--- Day changed Thu Jul 21 2016
00:19 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-utjhhasddmpbnrds] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:20 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
00:39 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@28pc230.sshunet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:39 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@28pc230.sshunet.nl] has quit [Changing host]
00:39 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
00:53 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:20 -!- blur3d [~blur3d@49.187.16.38] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:22 -!- blur3d [~blur3d@49.187.16.38] has quit [Client Quit]
01:41 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
01:48 -!- fengling_ is now known as fengling
01:53 < NicolasDorier> wumpus: can you merge https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8342 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8341 when you have time (two trivial already acked commits)
01:55 < NicolasDorier> ha and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8347
01:56 < NicolasDorier> all trivial stuff so jtimon and me can rebase our independant work on top of it and have smaller future PR
02:05 -!- harrymm [~wayne@223.204.250.148] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:21 -!- harrymm [~wayne@223.204.247.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:34 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has quit [Quit: gtg]
02:38 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:43 < wumpus> yes, makes sense
02:46 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:47 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:47 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:54 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
02:57 < GitHub64> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8e048f40cc25...6f4092da80bc
02:57 < GitHub64> bitcoin/master a3e1984 NicolasDorier: Consensus: Trivial transform BOOST_FOREACH into for loop
02:57 < GitHub64> bitcoin/master 6f4092d Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8342: Consensus: Trivial transform BOOST_FOREACH into for loop...
02:57 < GitHub69> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8342: Consensus: Trivial transform BOOST_FOREACH into for loop (master...removeforeach) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8342
03:01 -!- JackH [~Jack@79-73-186-51.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:16 -!- jtimon [~quassel@55.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:20 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:48 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:50 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Bye]
03:53 -!- cryptapus [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
03:56 -!- btcfan [~btcfan@93-32-192-82.ip34.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:32 -!- btcfan [~btcfan@93-32-192-82.ip34.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
04:33 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:36 -!- pmienk [~pmienk@c-71-227-177-179.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
04:45 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
04:49 -!- pmienk [~pmienk@c-71-227-177-179.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:02 < NicolasDorier> wumpus: I just rebased https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8341 (the second stupid trivial one)
05:02 < wumpus> NicolasDorier: thanks
05:10 < GitHub43> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6f4092da80bc...04af3cfe8fa9
05:10 < GitHub43> bitcoin/master 7821889 NicolasDorier: Consensus: Remove calls to error() from ContextualCheckBlock
05:10 < GitHub43> bitcoin/master 04af3cf Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8341: Consensus: Remove calls to error() from ContextualCheckBlock...
05:10 < GitHub57> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8341: Consensus: Remove calls to error() from ContextualCheckBlock (master...error-calls) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8341
05:12 -!- TomMc [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:17 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:20 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.131] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:26 < NicolasDorier> wumpus: last is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8347 of jtimon and I let you sleep in peace
05:28 < NicolasDorier> wumpus: woops, wait 
05:28 < wumpus> OH I was misreading that, looking at the github page it seemed like jtimon was still adding commits to it, but it says "added a commit to jtimon/bitcoin that referenced this pull request", I think that's new?
05:28 < sipa> i don't expect wumpus to sleep at 2:30 pm
05:29 < sipa> :)
05:29 < wumpus> I have a strange sleep/wake rhythm sometimes, but no, I don't expect so either :-)
05:29 < NicolasDorier> yeah, I just saw that too sorry, last time I checked was only the const change :p
05:29 < btcdrak> sipa: I dont expect him to sleep at all. I will buy some match sticks to keep his eyes open 24/7
05:30 < sipa> btcdrak: quality of review may suffer slightly...
05:30 < wumpus> it *is* only the const change, github is just making it confusing
05:30 < NicolasDorier> oh indeed
05:30 < NicolasDorier> got confused as well
05:31 < GitHub37> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/04af3cfe8fa9...381917f610e3
05:31 < GitHub37> bitcoin/master 6f3d616 Jorge Timón: Trivial: Make CBlockIndex param const in ContextualCheckBlockHeader and ContextualCheckBlock
05:31 < GitHub37> bitcoin/master 381917f Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8347: Trivial: Make CBlockIndex param const in ContextualCheckBlockHeader and ContextualCheckBlock...
05:32 < GitHub87> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8347: Trivial: Make CBlockIndex param const in ContextualCheckBlockHeader and ContextualCheckBlock (master...0.12.99-consensus-const-lost) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8347
05:34 < NicolasDorier> thanks
05:40 < jtimon> awesome, thanks guys
05:41 < jtimon> NicolasDorier: regarding some of our diffenrces in getflags parameters, they will be resolved by removing issupermajority instead of moving it
05:44 < NicolasDorier> ooooh that's super cool if we can remove it
05:44 < NicolasDorier> how? hard coding the activations ?
05:44 < btcdrak> NicolasDorier: this was the discussion on it https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/2016-07-17/?msg=69776851&page=1
05:45 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
05:47 < NicolasDorier> oh cool
05:49 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:52 < GitHub111> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier closed pull request #8344: Consensus: Use pindex for ISM check (master...not-using-block) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8344
05:52 -!- harrymm [~wayne@223.204.247.210] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
05:53 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@82.201.93.169] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
05:54 < NicolasDorier> gmaxwell: do you plan to make a PR soon about removing ISM completely ? I can work on redoing it  if needed, it simplify the code I'm writing for verifyBlock in consensuslib
06:00 -!- YOU-JI [~youyouyou@FL1-125-195-44-154.chb.mesh.ad.jp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:09 -!- harrymm [~wayne@223.204.250.87] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
06:09 < jtimon> btw, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8348 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8346 are pretty trivial too
06:11 < jtimon> NicolasDorier: yeah, hardcoding the activations in Consensus::Params like CodeShark did with bip34, the other day gmaxwell said he was working on suh a branch
06:12 < jtimon> Ideally we would use an array, I wish I had seen the PR for BIP34 when it was open...
06:13 < jtimon> I'm happy to write that too, the hardest part for me would be too look at the heights and block hashes
06:16 < jtimon> but yeah, whoever writes it, it simplifies things for libconsensus encapsulation
06:50 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
06:53 -!- YOU-JI [~youyouyou@FL1-125-195-44-154.chb.mesh.ad.jp] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
06:54 -!- rubensayshi [~ruben@82.201.93.169] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:18 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:20 < GitHub197> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #8345: Introduce Consensus::GetFlags() and hide IsSuperMajority() (master...0.12.99-consensus-flags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8345
07:23 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:38 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:43 -!- harrymm [~wayne@223.204.250.87] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
07:53 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:53 < jtimon> sipa: I've been thinking more about the consensus vs script flags, I guess it has the advantage of having a much shorter list of consensus flags, basically only one per consensus deployment (well, we can keep bip68 and bip112 as separated flags), while the script flags have many more thant in principle don't need to be exposed in libconsensus
07:54 < sipa> jtimon: right; if the script code is at some point duplicated to form a consensus-only form, we could combine the flags there
07:55 < sipa> but as long as the script code is more generically useful, it will have flags that are not necessarily consensus, and it feels cleaner to have the script code independent
07:56 < jtimon> but I still believe that the refactor is much simpler if we put temporarily the locktime flags and the new ones (bip30 and bip34) in the script flags and then we separate them
07:58 -!- harrymm [~wayne@46.165.228.92] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
07:58 < jtimon> those non consensus script flags are hidden behind the flags in script/bitcoinconsensus.h for libconsensus anyway, that's why I wasn't seeing the point at first 
08:00 < jtimon> probably that's where the consensus flags should be instead of consensus/falgs.h as previously suggested, but then main would need to include script/bitcoinconsensus.h
08:01 < jtimon> s/falgs/flags
08:04 < jtimon> mhmm, no converter is necessary if the flags in script/bitcoinconsensus.h and script/interpreter.h just keep matching in their bit numbers...
