-0.12.99) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7563
03:57 < GitHub11> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/409f843f2ed2...1b68de35250e
03:57 < GitHub11> bitcoin/master fa1b80d MarcoFalke: [travis] Only run check-doc.py once
03:57 < GitHub11> bitcoin/master 1b68de3 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7620: [travis] Only run check-doc.py once...
03:58 < GitHub17> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7620: [travis] Only run check-doc.py once (master...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7620
04:17 -!- inaltoas1nistra [~jonathan@net-188-216-213-213.cust.vodafonedsl.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:19 -!- inaltoasinistra [~jonathan@net-188-216-213-213.cust.vodafonedsl.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:31 < GitHub58> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #7637: Fix memleak in TorController [rework] (master...2016_03_torcontrol_leak) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7637
04:32 < GitHub143> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7610: Fix memleak in TorController (master...2016/02/torctrl_memleak) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7610
04:37 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@111.198.29.53] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
04:43 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@c89225.upc-c.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
04:56 < GitHub137> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1b68de35250e...7f001bdf641d
04:56 < GitHub137> bitcoin/master 5ecfa36 Jonas Schnelli: Remove openssl info from init/log and from Qt debug window
04:56 < GitHub137> bitcoin/master 7f001bd Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7605: Remove openssl info from init/log and from Qt debug window...
04:56 < GitHub45> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7605: Remove openssl info from init/log and from Qt debug window (master...2016/02/rm_openssl_log) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7605
04:56 < GitHub59> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7586: fixes/refactoring for building against LibreSSL (master...2016/02/fix_openssl_libressl) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7586
04:57 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@c89225.upc-c.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:58 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-122-14-46-190.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:06 -!- gevs [~greg@ip-62-235-153-83.dsl.scarlet.be] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:06 -!- gevs [~greg@ip-62-235-153-83.dsl.scarlet.be] has quit [Changing host]
05:06 -!- gevs [~greg@unaffiliated/gevs] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:20 -!- berndj-blackout is now known as berndj
05:32 < GitHub83> [bitcoin] laanwj reopened pull request #7517: test: script_error checking in script_invalid tests (master...2016_02_test_script_errors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7517
05:41 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-noldsbvrjeohwzop] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
05:43 -!- jl2012 [uid133844@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-bgqtxpzypmcurwlq] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
05:52 -!- jl2012 [uid133844@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zjhuubqerntidnbi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:52 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yizjxekortbxzhmg] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:59 -!- jarret [~jarret@162.216.46.151] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:10 < GitHub6> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7f001bdf641d...3368895c3b94
06:10 < GitHub6> bitcoin/master 5a2b1c0 Alex Morcos: Don't resend wallet txs that aren't in our own mempool
06:10 < GitHub6> bitcoin/master 3368895 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7521: Don't resend wallet txs that aren't in our own mempool...
06:10 < GitHub64> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7521: Don't resend wallet txs that aren't in our own mempool (master...testBeforeRelay) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7521
06:20 -!- helo_ is now known as helo
06:21 -!- mesmer_ [~mesmer@unaffiliated/mesmer] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
06:25 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3AA9D4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:29 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
06:43 < jouke> wallet config has spendzeroconfchange=0, but with 0.12 it does create transactions with inputs that were not confirmed yet.
06:59 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:00 -!- zooko [~user@50.243.136.91] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:04 < wumpus> jouke: ugh! can you open an issue?
07:06 < wumpus> strange, I wonder what changed in that code, looking at CWalletTx::IsTrusted() it still returns false when depth is not >=1 and that option isn't set
07:07 < wumpus> so is it spending outputs that aren't IsTrusted?
07:08 < wumpus> shouldn't be, AvailableCoins is always called with fOnlyConfirmed, and it skips coins that aren't trusted if that is set
07:08 < wumpus> no, I don't see how this could happen :/
07:08 < wumpus> maybe there was a reorg, and a transaction went from 1 to 0 confirms?
07:12 < jonasschnelli> jouke, wumpus: interesting... testing local
07:17 < jonasschnelli> Can't reproduce in a local test.
07:17 < jonasschnelli> -spendzeroconfchange=0 worked for me
07:17 < jonasschnelli> maybe a reorg thing.. yes.
07:18 -!- frankenm_ [~frankenmi@174-25-22-102.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:19 -!- ebfull [~sean@73.34.119.0] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:27 < GitHub120> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3368895c3b94...7f966713a413
07:27 < GitHub120> bitcoin/master fa5f193 MarcoFalke: [travis] Exit early when check-doc.py fails
07:27 < GitHub120> bitcoin/master 7f96671 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7455: [travis] Exit early when check-doc.py fails...