08:04 < sipa> that's a terrible idea
08:04 < sipa> i've argued several times that they should be made independent
08:05 < sipa> internal constants should not leak into a public API
08:05 < jtimon> I also prefer the converter function, but that's what we're doing right now
08:05 < jtimon> makes sense
08:05 < jtimon> ok, this helps me understand your whole reasoning much better, thanks
08:05 < sipa> but yes, that is what we're currently doing - but i wouldn't extend that practice further
08:07 < jtimon> I'll write a converter function and see how disruptive it looks compared with temporarily putting non-script flags in script/interpreter.h
08:10 < jtimon> erik from libbitcoin also complained about the flags, I believe that was one of the reasons they don't use our API directly and copy the code instead, but IIRC the main one is having to serialize/decerialize the tx to be signed
08:12 < jtimon> should talk to him again to remind me his thoughts
08:15 < jtimon> in fact, I should have taken notes
08:15 < jtimon> I have a very good reason for trusting my memory instead of taking notes most of the time, but I forgot what it was ;)
08:16 < sipa> hahaha
08:20 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:25 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:26 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:27 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:30 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
08:30 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:32 < GitHub188> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/66dde4edf733...cbdbc75139a6
08:32 < GitHub188> bitcoin/0.13 f891e34 Jannes Faber: fix typo: propagation relay -> delay
08:32 < GitHub188> bitcoin/0.13 cbdbc75 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8380: fix typo: propagation relay -> delay...
08:32 < GitHub33> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8380: fix typo: propagation relay -> delay (0.13...patch-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8380
08:48 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:50 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
08:54 < GitHub75> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #8374: Add release notes for mining changes (0.13...release-notes-mining) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8374
08:54 < GitHub67> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cbdbc75139a6...76bc30beab86
08:54 < GitHub67> bitcoin/0.13 52a4158 Suhas Daftuar: Add release notes for mining changes
08:54 < GitHub67> bitcoin/0.13 76bc30b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8374: Add release notes for mining changes...
08:54 < luke-jr> …
08:58 < wumpus> luke-jr: you can do your proposed changes now
08:59  * luke-jr wonders why his 0.10 won't compile anymore. :x
09:02  * Lightsword wonders why luke-jr is using 0.10
09:02 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-9-165.ptld.qwest.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:03 < luke-jr> Lightsword: my hot wallet has too much in it to risk upgrading yet; I should probably deal with that
09:03 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:04 < Lightsword> luke-jr, can’t you just backup wallet.dat before doing anything with latest version?
09:04 < luke-jr> Lightsword: sure, but bdb issues are the least probable kind of loss
09:05 < luke-jr> I have no particular concerns, just don't like to use new code with lots of funds
09:05 < Lightsword> what are the other probable kind?
09:06 < luke-jr> Lightsword: sending the wrong amount somewhere, or to fee
09:06  * Lightsword wonders why that would be less likely to happen with an older wallet
09:07 < luke-jr> no changes to the old code
09:07 < luke-jr> the usual reason stable software is preferred over bleeding edge
09:08 < luke-jr> anyhow, looks like it was a build system issue, and got it to build
09:08 < Lightsword> yeah…but 0.10…is two releases behind the latest stable
09:09 < luke-jr> not even a year old
09:09 < luke-jr> 0.10.4 was released 2015 Nov
09:09 < Lightsword> I thought 0.11.2 or whatever was earlier since 0.10.4 was a backport
09:12 < luke-jr> v0.11.0 was 2015 Jul
09:12 < luke-jr> only a year
09:22 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:26 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:34 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
09:34 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:35 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:46 -!- sipa [~pw@2a02:348:86:3011::1] has quit [Changing host]
09:46 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
09:50 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:01 < GitHub177> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #8386: mining: Optimise for typical mining use with blockmaxsize (master...blockmaxsize_opti) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8386
10:01 < GitHub184> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #8387: [0.13] mining: Optimise for typical mining use with blockmaxsize (master...blockmaxsize_opti-0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8387
10:02 < GitHub33> [bitcoin] luke-jr closed pull request #8387: [0.13] mining: Optimise for typical mining use with blockmaxsize (master...blockmaxsize_opti-0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8387
10:02 < GitHub51> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #8388: [0.13] mining: Optimise for typical mining use with blockmaxsize (0.13...blockmaxsize_opti-0.13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8388
10:03 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@174-25-9-165.ptld.qwest.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:06 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has quit [Quit: gtg]
10:09 -!- MarcoFalke [~marco@host10-2.natpool.mwn.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:21 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:23 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:28 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:28 -!- TomMc [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:41 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:45 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:48 < gmaxwell> are there NO web block explorers that show transaction version numbers?!
10:52 < gmaxwell> hmph, when connecting blocks at start RPC can return "Loading banlist" for the duration...
10:53 < wumpus> gmaxwell: known issue https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8117
10:54 < wumpus> it's supposed to release the lock every block, but sometimes it appears it doesn't
10:55 < roasbeef> gmaxwell: smartbit and http://srv1.yogh.io/ do, a few other do as well but can't recall off the top atm
10:55 -!- murch [~murch@p4FE3B04D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
10:56 -!- wangchun [~wangchun@106.187.94.193] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
11:00 < achow101> gmaxwell: blockcypher does under "advanced details"
11:03 < jonasschnelli> <phantomcircuit:#bitcoin-core-dev> jonasschnelli, can you check 8152 again
11:03 < jonasschnelli> Yes. Will do.
11:05 < sipa> wumpus: i think we should try adding a yield and see if there is a performance degradation
11:06 < sipa> wumpus: in ActivateBestChain
11:07 < gmaxwell> roasbeef: achow101: Thanks, I tried like 5 of them before giving up.
11:09 < wumpus> sipa: Iworth a try I guess
11:10 < sipa> wumpus: as far as i know there is no guarantee that the scheduler gives a fair distribution of cpu time in case there are multiple waiting threads
11:11 < sipa> in ActivateBestChain we release cs_main but pretty much instantly grab it agaim
11:11 < wumpus> there is no guarantee, no, but with multiple cores I think usually a waiting thread should get the lock
11:12 < wumpus> but indeed if you grab it immediately again, that may be a special case
11:12 < gmaxwell> we could just add explicit sleeps when connecting more than a few blocks.
11:12 < wumpus> it may be re-locked before anyone else even sees
11:12 < wumpus> adding sleeps sounds really ugly
11:13 < wumpus> there must be a better way
11:13 < sipa> yes, getting rid of locks that are held for long periods of time :)
11:13 < wumpus> I'm aware a yield is effectively a sleep for one timeshare, but at least it's as short as possible
11:15 < sipa> maybe we can release cs_main during signature verification (but after fetching inputs from the cache), and grabbing it back afterwards and compare if the tip is still the same, and apply the changes
11:15 < wumpus> maybe yield-every-N-ms-or-more instead of, by definition, every block? this avoids the yield slowing things down in the beginning when blocks validate really fast
11:15 < wumpus> then again maybe it's not a performance issue at all
11:16 < sipa> well there are two questions: 1) is yield sufficient to fix this problem at all?