07:27 < GitHub163> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #7455: [travis] Exit early when check-doc.py fails (master...Mf1601-travisCheckDoc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7455
07:32 -!- TZander [~quassel@kde/zander] has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
07:46 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:50 -!- wumpus [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
07:50 -!- wumpus [~quassel@pdpc/supporter/professional/wumpus] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:51 -!- CyrusV [~cyrus@unaffiliated/cyrusv] has quit [Quit: see you later]
08:04 -!- CyrusV [~cyrus@unaffiliated/cyrusv] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:08 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:11 -!- jtimon [~quassel@35.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:14 -!- Thireus [~Thireus@vps-92.197.170.217.stwvps.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
08:14 -!- zooko [~user@50.243.136.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
08:31 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
08:31 -!- davec_ [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:32 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:32 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-251-52.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:33 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
08:34 -!- inaltoasinistra [~jonathan@net-188-216-213-213.cust.vodafonedsl.it] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
09:00 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:10 -!- Cheeseo [~x@c-71-58-178-138.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:10 -!- Cheeseo [~x@c-71-58-178-138.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]
09:10 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:27 -!- zooko [~user@50.243.136.91] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:29 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-36-12.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Later.]
09:38 -!- gevs [~greg@unaffiliated/gevs] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:39 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:42 -!- Thireus [~Thireus@vps-92.197.170.217.stwvps.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:06 -!- Cheeseo [~x@c-71-58-178-138.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:06 -!- Cheeseo [~x@c-71-58-178-138.hsd1.pa.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]
10:06 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:33 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3AA9D4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:46 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@vtelinet-66-220-228-214.vermontel.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:57 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@vtelinet-66-220-228-214.vermontel.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
10:59 -!- MarcoFalke [8af6020a@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.10] has quit [Quit: http://www.kiwiirc.com/ - A hand crafted IRC client]
11:00 < gmaxwell> Meeting time?
11:00 < Luke-Jr> yep
11:01 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: wumpus: phantomcircuit: petertodd: sipa: paveljanik: sdaftuar: morcos: BlueMatt: 
11:02 < petertodd> hi
11:03 < gmaxwell> petertodd: I figured we should wait for some more people to show to start.
11:03 < sdaftuar> present
11:04 < sipa> present
11:05 < CodeShark> Hello
11:05 < gmaxwell> cfields: btcdrak: CodeShark:
11:06 -!- zooko [~user@50.243.136.91] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
11:06 < gmaxwell> #startmeeting
11:06 < lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Mar  3 19:06:26 2016 UTC.  The chair is gmaxwell. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
11:06 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
11:06 < gmaxwell> #topic Agenda
11:06 < gmaxwell> What things need to be discussed today?
11:07 < CodeShark> Versionbits, segwit status
11:08 < gmaxwell> okay lets start on versionbits for now and we'll see what else gets raised?
11:08 < gmaxwell> #topic Versionbits (BIP9)
11:08 < btcdrak> hi
11:08 < sipa> i'm about to push a few changes to 7575 (non semantic ones), and it should be ready for review
11:08 < gmaxwell> Sipa has been working on refining the proposal and has made some recent changes which I think are pretty good-- eliminate some corner cases around start/stop.
11:09 < btcdrak> The BIP update is looking nice.
11:09 < CodeShark> Yes, I like the latest changes
11:09 < sipa> so BIP9 currently guarantees that as long as the start/end times of deployments are non-overlapping, the bits are never ambiguous
11:09 < sipa> so no need for dependency tracking between different deployments, just choose start/end times sanely
11:10 < CodeShark> Yes, that's what I had in mind in my implementation but sipa did it better :)
11:10 < sipa> 7575 currently implements that, and has tests (for the low-level logic, not for the integration with consensus logic)
11:11 < gmaxwell> I continue to be a little concerned that the activation threshold may be too high considering the low variance triggering mechenism, and activation delay. But I see nothing to do about that except try it and see if our first versionbits fork attempt fails to activate in a reasonable time.
11:11 < sipa> we can reduce the threshold if needed
11:11 < sipa> increasing is harder, as it may cause warning to not fire
11:12 < sdaftuar> sipa: is 7575 going to eventually include deployment code for BIP68/112/113, or are you going to remove the last commit for a different PR?
11:12 < sipa> sdaftuar: going to remove the last commit, and replace with whatever is agreed 
11:12 < gmaxwell> Thats a good argument. (that it's easier to reduce the threshold)
11:12 < btcdrak> sdaftuar: I have the deployment code done for VB
11:13 < morcos> sipa: should the regtest window be smaller than 2016?
11:13 < sdaftuar> btcdrak: ok great.  i was just going to say that saving the deployment for a subsequent PR might be easier for reviewing tests, etc
11:13 < morcos> just seems like it'll make the tests less cumbersome if you want to watch what happens as you go up and down through a couple different windows
11:13 < btcdrak> I was going to say, regtest with 2016 retarget is cumbersome
11:13 < gmaxwell> we need to fix regtest to not fall over at retargeting.
11:14 < sdaftuar> i think that is fixed
11:14 < morcos> didn't we do that
11:14 < gmaxwell> oh sorry! :)
11:14 < sdaftuar> but it still might be cumbersome to generate long chains
11:14 < sipa> yes, regtest just never changes difficulty now
11:14 < btcdrak> it's cumbersome to generate long chains, since there are two retarget windows required.
11:14 < sipa> but good point; i can set the regtest window/threshold lower
11:14 < cfields> whoops, present. thanks gmaxwell.
11:14 < btcdrak> sipa: +1
11:14 < gmaxwell> why is typing setgenerate 4032 a problem?
11:15 < sdaftuar> however i also worry that we're no longer testing mainnet parameters, and the consensus parameters are duplicated for each chain
11:15 < sipa> gmaxwell: you want generate 4032
11:15 < btcdrak> gmaxwell: it's too much for RPC tests
11:15 < sipa> gmaxwell: setgenerate starts the internal miner with the specified number of cores; it no longer has special casing for regtest
11:15 < morcos> it just takes a little longer...
11:15 < gmaxwell> I do like to avoid avoidable differences between regtest and mainnet. 
11:16 < gmaxwell> perhaps the answer if it's taking to long is to make regtest even faster?
11:16 < sipa> reintroduce SSE mining code? :p
11:16 < btcdrak> :p
11:16 < gmaxwell> I meant lower the difficulty. :)
11:17 < morcos> 12 secs 
11:17 < sipa> the regtest difficulty is 1/2000000000
11:17 < sipa> you can at most get a 2x speedup
11:17 < morcos> i think it would make the rpc test for this pretty slow as i imagine you'd need to do that many times
11:17 < gmaxwell> OK, suggestion withdrawn.
11:18  * paveljanik is late, sorry
11:18 < sdaftuar> i worry more that a typo in the mainnet chain's deployment bitmask might go unnoticed/untested
11:18 < gmaxwell> (why is it so slow? 6 seconds for 4k blocks seems like a lot)
11:19 < sdaftuar> would anything catch that?
11:19 < sipa> i'm still fine with lower window for regtest
11:19 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: review; I guess. (hahaha)
11:20 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:20 < btcdrak> gmaxwell: it's much slower on RPC tests
11:20 < sdaftuar> especially if there's stuff in your mempool right?
11:21 < sdaftuar> blockindex consistency checks and mempool consistency checks both add up i guess
11:21 < morcos> maybe we didn't fix everything...  blocks 4k -> 8k = 32 secs,   blocks 8k -> 12k = 53 secs
11:21 < sdaftuar> i'd guess*
11:21 < btcdrak> yeah it's like 45 seconds for me
11:21 < sdaftuar> blockindex checks are n^2 no?
11:21 < sdaftuar> er
11:21 < morcos> i suppose..  i think we're in the weeds
11:21 < sdaftuar> yeah sorry
11:22 < gmaxwell> So, sipa what do you need now for versionbits?
11:23 < sipa> let me push a few changes, and then review
11:23 < sipa> and tests are welcome
11:23 < gmaxwell> #action after sipa pushes a few changes; reivew/test 7575, review BIP9
11:24 < gmaxwell> Move on to segwit status? anyone have other agenda items to add?
11:24 < paveljanik> feefilter review etc. please
11:24 < morcos> and i hae a quick comment on tx backlog
11:24 < paveljanik> BIP113
11:24 < gmaxwell> k, lets do txbacklog right now.
11:24 < Luke-Jr> I still think feefilter should be a little more flexible.
11:25 < gmaxwell> #topic txbacklog
11:25 < Luke-Jr> is there one?
11:25 < morcos> i was wondering what kind of improvements are acceptable for minor releases
11:25 < paveljanik> s/113/133/
11:25 < sdaftuar> CPFP mining! :)
11:25 < sipa> morcos: in response to an urgent problem, i'd say "anything"
11:26 < morcos> i've noticed block validation seems to have slowed down significantly..  my theory is this is due to the daily cache flush and now many txs in blocks are older than that
11:26 < morcos> this isn't urgent for sure
11:26 < sipa> ok
11:26 < gmaxwell> Right now there has been an increase in tx with fees over 1 satoshi per byte. The months standing background spam load of a around a gigabyte below that seems largely unchanged to me.