11:16 < sipa> 2) what performance overhead does yield have if there are no orher waiters
11:17 < wumpus> the issue is only noticable when cs_main is held for, say, more than a second
11:17 < wumpus> (2) is up to 20ms, depending on the scheduler
11:17 < wumpus> it just gives away the rest of the timeslot
11:18 < sipa> it gives away the rest of the timeslot if there is another candidate for taking the timeslot
11:18 < wumpus> yes, which is very likely on a modern multitasking OS
11:19 < wumpus> but indeed it depends on factors not under bitcoind's control
11:19 < sipa> we should benchmark :)
11:21 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:24 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:27 -!- Amnez777 [~Amnez777@37.157.216.155] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:28 -!- AaronvanW [~ewout@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:28 < jeremyrubin> I'm using this_thread::yield() in some code right now while I wait on something, seems to work well enough
11:28 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:29 -!- [b__b] [~b__b]@ec2-54-85-45-223.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:29 -!- gabridome [~gabridome@host120-205-dynamic.9-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:29 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:30 -!- [b__b] [~b__b]@ec2-54-85-45-223.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:33 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:34 -!- pedrobra_ [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:35 -!- lightningbot [supybot@2400:8900::f03c:91ff:fedf:3a06] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
11:35 -!- aj_ [aj@cerulean.erisian.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
11:37 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:37 < jtimon> sorry, late
11:37 < jonasschnelli> no
11:37 < jonasschnelli> meeting is in 23 mins. :)
11:38 -!- pedrobra_ [~pedrobran@79.242.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:41 < jtimon> jonasschnelli: oh, yeah of course, how could I need to be reminded again? I even got it right the last weeks, I was of course just pinging other people...besides there's no start meeting in the backscroll...
11:41 < sipa> jtimon: calendars help :)
11:41 < sipa> jtimon: bitcoin core irc meeting is 7pm iceland time
11:42 < btcdrak> We should hold the next coredev.tech in Iceland @jonasschnelli
11:42  * sipa in favor!
11:42 < jonasschnelli> btcdrak: Yes. Sure! Always wanted to go to see how the vikings live today. :)
11:43 < jonasschnelli> Reikjavik must be awesome
11:43 < btcdrak> Yes, I already has a look they have nice meeting venues
11:43 < sipa> nature just outside of reykjavik is much nicer even
11:44 -!- [b__b] [~b__b]@ec2-54-85-45-223.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
11:45 < jtimon> yep, I should finally put this meeting in my google calendar, but I'm usually at home in front of the pc at 7 pm iceland, which will only change from CET twice, I should be able to memorize this, I just saw the 1X:34 in the clock and panicked
11:46 -!- [b__b] [~b__b]@ec2-54-85-45-223.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:46 < jtimon> I'll just fo it I guess, f$%#ng goole...
11:46 < MarcoFalke> jtimon: Bookmark http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7pm+UTC ;)
11:47 < jtimon> MarcoFalke: good tip
11:50 < wumpus> yes, good idea @ iceland
11:50 -!- gabridome [~gabridome@host120-205-dynamic.9-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
11:51 -!- lightningbot [supybot@2400:8900::f03c:91ff:fedf:3a06] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
11:59 < wumpus> meeting time
11:59 < jonasschnelli> megaping required
11:59 < btcdrak> here
11:59 < jeremyrubin> here
11:59 < bsm117532> here
11:59 < luke-jr> grubles: nicks
11:59 < wumpus> #startmeeting
11:59 < lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Jul 21 18:59:51 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
11:59 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
11:59 < sipa> here
11:59 < luke-jr> guess he won't do it XD
12:00 < gmaxwell> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
12:00 -!- sanada [sanada@36-2-119-80.chiba.ap.gmo-isp.jp] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:00 < kanzure> topics?
12:00 < sipa> thanks, gmaxwellbot
12:00 < wumpus> topic: 0.13
12:00 < gmaxwell> s'not a bot.
12:00 < jonasschnelli> topic: 0.13 OSX determinism
12:00 < btcdrak>  /msg gmaxwell help topics
12:00 < cfields> here, but at conference and only 1/2 present
12:00 < luke-jr> gribble: nicks
12:00 < grubles> luke-jr: ?
12:00 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: wasn't that solved already?
12:00 < btcdrak> maxwellbot appears to be down
12:00 < luke-jr> grubles: mixed you up with the box :p
12:00 < wumpus> #topic 0.13
12:01 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: ah. Was that merged already... sorry, have't noticed.
12:01 < wumpus> any criticial issues reported with the rc1 yet?
12:01 < grubles> luke-jr: oh ok :)
12:01 < luke-jr> wumpus: lack of a way to export the seed has been a complaint on reddit at least
12:01 < jonasschnelli> I'm working on the critical bug with HD and wallet encrypt (that's the only feedback I got from Rc1)
12:01 < cfields> jonasschnelli: yes. I need to upstream it though.
12:02 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: thanks, yes I've added 0.13 milestone to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8383
12:02 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@167.225.61.94.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:02 < jonasschnelli> there is a PR to export the seed in dumpwallet
12:02 < jonasschnelli> we could consider that for 0.13
12:02 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:02 < jonasschnelli> its easy to review.
12:02 < jonasschnelli> Low impacts
12:02 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: if it's low-impact, why not
12:02 < luke-jr> wumpus: the default policy not performing as well as inadvisable policies is apparently an issue, which I just PR'd a fix for an hour or so ago
12:02 < sipa> agree on that
12:02 < jonasschnelli> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8206
12:02 < CodeShark> wumpus: there are a few issues with the release notes - I'll try to submit comments shortly
12:02 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: IMO yes
12:02 < sipa> jonasschnelli: also in importwallet ?
12:02 < jonasschnelli> Ino
12:02 < jonasschnelli> no
12:02 < wumpus> no, just exporting
12:03 < jonasschnelli> import wallet imples "import" and no change the see
12:03 < wumpus> importing is a wholly different issue
12:03 < jonasschnelli> seed
12:03 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: I don't see why import doesn't imply adding the seed
12:03 < jonasschnelli> Import would just pick the keys.
12:03 < wumpus> (e.g. in some cases you may want to change the seed, but usually probably not)
12:03 < luke-jr> does the current format all multiple seeds?
12:03 < jonasschnelli> luke-jr: adding yes, but not overwriting the current one
12:03 < wumpus> luke-jr: because you may be importing to *combine* wallets
12:03 < jonasschnelli> luke-jr: a seed is just a key
12:03 < luke-jr> err
12:03 < luke-jr> *does the current format support having multiple seeds?
12:03 < sipa> nope
12:03 < gmaxwell> nope
12:04 < wumpus> in any case that's too much impact
12:04 < luke-jr> I suppose
12:04 < wumpus> exporting is easy to do for 0.13 so I think we should
12:04 < sipa> that would require having multiple lookahead key pools etc
12:04 < gmaxwell> it's the simplest possible.
12:04 < sipa> ack on export
12:04 < wumpus> for 0.14 we could consider things like support multiple seeds
12:04 < jonasschnelli> Okay. Marked #8206 for 0.13
12:04 < jonasschnelli> #action review #8206
12:04 < luke-jr> IMO as long as we're not ruling out multi-seed wallets in 0.14+, ok
12:04 < wumpus> thanks
12:05 < sipa> luke-jr: agree
12:05 < jonasschnelli> Since we have now the most important change done for HD, we can try to add lots of features for 0.14.
12:05 < jtimon> proposed topic: remove ISM
12:05 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:05 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:06 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@167.225.61.94.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
12:06 < wumpus> proposed topic from jeremyrubin: checkqueue.h change
12:06 < sipa> are we done with 0.13 discussion?
12:06 < jeremyrubin> wumpus: topic proposal checkqueue performance
12:07 < jeremyrubin> ah oops sorry network lag
12:07 < jtimon> jeremyrubin: thanks for being more specific
12:07 < wumpus> sipa: I think so, unless there are other issues reported I think that's all for 0.13 for this week
12:07 < jtimon> jeremyrubin: seriously, don't be sorry, it helped me
12:07 < sipa> ok
12:07 < wumpus> #topic remove ISM
12:08 < luke-jr> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8388 needs a 0.13 tag I guess)
12:08 < sipa> about removing ISM
12:08 < sipa> how?