11:26 < morcos> but it seems to me if we can correctly fix the "write but don't flush" aspect of the coinsviewcache, then that should be a significant performance boost
11:27 < morcos> i guess it depends on whether we think validation times are a significant bottleneck for anything
11:27 < sipa> morcos: yes...
11:27 < gmaxwell> morcos: I've noticed the startup checks being much slower and was wondering if we'd made some regression someplace. Haven't tried bisecting.
11:27 < petertodd> morcos: until we change to sending blocks before validating them they do add up
11:27 < Luke-Jr> has anyone looked into whether the new txs are real or spam?
11:28 < gmaxwell> Luke-Jr: some people have, petertodd was tweeting some analysis that strongly supported the latter.
11:28 < petertodd> Luke-Jr: yeah, they look like long chains where eventually everything goes back to the sender, apaprently
11:28 < petertodd> Luke-Jr: but no formal writeups exist yet
11:28 < Luke-Jr> hmm
11:28 < morcos> heh, you mean short chains..  woo hoo for chain limits!
11:28 < Luke-Jr> any patterns to identify it with?
11:28 < petertodd> morcos: no, they're long chains - once the txs confirm the chain is extended further
11:29 < gmaxwell> in general most wallets are responding well (hurray! big improvement from 6 months ago) though not all.
11:29 < petertodd> gmaxwell: speaking of, I noticed greenaddress has rbf code in their github repo
11:29 < morcos> it looks to me like the backlog is diminishing as well
11:29 < petertodd> gmaxwell: (for sending)
11:30 < gmaxwell> petertodd: interesting, yes.. gait has been working on that; I think he was off in a design rathole on how to best support updating with additional outputs.
11:31 < petertodd> gmaxwell: yeah, lots of possible ways wallets can do that, some of them quite different from how wallets work right now
11:31 < gmaxwell> FWIW, with the new proposal for schnorr aggregate signatures, updating for more outputs will be much more attractive.
11:31 < cfields> gmaxwell: speaking of, the -mintxfee behavior change may be worth a quick discussion.
11:32 < sipa> cfields: the -paytxfee change you mean? :)
11:32 < sipa> (too many fee parameters...)
11:32 < petertodd> gmaxwell: oh! that's a good point!
11:33 < cfields> sipa: er yes
11:33 < morcos> i think we just bungled not more clearly announcing the change in semantics for paytxfee
11:33 < morcos> surprising none of us flagged that as important at the time of the PR...  which does raise another issue, we should have a checklist of things to revisit before release
11:34 < gmaxwell> Did we know we really changed them? my view on the history was that it was changed to not round a long time ago, but another bug covered it up. That bug was fixed, and no one realized an announcement was needed.
11:34 < morcos> multiple times now we've said, ok we'll just need to fix that before release, and then forgotten or almost so
11:34 < morcos> gmaxwell: oh perhaps?
11:34 < Luke-Jr> morcos: well, the change in behaviour is definitely correct
11:34 < gmaxwell> I'm not sure that even if I realized it was a change I would have put "fee computation more accurate" as high importance-- since mining priority was changed to be precise a really long time ago. (0.6?)
11:35 < sipa> morcos: when i saw that discussion, i remembered the "fPayAtLeastCustomFee" global and associated problems, but I don't think I ever realized that that global and its default value equal to true was ever released
11:35 -!- Don_John [~Don@250-223-114-134.nat.resnet.nau.edu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:35 < gmaxwell> yea, I saw that fix but don't think I realized that it was ever in a release. When sipa asked me about paytxfee yesturday I told him it was changed to be accurate forever ago.
11:35 < gmaxwell> So I think thats the sequence of errors here.
11:36 < gmaxwell> A checklist would be useful, though I don't know if it would have saved us here.
11:36 < sipa> so what i think happened is that at some point we switched the mining code to be per byte instead of per kb, later that global was introduced which implicitly retained the behaviour of "rounding up to 1000 bytes for fee calculation" even though the rest of the code was updated to be per byte, and only now, with the global going away, we actually get the accurate change
11:36 < gmaxwell> asking people to document if a bug being fixed was ever released might have helped.
11:36 < morcos> yeah , a checklist on changing behavior of any options or rpc calls being properly documented
11:36 < morcos> another example is -maxsigcachesize
11:37 < sipa> and i expect that people who made these changes were aware of it, as they updated the rpc tests accordingly, but not review
11:37 < morcos> i pity the poor fool who has that set to 100000
11:37 < gmaxwell> you don't have 100 gb ram?