12:09 < wumpus> ISM=IsSuperMajority?
12:09 < instagibbs> yes
12:09 < sipa> 1) just a height after which the previous softforks activate
12:09 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:09 < btcdrak> wumpus: yes
12:09 < jtimon> well, my preference would be to introduce a getflags function first
12:09 < gmaxwell> when are we branching? I've been holding off on patches until after the branch.
12:09 < sipa> gmaxwell: branch was a few days ago
12:09 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:09 < wumpus> gmaxwell: we've already branched a few days ago
12:09 < btcdrak> gmaxwell: we branched already
12:09 < luke-jr> how many exceptional blocks violate softfork-added rules?
12:09 < sdaftuar> i'm curious to know what you're thinking about doing for regtest
12:10 < btcdrak> for some reason github didnt ping the channel on new branch creation
12:10 < gmaxwell> oh I missed that.
12:10 < instagibbs> sdaftuar, any issues you can think of? 
12:10 < sipa> sdaftuar: ugh... a command line option to enable the rules individually (from the start, over the entire chain)?
12:10 < jtimon> but knowing that ISM is going to be reomved, just don't touch any ISM call and leave it all prepared for ISM calls to be simply removed from main and replaced with the new code inside versionbits::getflags()\
12:10 < wumpus> luke-jr: 8388 is a pretty large change, isn't that a lot to do last-minute? also you don't have a description on the pull at all
12:11 < gmaxwell> jtimon: ISM things are not versionbits.
12:11 < gmaxwell> We went over this before.
12:11 < btcdrak> yes we did
12:11 -!- Amnez777 [~Amnez777@37.157.216.155] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:11 < jtimon> I was previously of the opinion that a height was enough but I changed my mind, yes, block hash too
12:11 < gmaxwell> sipa: see         consensus.BIP34Height = 227931;
12:11 < gmaxwell> sipa: in chainparams.cpp
12:11 < btcdrak> jtimon: gmaxwell said he is working on a ISM removal PR
12:11 < gmaxwell> "like that"
12:12 < luke-jr> wumpus: well, I didn't expect counting bytes to be used as an excuse to have the release notes pressure miners to use bad policy configs
12:12 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
12:12 < jtimon> gmaxwell: agreed, I only want a getconsensusflags function, if it's defined in versionbits or consensus/header_verify.cpp or somewhere else I don't care so much
12:12 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: what I'd done is just set regtest to 0, but hadn't checked to see what tests doing that would break.
12:13 -!- dstadulis [~dstadulis@ip-64-134-235-8.public.wayport.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:13 < jtimon> but I strongly oppose to define getflags in main.cpp
12:13 < gmaxwell> jtimon: the things which are ISM should not be flags, becuase they're not optional anymore.
12:13 < wumpus> luke-jr: ok, fair enough, I do think it requires more discussion
12:13 < btcdrak> jtimon: but that doesnt mean you can stuff them into an unrelated unit
12:13 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i guess we can just change the tests that test activation of ISM things
12:14 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: so maybe that will work fine?
12:14 < morcos> gmaxwell: they still need flags right?  for when they are active and when they aren't?
12:14 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:14 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: yea, thats what I was thinking. the obvious alternative is to set it to something not 0, like 5.. and let the tests handle it.
12:14 < sdaftuar> i wonder if there are cases where we might want to test how a chain behaves when some blocks don't satisfy a rule (like bip34) and then later ones do.
12:15 < gmaxwell> morcos: some of the things are not accomplished via flags like mechenisms, e.g. the version number checks. They're not a script feature.
12:15 < jtimon> btcdrak: yep, I just want to coordinate with him, in fact, I believe NicolasDorier and I will benifit more than gmaxwell from this coordination, gmaxwell doesn't really need us and can do it all in main
12:15 < sipa> sdaftuar: versionbits does not need that anymore, and i don't care strongly about testing that for purely historical features
12:15 < sipa> jtimon: please
12:16 < sdaftuar> sipa: yeah i think you're basically right, we can just enumerate each of the ISM soft forks and make a decision, there's only a handful
12:16 < sipa> sdaftuar: exactly
12:16 < wumpus> jtimon: where to put it and what solution to use are orthogonal issues
12:18  * luke-jr observes that P2SH was actually more like BIP 9 than ISM was
12:18 < gmaxwell> Some future softforks that get virtified might even have no violations anywhere in the chain, in which case, I'd propose just removing all conditional logic for them entirely.
12:18 < jtimon> wumpus: agreed, but two people trying to complete verifyblock would benefit in sharing the most common refactors as possible
12:18 -!- jeremyrubin [~jeremyrub@biohazard-cafe.mit.edu] has quit [Quit: leaving]
12:18 < gmaxwell> I believe CSV might be an example of that.
12:18 < jtimon> gmaxwell: I agree, but I was talking much shorter term here
12:18 < jtimon> as in, whithin the refactor window
12:19 < gmaxwell> adding a bunch of additional 'flags' for things like height checks would be undesirable code smell.
12:19 < gmaxwell> as would moving ISM logic into a file called versionbits.cpp.
12:19 < sipa> agree
12:19 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: GBT will likely pose a problem for that, but probably not insurmountable (worst case we can neuter GBT by removing the clients-can-modify-the-template aspect, since nobody much uses it afaik)
12:19 < CodeShark> I had proposed a softforks unit to solve this a while back ;)
12:20 < gmaxwell> To be honest, I am really frustrated right now with some of the pointless nitpicky behavior being driven by 'refactoring' all of a sudden. It's making me want to not be involved in the project.
12:20 < NicolasDorier> btw, I'm almost done with the PR removing ISM
12:21 < gmaxwell> I don't have the time to endlessly debate minutia with people who are being very tunnel vision about varrious things.
12:21 < CodeShark> ?
12:21 < GitHub128> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8389: [0.13] Create a new HD seed after encrypting the wallet (0.13...2016/07/hd_enc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8389
12:21 < jtimon> gmaxwell: the movement of ISM to versionbits was only in preparation to more cleanly remove it later and not having to include main.h from consensus files, but yeah no need to move it, just delete it beforehand
12:21 < wumpus> well code that is going away doesn't need to be moved
12:21 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:21 < jtimon> of course, agreed
12:22 -!- jeremyrubin [~jeremyrub@biohazard-cafe.mit.edu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:22 < wumpus> but refactoring main.cpp is also important - we've held it off for so long now
12:22 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:22 < CodeShark> Making sure the code doesn't get cluttered in the long run and establishing good habits for this early on are not tunnel vision, imho
12:22 < sipa> agree
12:23 < wumpus> after all that time we still have that huge c++ file with so many different responsibilities
12:23 < jtimon> all I want to agree is that is "going away" to getflags, and that getflags has some place to exist (it may not be versionbits.o)
12:23 < jtimon> it won't go away
12:23 < sipa> jtimon: is getflags the "one set of flags for everything"? if so, nack
12:23 < kanzure> while we're busy refactoring everything i would like libconsensus and a pony
12:24 < jtimon> it will be replaced and we can leave it all preapare for where it will be replaced with something like bip34 and that will simplify things, I believe
12:24 < sipa> ok, can we move on?
12:24 < wumpus> in any case, this doesn't seem to be a constructive topic in the meeting anymore
12:24 < CodeShark> yes, let's move ob
12:24 < sipa> or are there still things about ISM?
12:24 < CodeShark> on
12:24 < wumpus> #topic checkqueue.h optimization
12:24 < btcdrak> ping jeremyrubin
12:25 -!- dstadulis [~dstadulis@ip-64-134-235-8.public.wayport.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
12:25 -!- dstadulis [~dstadulis@172.56.38.128] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:25 < jtimon> sipa: thank you for being so direct. After our discussions on the subject, I agree the script flags should be separated, but for now it should be libconsensus flags and script flags, yes
12:25 < jeremyrubin> Hi
12:26 < jeremyrubin> So all I wanted to say is that I am doing some refactoring of checkqueue, have some nice improvements preliminarily.
12:26 < jeremyrubin> Will push something to my fork if you're particularly interested in it
12:26 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:26 < jtimon> sipa: I know you won't like non-script flags in script/interpreter even temporarily, I'm working on changing that, but that's just hwat I have right now
12:26 -!- d_t [~textual@185.69.203.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:26 < wumpus> jeremyrubin: looking forward to the pull request :)
12:26 < jonasschnelli> jeremyrubin: nice!
12:26 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:27 < sipa> jeremyrubin: looking forward to it, obviously
12:27 < sipa> (as long as it doesn't rely on MIPS assembly)
12:27 < jtimon> wumpus: well, it is constructive for me, I'm getting useful feedback
12:27 < jeremyrubin> just wanted to note it as I've heard some other people looking at it, so don't want to duplicte work
12:27 < jeremyrubin> that's all! 
12:28 < cfields> jeremyrubin: along those lines, I've been working on optimizing the sigcache, after morcos pointed out some cool speedups. maybe we should work together to come up with a good representative bench for testing improvements?
12:28 < wumpus> jtimon: ok that's good; it didn't seem to be going the right way. Seems that gmaxwell wants to get rid of ISM as soon as possible, so refactoring the ISM part is just a waste of work
12:28 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:28 < cfields> morcos: or are you still hacking on that? ^^
12:29 < NicolasDorier> I will propose a PR for removing ISM in one or two hours normally
12:29 < gmaxwell> I wanted to remove it in 0.13 but didn't want to introduct a conflict with the SW merge so I held off.
12:29 < morcos> cfields: yep, we're working on it together!
12:29 < gmaxwell> It saves like two whole milliseconds from block connecting times. :P
12:29 < wumpus> NicolasDorier: great
12:29 < jeremyrubin> cfields: sounds good -- will msg out of meeting
12:30 < CodeShark> wumpus: focusing too much on ISM given its impending death is probably not the most urgent thing - my concern is more ovet general habits
12:30 < CodeShark> *over
12:30 < cfields> morcos: ah, ok.
12:30 < wumpus> CodeShark: well the topic was removing ISM
12:30 < sipa> gmaxwell: that's 12 minites of sync time :o
12:30 < morcos> gmaxwell: i think with the lock free stuff jeremy is working on, i can get validation times down from 200ms to sub 50ms on my machine
12:30 < sipa> morcos: impressive
12:30 < sdaftuar> he has a lot of cores :P
12:31 < jonasschnelli> heh
12:31 < BlueMatt> sdaftuar: but across 2 cpus, so numa :/
12:31 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:31 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
12:31 < wumpus> oh no numa, is that still a thing
12:31 < jtimon> wumpus: I also want ISM to go away as soon as possible and I'll rebase on top of the PR as soon as it appears, I was just asking for an agreed trivial plan on how to "just don't touch ISM, the replacement will go here" that we could work on in the meantime
12:31 < gmaxwell> wumpus: any multisocket system is numa.
12:32 < gmaxwell> (these days)
12:32 < jtimon> wumpus: in my experience "will go here" can take a lot of time
12:33 < wumpus> gmaxwell: I didn't know, haven't seen much multisocket systems in recent times, I was hoping it was a crippled thing from the past :)
12:33 < jtimon> so we should totally not touch ISM in any consensus refactor PR, but where the replacement should go is something we can discuss after the meeting
12:33 < wumpus> in any case optimizing bitcoind for numa is very much out of scope :p
12:33 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:34 < btcdrak> we seem to have drifted off topic
12:34 < wumpus> anything else to discuss?
12:34 < NicolasDorier> #topic Handling Dust on the wallet
12:34 < wumpus> hey, I'm supposed to set the topic
12:34 < NicolasDorier> oh sorry :D
12:34 < NicolasDorier> noob here
12:34 < wumpus> (but no problem with this one)
12:34 < gmaxwell> Has anyone picked up that simulator work and improved it?
12:34 < sipa> it also does not work (for logs) if someone else than the chair does it
12:35 < wumpus> #topic Handling Dust on the wallet
12:35 < NicolasDorier> so the problem is boring: wallet code is preventing to create output below dust using ::txminRelayFee
12:35 < jtimon> I think the ISM removal topic is mostly finished, TODO adapt any refactor for ISM to be removed before-hand, TODO decide where the replacement need to go during the refactor
12:35 < NicolasDorier> problem is that when we bumped it long time ago, some transaction could not be relayed anymore
12:36 < NicolasDorier> causing some stress to users
12:36 < NicolasDorier> several way to fix the problem
12:36 < jonasschnelli> You can if you add new/fresh larger coins? right?
12:36 < jonasschnelli> (econimical painful)
12:36 < morcos> NicolasDorier: I dont' have a good sense for how to make this work properly and be something the at doesnt involve fiddlign with a bunch of variables
12:36 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:36 < sipa> NicolasDorier: if all wallets at all times would not create outputs that were uneconomical to spend, there would be no issue, i think
12:36 < luke-jr> I thought the wallet avoided change below some number much larger than dust?
12:36 < MarcoFalke> yes
12:36 < morcos> But I think its clear we should have the MinimumOutput be higher than the dust level, so that when we raise the dust level, we know prev releases are still not generating dust
12:37 < NicolasDorier> luke-jr: problem is that it is not "much larger"
12:37 < NicolasDorier> it is "exactly"
12:37 < luke-jr> NicolasDorier: 0.01 BTC last I checked
12:37 < MarcoFalke> but this does not affect when you pay someone dust
12:37 < gmaxwell> This was intentional; not the stress of course, but not relaying transactions with produce outputs which are a loss to consume. But it sounds like you're not talking about the wallet, but relay behavior.
12:37 < sipa> gmaxwell: no, this is about wallet 
12:37 < luke-jr> MarcoFalke: sure, but that's user error
12:37 < gmaxwell> The wallet tries to produce change >0.01 btc as luke mentions. (which is its own stupidity, see my earlier simulator question)
12:38 < NicolasDorier> oh ? I am surprised I did https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8356  recently and it seemed using the ::minTxRelayFee
12:38 < NicolasDorier> for calculating the smallest output
12:38 < MarcoFalke> gmaxwell: I asked murch to present his findings of his masters thesis in one of the meetings
12:38 < jonasschnelli> I think it should try much higher min change outputs if possible.
12:38 < jtimon> btw, GetDustThreshold and IsDust are still in primitives/transaction.h (libconsensus), unrelated, but maybe cheap to do both at the same time
12:38 < morcos> NicolasDorier: i also forgot about that 0.01 btc thing
12:38 < jonasschnelli> We don't know the fees in – lets say – 2 years.
12:38 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: how much higher? this could be a privacy problem
12:38 < gmaxwell> NicolasDorier: if select coins does not make an exact match, it attempts again with amount + 0.01 btc as the target. 
12:39 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: we have fee learning logic..
12:39 < jonasschnelli> luke-jr:If possible 1:1 like the spend itself
12:39 < jonasschnelli> :-)
12:39 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: that harms privacy
12:39 < jonasschnelli> (and would also not be possible)
12:39 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: it can be done in ways which don't. Please see my comments on the remove extranious inputs PR.