11:37 < Luke-Jr> ideally we should probably do the release notes in the PR itself
11:38 < morcos> i'm not sure how many people would catch all these warnings in the 2 foot think binder of release notes, but its still good to have them
11:38 < gmaxwell> I don't think it was a big deal here, but it could have been one.
11:38 < sipa> well if we'd have warning for unknown options, we can just switch to a practice of renaming them whenever their meaning changes
11:38 < CodeShark> make sure to say "WARNING" first so it's searchable :)
11:38 < btcdrak> yeah I've been meaning to suggest we add at least brief release note documentation in PRs
11:39 < sipa> btcdrak: i always do (or try to...)
11:39 < gmaxwell> okay, we're going on a tangent.
11:39 < sipa> going on a tangent is a sin
11:39 < gmaxwell> Anything more to say about backlog before we move to talk fee filter?
11:39 < morcos> oh no
11:39 < CodeShark> no trig puns
11:39 < sipa> CodeShark: i co-sign that
11:39 < gmaxwell> My sides hurt.
11:40 < btcdrak> sipa: can you cosign this?
11:40 < Luke-Jr> lol
11:40 < Luke-Jr> ♥ sipa
11:40 < sdaftuar> so how about that fee filter
11:40 < gmaxwell> #topic feefilter
11:40 < morcos> it seems to work pretty well
11:40 < gmaxwell> Feefilter is awesome. I have not yet run it.
11:41 < Luke-Jr> sorry, I need to run.. I think feefilter at least needs some kind of "mode" for things like "how do we measure size" etc, but not a huge deal
11:41 < morcos> i mentioned in another context, it reduces tx send and rx bandwidth by around 40+%
11:41 < gmaxwell> thats fantastic.
11:41 < morcos> Luke-Jr: I'm basically of the mindset that we don't introduce complication until we need it
11:41 < morcos> its totally optional, so no reason not to replace it later with a more generic one if we ever bother implementing 
11:42 < gmaxwell> We will not run out of message types, so we could introduce a modefilter later. I support that thinking.
11:42 < morcos> it seems to me the message type is the version, yep
11:42 < gmaxwell> I expect the way relay works to change substantially in the next couple years; so we should probably not overdesign here.
11:43 < morcos> i need to do a trivial pr rebase, but i guess it just needs more review
11:43 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:43 < morcos> i'm not sure what there is to discuss
11:43 < gmaxwell> Okay, I will test and review. Thanks for working on this.
11:43 < morcos> sure
11:43 < gmaxwell> #action Test and review fee filter. Morcos reports unicorns and rainbows result.
11:44 < paveljanik> great!
11:44 < morcos> well all depends on your test setup i guess.. :)
11:44 < gmaxwell> #topic CPFP mining
11:44 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: hows it going?
11:44 < sdaftuar> it's awesome.  
11:44 < sdaftuar> i've been running live for the last two days
11:45 < btcdrak> The PR number is #7600
11:45 < sdaftuar> comparing existing mining algorithm to new one
11:45 < sdaftuar> every ~128 tx's or so
11:45 < sdaftuar> looking at the last call to CNB before a block is found, i see a 72% increase in fee/block on the last 144 data points
11:45 < gmaxwell> I believe it should be making some pretty significant differences in selection from what I've seen. A number of users of OTHERBRAND wallet that has no fee estimation and always spends unconfirmed change seem to frequently produce chains of very low fee, very high fee (after realizing they needed more fee from the first tx).
11:46 < morcos> 72% ?!?!??!
11:46 < sdaftuar> that could obviously be due to a small number of tx's that aren't getting mined for extended periods
11:46 < sdaftuar> but geez we need this deployed, i think
11:46 < btcdrak> amazing
11:46 < sipa> sdaftuar: i believe that test would result in an exaggerated result
11:46 < gmaxwell> the effect is likely exagerated due to the pattern I just described: the human controlled fees are exagerating the needed increase.
11:47 < sipa> sdaftuar: as you're not actually creating blocks on the network with the new CPFP algorithm, i guess?
11:47 < sdaftuar> yep
11:47 < sdaftuar> correct
11:47 < sdaftuar> so if a tx stays around for a day, and isn't selected by the old code, you'd count it over and over
11:47 < sipa> sdaftuar: meaning that in a real setting, those "better" transactions would be mined once and cleaned up, reducing the effect for later blocks
11:47 < sipa> right,
11:47 < sdaftuar> correct
11:47 < sipa> sdaftuar: how about performance?