12:39 < NicolasDorier> gmaxwell: this is coin selection, but it does not prevent the creation of an output below 0.01 right ?
12:39 < MarcoFalke> no
12:40 < jtimon> luke-jr: please tell me "fee learning logic" is in policy/fees.o and not consensus/deeplearning.o
12:40 < MarcoFalke> Those are different objectives to optimize
12:40 < gmaxwell> NicolasDorier: it may not be possible to prevent that except by turning small amounts into fees. 
12:40 < luke-jr> jtimon: afaik yes
12:40 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: if both outputs have the same or near-same value, any observer can see the approximate tx value, no?
12:41 < jtimon> luke-jr: cool :)
12:41 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: I'll explain more outside of the meeting.
12:41 < luke-jr> ok
12:41 < NicolasDorier> ok I'll need to study more about this 0.01 thing and the implication, will catch up with morcos
12:41 < gmaxwell> the whole logic with that stuff is braindamaged imo.
12:42 < NicolasDorier> I heard someone is doing some work in that area (Xekyo)
12:42 < gmaxwell> manages to fail under every kind of metric I can come up with, except for consistency with the existing code. (which, unsurprisingly, is the property the tests test for... :) )
12:42 < murch> marcofalke: My thesis is still in the making, sorry.
12:43 < MarcoFalke> NicolasDorier: it's murch in this channel
12:43 < NicolasDorier> oh ok
12:44 < gmaxwell> okay, is there anything else?
12:44 < wumpus> no proposed topics at lesat
12:44 < kanzure> well, i am assembling a list of things to talk about in person
12:44 < kanzure> similar to https://gist.github.com/kanzure/8d193f82aabd85eeba78a61815d3038d
12:45 < kanzure> so i will be heckling some or most of you regarding proposed subjects
12:45 < jtimon> well, you could talk more about that to close the meeting, no?
12:45 < gmaxwell> wumpus:  I have a topic.
12:45 < gmaxwell> wumpus: sigops max size, and the sigops per byte limit.
12:45 < kanzure> jtimon: what would you like to hear?
12:46 < wumpus> #topic  sigops max size, and the sigops per byte limit
12:46 < luke-jr> (gmaxwell: btw, I have no strong opinions on the coin selection stuff, if it's one of those minutia you'd rather not spend time on.)
12:46 < jtimon> kanzure: nothing specifically just things to talk about in person, I didn't folloed your link yet
12:46 < gmaxwell> We have ongoing complaints that the bytespersigops limit has made some bare multsig outputs difficult to spend (normal software behavior won't work)
12:46 < wumpus> this is about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8365?
12:47 < gmaxwell> This was an unintended side effect of the limits put in to stop the sigops exhaustion spam attack.
12:47 < luke-jr> we have a fix for that, which introduces a new concern; and a fix for the new concern, that slightly complicates fee estimation
12:47 < gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8365 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8364
12:47 < gmaxwell> I don't agree with the position luke is taking.
12:47 < wumpus> #link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8365
12:47 < wumpus> #link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8364
12:47 < jonasschnelli> Shouldn't this be included in 0.13 then?
12:48 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: probably
12:48 < gmaxwell> It's unambigious why the limit was introduced. There is was a consensus sigops exhaustion attack resulting in small blocks.
12:48 < sipa> i think 8365 should be in 0.13; i think 8364 is needless complication
12:48 < sdaftuar> sipa: i agree
12:48 < gmaxwell> 8365 corrects it in the way I originally proposed (so I like it)
12:48 < sipa> (but apart from that i'm not strongly against 8364)
12:48 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: that isn't why the limit was introduced, though.. it was to filter spam
12:49 < wumpus> for 0.13 we should prefer a simple solution
12:49 < sipa> luke-jr: in your world view perhaps
12:49 < jonasschnelli> Im in favor of #8365 (at least for 0.13)
12:49 < luke-jr> sipa: considering I wrote it..
12:49 < gmaxwell> Luke proposes 8364 in addition, driven by a concern that allowing high sigops transactions but with high fees is sending an implicit endorsement that it's okay for random transactions to burn up lots of actual signature operations needlessly if they pay for it.
12:49 < sdaftuar> the PR that introduced the limit lacks explanation
12:49 < sipa> luke-jr: sure  it may have been your intention; that was certainly noy clear to me (or many, i think)
12:50 < jtimon> is this about #8362 ?
12:50 < sipa> luke-jr: i disagree that it helps at all with preventing spam, and only encourages further bloating
12:50 < wumpus> sdaftuar: because it was a DoS fix
12:50 < luke-jr> jtimon: no, 8364 and 8365
12:50 < gmaxwell> It was extensively discussed in here. It's revisionist to suggest that it was merged for any reason other than consensus sigops exhaustion.
12:50 < jtimon> luke-jr: thanks, scrolling back
12:51 < gmaxwell> I wouldn't have supported it otherwise.
12:51 < gmaxwell> In any case, 8365 corrects the issue though sdaftuar expressed some concern that it also causes small miscosting of a small amount of transactions.
12:51 < gmaxwell> (since most of the time no sigops flooding attack is happening)
12:52 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: in the current form, #8365 sets the conversion at 20, not 50
12:52 < sdaftuar> by default
12:52 < luke-jr> I don't think we can solve that without a much more complicated change..?
12:52 < CodeShark> luke-jr: I still adhere to the view that "spam" lacks a technical definition here
12:52 < sdaftuar> so i think it's fine as is.  if another sigops attack were to hit the network, miners could bump it up to 50 and avoid being attacked
12:53 < luke-jr> CodeShark: in this context, it is non-pubkey data fed to sigops as a key
12:53 < sdaftuar> in its current form, users affected by the old policy have a better alternative to bloating up their transactions
12:53 < wumpus> CodeShark: storing unnecessary data in the utxo set counts as spam to me
12:53 < sdaftuar> we can think about better policies in the long run later, imo -- this is good enough for now
12:54 < wumpus> sdaftuar: for 0.13 that's the most important
12:54 < luke-jr> 8365 as-is, is a regression of used behaviour
12:54 < sdaftuar> wumpus: yep agreed
12:54 < CodeShark> wumpus: if someone is willing to pay for it it's income to someone else
12:54 < sipa> luke-jr: as-is, i think it will have as sole effect that some people who are now bloating their transactions to bypass the limit, will stop doing so
12:54 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: I don't agree that it is. since the change manages to except the counterparty data storage transactions, I'm not aware of anything that could be classified as spam that exists now that it usefully blocks.
12:55 < wumpus> CodeShark: everyone with a full node suffers from it, without being paid for it
12:55 < CodeShark> wumpus: that's a problem with incentives, not spam
12:55 < wumpus> CodeShark: that's just like e-mail spam - everyone with an email account has to handle the extra messages
12:55 < sipa> can we keep philosophical discussions for elsewhere?
12:55 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: can you rephrase?
12:56 < wumpus> uhm, okay
12:56 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: point me to a transaction that 8364 would block that should be blocked? the only thing the sigopsperbyte limit was blocking was the sigops exhaust transactions (blocked by 8365) and counterparty data storage transactions, which 8364 jumps though enormous hoops to not block.
12:57 < GitHub86> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #8390: [Wallet] Correct hdmasterkeyid/hdmasterkey name confusion (master...2016/07/hd_masterkeyrename) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8390
12:58 < sipa> wumpus, CodeShark: sorry for interrupting, but i don't think you guys disagree at all - only about what certain words meam
12:58 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: both of those should be blocked, and AFAIK 8365 doesn't block anything at all?
12:58 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: (to be clear, Counterparty should be using OP_RETURN only for their data)
12:58 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: 8365 closes the sigops bloat attack vector.
12:58 < wumpus> only roughly one minute to go
12:59 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
12:59 < gmaxwell> I think we should close the meeting.
12:59 < wumpus> #closemeeting
12:59 < wumpus> #endmeeting
12:59 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Jul 21 19:59:17 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
12:59 < lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-07-21-18.59.html
12:59 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-07-21-18.59.txt
12:59 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-07-21-18.59.log.html
12:59 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: it just costs more to perform the attack?
12:59 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: no, jesus chrsit luke. It _eliminates_ the attack.
12:59 < sipa> luke-jr: ideally, they are disincntivized to be produced at all. but the current code (which blocks them) has as only result that they bloat their transactions to bypass the restriction
13:00 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: The attack is that someone make a few small transactions that use up all the block capacity, while paying less than all the other users who were left waiting.
13:00 -!- aaaaa_ [4ec29c65@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.194.156.101] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:01 -!- aaaaa_ [4ec29c65@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.194.156.101] has quit [Client Quit]
13:01 < gmaxwell> if someone actually wants to outbid the other users and use up the block capacity, they can do that-- and nothign can stop them (except for eventually running out of funds to blow), which is how open markets work. :)
13:01 < gmaxwell> 8365 fixes things so that users making weirdly shaped transactions can't use up capacity in excess of what they've paid for.
13:02 -!- cryptapus [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
13:02 < gmaxwell> Thus no reason to create a weirdly shaped transaction.
13:02 < sipa> gmaxwell: that would only be the case if the factor were 50, not 20... but it is the best we can do today without potentially impacting transaction relay 
13:03 -!- murch [~murch@p4FE3B04D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
13:03 < sipa> ok, i'm going to catch some pokemon
13:03 < sipa> i mean
13:03 < BlueMatt> .........
13:03 < sipa> i'm going for a walk
13:03 < luke-jr> lol
13:03 < dstadulis> lol
13:04 < gmaxwell> did sdaftuar measure the impact? or did we just gimp the fix on conjecture?
13:05 < gmaxwell> I guess at 20 it's no more gimped than the code currently in place.
13:05 < jonasschnelli> sipa: haha..I tried that once on my speedbike. Almost crashed in a car...
13:05 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: ok, so how does 8365 close the data storage abuse vector, that bytespersigop used to at least make clear was abuse?
13:06 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]
13:08 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: none of these things have any impact on data storage abuse.
13:09 < sipa> luke-jr: clearly people dom't care about whether we consider it abuse or not
13:09 < gmaxwell> non the bytespersigops, not 8364, not 8365.
13:10 -!- dstadulis [~dstadulis@172.56.38.128] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]
13:10 < gmaxwell> bytespersigops had a accdential and coincidental negative effect on counterparty data storage transactions, that 8364 introduces a bunch of code to avoid (by counting signature operations instead of consensus sigops)
13:10 < luke-jr> sipa: the OP_RETURN fiasco suggests otherwise, no?
13:10 < jtimon> yeah I heard that pockemon thing is awesome and they're going to make a mario kart version soon in collaboration with google and tesla, but I can't find it on gihub, I'm searching on bitbucket next...
13:11 < jtimon> sorry, #bitcoin
13:11 < sipa> luke-jr: but OP_RETURN was a deliberately created alternatove for data storage
13:11 < sipa> luke-jr: not blocking something intended to be a dos fix, that people perceive as accidentally stopping some transactions
13:11 < luke-jr> no, it was created for commitments to external data, not storage :/
13:11 < sipa> in the long term, we can't rely on any of these techniques
13:12 < sipa> we can't expect people to behave nicely
13:12 < sipa> but we can design systems that make some behaviour expensive, regardless of intent
13:12 < sipa> and in the long term, that should be enough
13:12 < gmaxwell> 80 bytes wasn't needed for 'commitments to external data'...
13:13 < jtimon> luke-jr: IMO "the right way" ie pay2contractOrHash should replace the rpc interface for op_return
13:13 < gmaxwell> there is no rpc interface to op_return.
13:13 < sipa> furthermore, OP_RETURN probably actually did help us get rid of stuff that would otherwise permanently have been added to the utxo set (though i thonk at least the increase to 80 bytes was a mistake)
13:15 < jtimon> gmaxwell: I have probably misunderstood https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/rpc/rawtransaction.cpp#L426 one time I was around without deeply reading...
13:17 < luke-jr> sipa: the problem isn't OP_RETURN itself, but people portraying it as us endorsing data storage on-chain
13:17 < gmaxwell> jtimon: you were right, I had no clue that was there. wtf.
13:17 -!- murch [~murch@p4FE3B04D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:18 < gmaxwell> jtimon: result of PR #6346
13:18 < gmaxwell> I give up.
13:18 -!- gmaxwell [greg@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
13:19 < jtimon> gmaxwell: oh, awesome, thanks, traceability++, shall you comment in 6346 ?
13:19 < midnightmagic> he left.
13:22 < midnightmagic> whoah
13:22 < midnightmagic> how did commitid d7078533ebd32bb5071f4dba8e3d9c5a3b1f0d4c get merged
13:24 < sipa> luke-jr: i'm aware
13:25 < jtimon> I only saw that when doing a one old version of elements thing for assets, I assumed this was known by everyone since I was unfamiliar with rpc in general
13:25 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-utjhhasddmpbnrds] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
13:26 < jtimon> I was mostly only familliar to the rawtx prc which I was modifying
13:26 < jtimon> s/prc/rpc
13:27 < jtimon> I just looked weird at the op_return and moved on
13:28 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:28 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:28 < sipa> heh, i don't remember seeing that PR
13:29 < midnightmagic> me neither. I can't tell people not to use OP_RETURN anymore.
13:29 < btcdrak> Counterparty are about to stuff Ethereum contracts into them :-p
13:30 < sipa> counterparty isn't using our rpc interface
13:30 < midnightmagic> you reviewed it and ACK'd it
13:30  * btcdrak sniggers at the back of the room
13:31 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
13:32 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:33 < jtimon> let's put effort in the fix before tha blame, please, even if git blame is the source of all fixes
13:34 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:34 -!- murch [~murch@p4FE3B04D.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
13:36 -!- MarcoFalke [~marco@host10-2.natpool.mwn.de] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []
13:38 -!- TomMc [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:39 -!- sipa [~pw@unaffiliated/sipa1024] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:39 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
13:43 < instagibbs> I'm guessing the amount of op_return data via that interface is really tiny...
13:44 < instagibbs> I only found out about it last week
13:44 < sipa> yes, seems nobody even knew about it...
13:44 < jtimon> I guess so too, that's how I thought it was allowed, but if there's nobody agains, we should really get this out
13:45 < jtimon> I mean, it's in the "standard" policy, but I consensus first, policy later
13:52 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:05 < sipa> wumpus: good news: yield() doesn't seem to affect performance noticable (i didn't do an extensive benchmark, but early in the chain but:
14:05 < sipa> 2016-07-21 21:03:48 UpdateTip: new best=000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f height=0 version=0x00000001 log2_work=32.000022 tx=1 date='2009-01-03 18:15:05' progr
14:05 < sipa> ess=0.000000 cache=0.0MiB(0tx)
14:05 < sipa> 2016-07-21 21:04:34 UpdateTip: new best=000000000003ba27aa200b1cecaad478d2b00432346c3f1f3986da1afd33e506 height=100000 version=0x00000001 log2_work=58.648173 tx=216577 date='2010-12-29 11:57:43' progress=0.000755 cache=23.4MiB(119863tx)
14:06 < sipa> with 2173 blocks per second, i doubt we're losing much cpu time
14:07 < sipa> wumpus: the bad news: it doesn't fix the 'Loading block index' message during activation
14:07 < sipa> oh, wait, that's expected maybe
14:07 < sipa> instead of showing something about banlist
14:14 < sipa> bad news is that i can't reproduce the bug, i guess
14:19 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
14:19 -!- gabridome [~gabridome@host12-135-static.6-79-b.business.telecomitalia.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:20 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:25 -!- gabridome [~gabridome@host12-135-static.6-79-b.business.telecomitalia.it] has quit [Quit: gabridome]
14:29 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:29 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
14:34 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:52 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:59 < NicolasDorier> I am trying to remove ISM right now... however, I'm hitting problems with tests testing the ISM logic for old soft fork. Especially, normal ISM have two phase, activation (at 75% new rules are enforced for block version X) and version enforcement (at 95% if nVersion < X, reject). However, the difference between both threshold is only relevant during  the
14:59 < NicolasDorier> transition between the two thresholds and a few block afterward. We can safely replace the activations checks by enforcement checks.... Except that if I do that, then tests rightly break...