11:48 < sdaftuar> so there are three areas of performance to consider
11:48 < sdaftuar> one is the additional work of the mempool to keep the index
11:48 < sdaftuar> another is the part of CNB before TestBlockValidity is called
11:48 < sdaftuar> and the last is the time TestBlockValidity takes (much larger than the rest of CNB, which is why i think it makes sense to split it out)
11:48 < gmaxwell> (whom ever makes the lay summary, please don't report 72% increase as what CPFP does; in consideration of sipa's above point about N-fold counting)
11:49 < sdaftuar> the mempool work isn't really a steady state increase, the concern i think is in what happens when a block is connected
11:49 < sdaftuar> because then we have to update all the scores for every in-block transaction's descendants
11:49 < morcos> gmaxwell: also the previous number he reported to me was 1%.. :)
11:50 < sdaftuar> (when you add a tx to the mempool, you statically count its ancestors once, so that's basically negligible additional work)
11:50 < sdaftuar> so i timed that extra delay in mempool.removeForBlock
11:50 < morcos> but i think it is a good point, that if the increase is sometimes very big, its important for miners to take it...  presumably the average increase wouldn't ever be much different from 0, as we don't see txs permantely residing in mempool
11:50 < sdaftuar> and reported some numbers in #7594
11:51 < sdaftuar> looks like what i saw was an increase from an average of 10.9ms to 11.2ms
11:51 < sdaftuar> that was on half a month's data from october
11:51 < sdaftuar> er 10 days i guess actually
11:52 < sdaftuar> so i figure that's negligible enough to not really worry about, especially because if we really cared, we could make block relay happen while the mempool was still being updated, though it'd take some work
11:52 < gmaxwell> do we worry that CPFP's utility is compromised without package relay? -- I guess these measurements suggest its not.
11:52 < sdaftuar> moving on to CreateNewBlock's performance:
11:52 < sdaftuar> vast majority of CNB's total time is taken up by TestBlockValidity
11:53 < CodeShark> sorry to interrupt - we only have 8 minutes and I wanted to discuss segwit
11:53 < sdaftuar> somehow, TBV is slightly faster using the new code than the old one.  i haven't dived into it, but my guess is that maybe it's faster to look up mempool inputs than pcoinsTip inputs?
11:53 < sdaftuar> that speed increase is actually larger than the small hit to performance on the rest of CNB, so it's actually faster in total.  anyway numbers are in the PR #7600
11:53 < morcos> gmaxwell: i don't see that as a big concern...  i think it'll likely become common practice to avoid fees so small that they get evicted unless its actual spam.  and CPFP will be useful for when you guess wrong on getting confirmed quickly
11:53 < sdaftuar> i think this is a clear win
11:54 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: it sounds great, what now do you think we need to do to move forward?
11:54 < sdaftuar> review! i broke the work into 3 PR's for review.  one just adds the ancestor feerate index to the mempool (7594)
11:54 < gmaxwell> morcos: I guess thats one upside over the overly large mempool default size.
11:54 < sdaftuar> another is by morcos, which refactors CNB
11:54 < sdaftuar> and then 7600 builds on both with the change to CNB
11:55 < morcos> #7598
11:55 < gmaxwell> #action whip people into wroking on review for CFPF 7594 / 7598 / 7600  it's nicely broken up.
11:55 < gmaxwell> Can we segwit for CodeShark?
11:55 < CodeShark> lol
11:55 < gmaxwell> #topic segwit status
11:55 < CodeShark> we had a fork a few days ago
11:56 < sipa> i haven't had time to investigate
11:56 < sipa> my hope is that it is caused by miners running older versions of the code
11:56 < sipa> and not something else
11:56 < gmaxwell> Time for science then.
11:56 < CodeShark> that's most probable - but we haven't narrowed down the conditional that actually caused it
11:56 < sipa> i was planning on doing a segnet4 very soon, but we'd need to understand what's causing this first
11:57 < morcos> well is there anyone stuck on the short fork?
11:57 < CodeShark> I think there might still be a few
11:57 < morcos> seems like would be helpful to know what errors they have and what code they are running
11:57 < cfields> hmm, i'd be interested in taking a look there. sipa: any helpful references/context ?
11:57 < gmaxwell> might be useful if regtest networks put their git build info in their version numbers. awful for privacy... but would be useful here.
11:57 < sipa> cfields: CodeShark probably knows more
11:58 < gmaxwell> (e.g. a chainparam to put that info in the subver)
11:58 < cfields> ok. will ping CodeShark after
11:58 < CodeShark> I think the offending block was something like 22130
11:58 < CodeShark> or 22132
11:58 < CodeShark> or somewhere around there
11:59 < gmaxwell> okay So-- sounds good, a fleet of flying monkies will contemplate the segnet fork.  Posting forked IPs in the segwit IRC channel might get someone's attention.
11:59 < btcdrak> it's in the logs of #segwit-dev
11:59 < cfields> ok, thanks
11:59 < morcos> whats the actual block we're on now?
11:59 < CodeShark> 22769
12:00 < CodeShark> https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/ is still stuck on 22153
12:00 < gmaxwell> okay any emergencies worth going over?
12:00 < CodeShark> so it's still running he old code
12:00 < gmaxwell> #endmeeting
12:00 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Mar  3 20:00:31 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
12:00 < lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-03-19.06.html
12:00 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-03-19.06.txt
12:00 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-03-03-19.06.log.html
12:00 < gmaxwell> Thanks everyone (of course feel free to keep discussing!)
12:01 < gmaxwell> Sorry we didn't get to all the topics.
12:01 < morcos> we still need tests for the soft fork BIPS right
12:02 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5B3AA9D4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:02 < morcos> and 7187 still needs to be merged as well..   
12:03 < btcdrak> morcos: I'm waiting on the python tests from sdaftuar for #7187
12:03 -!- chris200_ [~chris2000@p5B3AA9D4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:03 -!- chris200_ [~chris2000@p5B3AA9D4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Client Quit]
12:03 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: if CPFP appears to be moderately stable, we might consider asking a moderately large miner to run it (in parallel to other stuff);  it would have most of it's usability benefit for the network if only one moderately large miner was running it.
12:05 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: yeah i was wondering if any miners might be set up to test the new code using their production parameters at least?  so that we can measure performance in production settings and know we haven't missed anything
12:05 < sdaftuar> i thought it might make sense to wait until it was merged into master to ask someone to do that
12:11 -!- treehug88 [~textual@static-108-30-103-59.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:21 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: assuming that the surrounding enviroment is sufficently fail safe, even if it's a crash problem then it should be safe to try. but also no harm in getting some more maturity under its belt first.
12:21 < gmaxwell> The only reason I suggested it is because there are at least a few users whos delays could be avoided by it.
12:24 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: that sounds reasonable to me.  do you have someone in mind to reach out to, or should i send out an email to the -dev list?
12:32 -!- fredrin [~fredrin@cm-84.215.171.162.getinternet.no] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
12:35 -!- fredrin [~fredrin@cm-84.215.171.162.getinternet.no] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:37 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: I have someone in mind.
12:39 -!- fredrin [~fredrin@cm-84.215.171.162.getinternet.no] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:41 -!- fredrin [~fredrin@cm-84.215.171.162.getinternet.no] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:46 -!- fredrin [~fredrin@cm-84.215.171.162.getinternet.no] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
12:46 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: cool, feel free to put them in touch with me
12:46 -!- fredrin [~fredrin@cm-84.215.171.162.getinternet.no] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:52 -!- Guest66849 [~schmidty@c-50-129-228-2.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:52 -!- Guest66849 [~schmidty@c-50-129-228-2.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]
12:52 -!- Guest66849 [~schmidty@unaffiliated/schmidty] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:52 -!- Guest66849 is now known as schmidty
13:02 -!- jannes_ [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
13:04 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:24 -!- xabbix [~xabbix@unaffiliated/xabbix] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:41 -!- chiwawa_ [568bb820@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.139.184.32] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:47 -!- treehug88 [~textual@static-108-30-103-59.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:56 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:07 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
14:14 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:16 -!- gevs [~greg@unaffiliated/gevs] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:26 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
14:32 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:55 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
14:57 -!- chiwawa_ [568bb820@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.139.184.32] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
15:22 -!- justanot1eruser is now known as justanotheruser
16:10 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-122-14-46-190.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
16:49 < phantomcircuit> morcos, #7589 why create a new class instead of adding those methods to CBlockTemplate
16:50 < phantomcircuit> something like CBlockTemplate::buildFromMempool(CTxMempool& mempool)
16:50 < morcos> phantomcircuit: good question.  I suppose it could ahve been done that way. 
16:50 < morcos> I'm not a super big fan of CBlockTemplate honestly
16:51 < morcos> perhaps when we have more time on our hands we can do a more radical redesign....  
16:52 < phantomcircuit> morcos, what dont you like about it?
17:04 < jtimon> oh, bip9 now has a graph with the state machine, very nice
17:09 < phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, are you aware of any libraries for forward error correction which are mit licensed and competently done?