14:59 < NicolasDorier> I'm tempted to just remove the old ISM sf tests
15:00 < NicolasDorier> and make regnet with all the ISM SF activated from block 0
15:00 < NicolasDorier> I mean block 1
15:00 < NicolasDorier> thought ?
15:01 < sipa> for regtest we probably need command line switches to set what is activated (and at what height?)
15:01 < NicolasDorier> mh it seems rather bothersome for code going away
15:03 < NicolasDorier> I'd like ideally to remove old ISM SF tests, and default regnet to have everything activated from block 1. Adding those command line switches just so the old tests continue to work seems like a waste
15:04 < NicolasDorier> or maybe hard coding some number for regtest
15:04 < NicolasDorier> and testing that
15:04 < NicolasDorier> hard coding some heights
15:06 < luke-jr> sipa: I knew about it, but didn't strongly oppose it on the basis that createrawtransaction is a low-level thing that users shouldn't be exposed to anyway. And I was hoping for the author to add more useful tools (contracthash-like), but that didn't get added. ☹
15:08 < sipa> luke-jr: it would have been nice if it hashed the data first
15:09 < sipa> luke-jr: but i guess it's hard to change now
15:09 < sipa> NicolasDorier: i agree... old ISM tests can probably go away
15:10 < sipa> NicolasDorier: though only those testing activation... not those testing the new behaviour
15:10 < NicolasDorier> yes
15:11 < luke-jr> sipa: yes, but then there'd be no marker possible for example
15:12 < luke-jr> sipa: as soon as libsecp256k1 has contract-sign primitives though, I hope to put it to use to hopefully kill off proof-of-existence spam ;p
15:15 < btcdrak> luke-jr: how would that work?
15:16 < sipa> btcdrak: we can make a signature commit to data
15:16 < sipa> like a hash
15:16 < sipa> except it independently also remains a valid signature
15:17 < sipa> and you can't even tell it commits to something
15:17 < btcdrak> oh
15:17 < btcdrak> this sounds like black magic...
15:17 < sipa> the commitment is obvious to anyone who knows the data being committed to
15:17 < luke-jr> add a merkle tree, and you can do unlimited proof-of-existence in the background when you send txs
15:18 < luke-jr> even fingerprint your wallet so you can prove its state at any given point in history, if you want to
15:18 < sipa> luke-jr: unfortunately, very few people seem interested in timestamping, and many seem to be interested in using the blockchain as a broadcast medium
15:19 < luke-jr> well, maybe we should add a p2p mechanism that relays data along with tx so long as the tx fee pays for the data size too?
15:20 < sipa> or find a way to actually make the payment protocol take off, so all that stuff can just remain between sender and receiver?
15:20 < luke-jr> I'm not sure that stuff has a sender/receiver >_<
15:22 < sipa> if it doesn't, then why does it belong in bitcoin?
15:22 < sipa> either it's data needef for the world to verify the transaction, or it is private information between sender and receiver of a payment
15:23 < luke-jr> it doesn't. :<
15:24 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@2601:1c2:401:d250:ed20:4a2e:c003:a10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:24  * luke-jr wonders what it would take to get p2sh^2 deployed and in use
15:31 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:34 < sipa> luke-jr: people would move to storing data in inputs
15:35 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@2601:1c2:401:d250:ed20:4a2e:c003:a10] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:36 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:36 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@2601:1c2:401:d250:ddf3:3cfd:e57d:ffb3] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:40 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:41 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@2601:1c2:401:d250:ddf3:3cfd:e57d:ffb3] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
15:43 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@2601:1c2:401:d250:74ef:4489:a927:e860] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:54 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-50-159-126-21.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
15:55 < luke-jr> sipa: where in policy-accepted inputs can data be stored?
15:56 < luke-jr> wait, forgot we allow any script now
15:56 < luke-jr> we could potentially lock that down again?
15:56 -!- GAit [~GAit@2-230-161-158.ip202.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
15:59 -!- d_t [~textual@185.69.203.10] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
16:12 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]
16:26 -!- jtimon [~quassel@55.31.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
16:30 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ppp-83-171-167-95.dynamic.mnet-online.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
16:32 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
16:37 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
16:40 < GitHub100> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier opened pull request #8391: Consensus: Remove ISM (master...remove-ism) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391
16:41 < NicolasDorier> lightly tested, surely as flaws... specially as I wasted my night on it. :o
17:16 -!- frankenmint [~frankenmi@2601:1c2:401:d250:74ef:4489:a927:e860] has quit []
17:29 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
17:34 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:35 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:39 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:41 -!- alpalp [~allen@cpe-24-27-58-209.austin.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:41 -!- alpalp [~allen@cpe-24-27-58-209.austin.res.rr.com] has quit [Changing host]
17:41 -!- alpalp [~allen@unaffiliated/alpalp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
17:46 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-50-159-126-21.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit []
17:50 -!- alpalp [~allen@unaffiliated/alpalp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:50 -!- alpalp [~allen@unaffiliated/alpalp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:05 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@167.225.61.94.rev.vodafone.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:10 -!- pedrobranco [~pedrobran@167.225.61.94.rev.vodafone.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:18 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:19 -!- fengling [~fengling@58.135.95.135] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:29 -!- belcher [~user@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
18:29 -!- spudowiar [~spudowiar@unaffiliated/spudowiar] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:31 -!- Scronty [~scronty@78.132.233.220.static.exetel.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
18:58 -!- TomMc [~tom@unaffiliated/tommc] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
19:01 -!- slackircbridge [~slackircb@45.55.41.36] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:01 -!- slackircbridge1 [~slackircb@45.55.41.36] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
19:22 -!- alpalp [~allen@unaffiliated/alpalp] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
20:02 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
20:05 -!- alpalp [~allen@2605:6000:f4d6:d600:f17b:7eab:f7b3:e16] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:05 -!- alpalp [~allen@2605:6000:f4d6:d600:f17b:7eab:f7b3:e16] has quit [Changing host]
20:05 -!- alpalp [~allen@unaffiliated/alpalp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
20:12 -!- alpalp [~allen@unaffiliated/alpalp] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
20:44 -!- sanada [sanada@36-2-119-80.chiba.ap.gmo-isp.jp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:28 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:33 -!- netsin [~jiggalato@unaffiliated/jiggalator] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
21:36 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
21:53 -!- Scronty [~scronty@78.132.233.220.static.exetel.com.au] has quit []
22:13 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Quit: bye]
22:19 -!- d_t [~textual@185.69.203.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
22:31 -!- d_t [~textual@185.69.203.10] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
23:26 -!- d_t [~textual@185.69.203.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:28 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
23:35 -!- justanotheruser [~Justan@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
23:45 -!- d_t [~textual@185.69.203.10] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]