17:10 < sipa> phantomcircuit: tell me if you find one
17:10 < phantomcircuit> sipa, not encouraging! :P
17:13 < sipa> phantomcircuit: i'd say BlockAssembler is an encapsulation of the state maintained during the runtime of CreateNewBlock, but not useful afterwards
17:13 < sipa> CBlockTemplate is the result, and its behaviour is defined by the GBT RPC call
17:16 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:17 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:20 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
17:20 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:22 < gmaxwell> phantomcircuit: forward error correction is a pretty broad space, I'd need more info.
17:24 < phantomcircuit> gmaxwell, split block into lots of udp packets and attempt to reassemble on the other end
17:25 < midnightmagic> zfec
17:25 < midnightmagic> the tahoe guys use it -- as far as I'm aware it's also the fastest
17:26 < gmaxwell> cpu time of an RS code is going to be too slow for your application.
17:26 < gmaxwell> very likely.
17:28 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:29 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@128-79-141-196.hfc.dyn.abo.bbox.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
17:33 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
17:33 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:34 < gmaxwell> (if followed up with phantomcircuit off channel)
17:35 < midnightmagic> what was the result?
17:35 < midnightmagic> like, suggestion/algorithm/library wise?
17:35 -!- zooko [~user@c-73-229-199-227.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
17:45 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
17:45 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:51 -!- jtimon [~quassel@35.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
18:02  * midnightmagic prods gmaxwell 
18:04  * midnightmagic withdraws prodding :)
18:10 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:11 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:17 -!- Thireus1 [~Thireus@vps-92.197.170.217.stwvps.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:18 -!- Thireus [~Thireus@vps-92.197.170.217.stwvps.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
18:20 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yizjxekortbxzhmg] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
18:21 -!- randy-waterhouse [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/randy-waterhouse] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:43 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
18:43 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:49 -!- jarret [~jarret@162.216.46.151] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:07 -!- p15_ [~p15@18.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:11 -!- p15 [~p15@125.91.145.64.client.static.strong-tk2.bringover.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
19:52 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:19 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:26 -!- AtashiCon [~Arnavion@unaffiliated/arnavion] has quit [Disconnected by services]
20:26 -!- Arnavion3 [arnavion@unaffiliated/arnavion] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:26 -!- Arnavion3 is now known as AtashiCon
20:27 -!- nkuttler [~nkuttler@unaffiliated/nkuttler] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:28 -!- zxzzt [~prod@static-100-38-11-146.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
20:29 -!- zxzzt [~prod@static-100-38-11-146.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:29 -!- nkuttler [~nkuttler@unaffiliated/nkuttler] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:33 -!- _alp_ [~alp@104-54-235-28.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
20:44 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
20:44 -!- _alp_ [~alp@104-54-235-28.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:02 -!- wallet42 [~wallet42@unaffiliated/wallet42] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:19 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Quit: .]
21:20 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:22 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:24 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@204.28.124.82] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:49 < GitHub160> [bitcoin] CryptoDJ opened pull request #7640: Removes backslashes from user agent in peers UI. (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7640
22:03 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
22:04 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:14 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
22:30 -!- jujumax_ [~jujumax@host184.190-139-89.telecom.net.ar] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:31 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:00 -!- dermoth_ [~thomas@dsl-216-221-50-116.mtl.aei.ca] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:00 -!- dermoth_ [~thomas@dsl-216-221-50-116.mtl.aei.ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:01 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:01 -!- dermoth_ is now known as dermoth
23:02 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:22 -!- nullpt_ [~pi@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/nullpt] has quit [Quit: leaving]
23:24 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
23:25 -!- Alopex [~bitcoin@cyber.dealing.ninja] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:29 -!- tr0nk [~tr0nk@c-73-17-239-115.hsd1.vt.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:35 -!- slackircbridge [~slackircb@45.55.41.36] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
23:35 -!- slackircbridge [~slackircb@45.55.41.36] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:40 -!- [Author] [~Author]@2401:a400:3202:2000:bad:d09:15:90d] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
23:44 -!- Atomic_zEU0b [~atomic@142.169.78.178] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:45 -!- [Author] [~Author]@2401:a400:3202:2000:bad:d09:15:90d] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:47 -!- Don_John [~Don@250-223-114-134.nat.resnet.nau.edu] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
23:55 -!- AtashiCon [arnavion@unaffiliated/arnavion] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
23:57 -!- berndj [~berndj@azna.co.za] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
23:58 -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
23:59 -!- cdecker [~cdecker@pc-10367.ethz.ch] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev