--- Day changed Thu May 11 2017
00:04 < ckm> anybody know why bitcoin started on microsoft/windows?
00:05 < ckm> seems odd for an open-source project
00:08 < kallewoof> Probably because Satoshi was using Windows when he wrote it
00:09 -!- EagleTM [~hab@92.231.216.173] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:14 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@86.172.80.129] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:15 < ckm> okay, yeah, that's a pastability. not sure though. maybe it was that the alternatives were less prevalent then, so it could have been strategic to get more miners. i kinda want a logical explanation. like it could have been a statement like hacking microsoft/windows in a phoenix type of way. hmm. your thoughts?
00:22 < sipa> my assumption is that satoshi or whoever wrote the first code was a windows programmer
00:23 < sipa> the naming style of variables etc is consistent with that
00:27 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@93-33-109-168.ip44.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
00:29 < ckm> okay going with that then is there any indication that this was a microsoft job? they do seem to be the most supportive big tech company, including support in visual basic, openly wanting a cashless money system, and with statements of public approval
00:33 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:37 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
00:59 < sipa> offtopic
01:05 < wumpus> there are likely more windows programmers than unix programmers in the world, so the chance of a software project starting as windows software is fairly high. Seems kind of a big leap to say it's a microsoft job then. If it had started as linux project, would you have personally implicated Linus?
01:05 < wumpus> but yes, offtopic, #bitcoin please
01:06 -!- shockoo [~shockoo@ip-94-112-163-197.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:14 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:16 < ckm> i just looked through all the original code and it doesn't seem like a "microsoft job" from the comments et cettera. i wasn't very into computers, i thought linux was hard to use back then, so i was using windows/mac but a programmer would i think have been able to use it. although it would be fairest to the public to make a windows version so everybody could in theory mine the genisis block.
01:16 < ckm> and sorry for offtopic i will switch over to there, thanks!
01:20 -!- i3-c3 [ccc23f04@gateway/web/freenode/ip.204.194.63.4] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:28 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:31 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:35 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@86.172.80.129] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
01:36 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-67-168-4-85.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:37 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-67-168-4-85.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit]     
01:45 -!- ckm [~user@unaffiliated/ckm] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
01:57 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@207pc74.sshunet.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:57 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@207pc74.sshunet.nl] has quit [Changing host]     
01:57 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:03 < jonasschnelli> Can anyone explain when a peer does relay its own CAddress to a connected peer? When I connect with mininode and inject a getaddr, I get now addr message
02:04 < wumpus> on incoming connections, yes
02:04 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: hmm... maybe I got fooled by the AddNewAddresses time penalty?
02:05 < wumpus> sure, or maybe there's a bug, I don't know
02:05 < jonasschnelli> Okay... i'll check.. maybe my local changes broke thinsg...
02:05 < wumpus> it seems advertizing works, but the issues about IP changes not propagating are kind of strange
02:06 < wumpus> sorry I meant on outgoing connections, incoming wouldn't make sense as the peer already found you :)
02:06 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: Ah... right..
02:07 < wumpus> so when your peer connects to someone else, it learns its own address (through the peer's version message), it starts advertizing that
02:08 < jonasschnelli> Though, if I start two peers (A,B) and connect_nodes_bi(A.B), then connect with a mininode (C) to B, I guess B should relay addr(A) when I send a getaddr
02:09 < wumpus> yes I think so, it should gossip about addresses it knows, though it's heavily randomized 
02:15 < sipa> eventually, yes
02:16 < sipa> but that may take hours
02:16 < jonasschnelli> sipa: do you see a better/simpler way how to test if a peer has relayed a addr (through our test/functional/ framework)?
02:17 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@207.38.86.239] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
02:17 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:17 < jonasschnelli> (examine peers.dat is probably a very bad idea)
02:17 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Client Quit]     
02:18 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@207.38.86.239] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:18 < wumpus> parsing peers.dat from the test framework seems painful
02:19 < jonasschnelli> If there would be a way to retrieve addrmans content from the outside..
02:19 < wumpus> also it's not really an interface to be tested, the peers.dat format should be flexible
02:19 < jonasschnelli> yeah.. indeed
02:19 < wumpus> agreed
02:19 < wumpus> some testing-only RPC?
02:20 < warren> why testing only?
02:20 < wumpus> that part of the code needs to be more testable
02:20 < wumpus> so we can assure that it works and track regressions
02:20 < wumpus> I don't see much point in having it as documented outside interface, but if you have use cases, sure...
02:21 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: Yes. Thought the same... I try to add an debug RPC to outputs addrmans content
02:21 < warren> I mean, it would be useful to be able to dump what it thinks it knows about peers during runtime of an ordinary node.
02:31 < sipa> we could add an rpc to report all of addrman's db through json?
02:32 -!- dcousens [~anon@110.22.219.15] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
02:34 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:36 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79.98.72.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:36 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79.98.72.176] has quit [Changing host]     
02:36 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:39 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
02:56 -!- i3-c3 [ccc23f04@gateway/web/freenode/ip.204.194.63.4] has quit [Quit: Page closed]     
03:03 -!- EagleTM [~hab@92.231.216.173] has quit [Quit: reboot]     
03:26 -!- shockoo [~shockoo@ip-94-112-163-197.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
03:47 < wumpus> yes, exactly
04:03 < kallewoof> Heh. I always thought getpeerinfo did just that.
04:03 < kallewoof> But I guess addrman can have entries for nodes you aren't currently connected to..
04:04 -!- rubensayshi [sid201751@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qhbvpgzhdlmgfjkv] has quit []     
04:04 -!- rubensayshi [sid201751@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cxsmvrfnqotcxawo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:04 < wumpus> right, getpeerinfo shows the peers that the node is currently connected to, not the ones it knows about
04:06 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
04:07 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:28 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:29 < jonasschnelli> A simpler approach would be to ensure we directly answer a getaddr request when the debug GetArg("-getaddr_direct") is set
04:30 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:33 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Client Quit]     
04:34 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:34 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:37 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:39 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
04:46 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
04:48 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.237.91.62] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
04:58 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
04:59 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:02 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
05:02 < jonasschnelli> The whole address relay is pretty hard to test on localhost. If 127.0.0.1 then IsRoutable() == false, GetLocalAddress() does not allow 127.0.0.1,.. 
05:07 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.237.91.57] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:29 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:37 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:45 < paveljanik> jonasschnelli, can you please rebase #9697 to make it easier for testing? Thank you.
05:45 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9697 | [Qt] simple fee bumper with user verification by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9697 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
05:46 < jonasschnelli> paveljanik: I did fresh compile it on Ubuntu 14.10 and didn't had any problems... There is already an ACK on the PR... but I can rebase if it's unavoidable.
05:47 < paveljanik> jonasschnelli, ok, np.
05:48 < paveljanik> there are three new commits anyway...
05:48 < jonasschnelli> Yeah.. right. Let me rebase then.
05:48 < jonasschnelli> Give me some minutes (working branch is different right now)
05:49 < paveljanik> It is an issue with my workflow... rebase will make it much easier for me (I'll be able to use the default/automated workflow).
05:49 -!- JackH [~laptop@79-73-189-229.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
05:49 < jonasschnelli> sure... will do
05:55 -!- riemann [~riemann@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:57 -!- spinza [~spin@196.212.164.26] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
06:02 -!- kcud_dab [~arthur@2001:bc8:c087:1001::1] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
06:03 -!- bad_duck [~arthur@area51.powaaa.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:06 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:10 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:11 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
06:19 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
06:27 < jonasschnelli> paveljanik: #9697 is now rebased
06:27 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9697 | [Qt] simple fee bumper with user verification by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9697 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
06:28 -!- spinza [~spin@196.212.164.26] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:38 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:40 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:44 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
06:47 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:49 -!- drizztbsd [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:50 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:51 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
06:52 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
06:54 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:55 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
06:58 -!- drizztbsd is now known as timothy     
07:00 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@2-228-102-98.ip191.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
07:00 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
07:20 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:20 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:22 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []     
07:23 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:23 -!- zooko_ [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:24 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has quit [Client Quit]     
07:24 -!- zooko_ [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has quit [Client Quit]     
07:24 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
07:24 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:24 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
07:24 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:26 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:32 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:32 -!- wallet42 [sid154231@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wvyfdydexvduepmt] has quit []     
07:33 -!- wallet42 [sid154231@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nylscdhsgqmbsaua] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:38 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
07:44 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@93-33-109-168.ip44.fastwebnet.it] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:47 -!- Cheeseo [~x@c-73-85-53-85.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:47 -!- Cheeseo [~x@c-73-85-53-85.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]     
07:47 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:52 -!- JackH [~laptop@79-73-189-229.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:59 -!- zooko [~chrome@208.184.3.194] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
08:00 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
08:03 -!- riemann [~riemann@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
08:04 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
08:04 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:09 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #10387: [WIP] Define and signal NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED (pruned peers) (master...2017/05/node_network_limited) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10387
08:45 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:50 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@93-33-109-168.ip44.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
08:55 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
09:03 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@91.207.57.51] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:10 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]     
09:12 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
09:23 -!- gm2051 [~gm2051@90.219.35.56] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
09:26 -!- gm2051 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:a8b8:db05:7e5c:8b0c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:29 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.237.91.57] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
09:32 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.237.91.86] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:52 -!- talmai [~T@c-76-24-28-74.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:56 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7f2b9e0868f5...79aeff6e08f3
09:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9970219 Matt Corallo: Update contrib/debian to latest Ubuntu PPA upload....
09:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a8e9286 Matt Corallo: Bump minimum boost version in contrib/debian
09:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c5071e1 Matt Corallo: Build with QT5 on Debian-based systems using contrib/debian
09:56 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10328: Update contrib/debian to latest Ubuntu PPA upload. (master...2017-05-update-debian) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10328
10:07 -!- talmai [~T@c-76-24-28-74.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: mining]     
10:08 -!- talmai [~T@c-76-24-28-74.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:14 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:20 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/79aeff6e08f3...18c9debe602d
10:20 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a637734 Luke Dashjr: rpc/wallet: Workaround older UniValue which returns a std::string temporary for get_str
10:20 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 18c9deb Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10341: rpc/wallet: Workaround older UniValue which returns a std::string temporary for get_str...
10:20 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10341: rpc/wallet: Workaround older UniValue which returns a std::string temporary for get_str (master...rpcwallet_uv_workaround) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10341
10:27 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/18c9debe602d...eb8263bdc9d3
10:27 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0c60c63 practicalswift: Remove unused Python imports
10:27 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master eb8263b Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10317: Remove unused Python imports...
10:28 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10317: Remove unused Python imports (master...remove-unused-python-imports-ii) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10317
10:57 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dial-216-221-44-2.mtl.aei.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
10:58 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/eb8263bdc9d3...94e52273f30f
10:58 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6c914ac Thomas Snider: [wallet] Securely erase potentially sensitive keys/values
10:58 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 94e5227 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10308: [wallet] Securely erase potentially sensitive keys/values...
10:58 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10308: [wallet] Securely erase potentially sensitive keys/values (master...tjps_secure_erase) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10308
11:03 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-216-221-56-155.mtl.aei.ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:05 -!- molz_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:07 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
11:18 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:20 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] morcos opened pull request #10388: Output line to debug.log when IsInitialBlockDownload latches to false (master...printIBD) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10388
11:29 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: The idea behind the signaling 7056 blocks in NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED was, that SPV peers and other very irregular network participants can catch up filtered (or non filtered) blocks of about a month.
11:30 < jonasschnelli> Though the value itself is questionable (I though NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_HIGH^2 may be resonable).
11:32 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:32 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:33 < gmaxwell> I'm pretty doubtful people are going to set pruning to anything but not at all or all the way right now.
11:38 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I don't know. I personally would consider pruning to 10GB or something that doesn't hurt. But yeah.... I see the point with UTXO syncs and maybe reserve it then for future use cases (though we could also add another bit)
11:38 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:39 < morcos> gmaxwell: given the size requirements for other aspects of the data directory (such as chainstate), it seems to me its not unreasonable to keep several gigs of blocks...  I think if there was a 10GB option, it might be heavily used, especially if it was either recommended or somehow the default
11:40 -!- molz_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
11:41 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:42 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-216-221-56-155.mtl.aei.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
11:43 < instagibbs> Defaults are obviously quite sticky. In my experience almost no one even knows about pruning.
11:43 < instagibbs> (so people just shut if off)
11:44 < jonasschnelli> Also consider the use case (thats getting more and more popular) where people link their SPV wallets with their full node. There a "month of blocks" could make sense...
11:44 < jonasschnelli> And I'm not saying this is a good use case... :)
11:47 < jonasschnelli> instagibbs: Some people told me that the prices per GB storage falls after moors law, but I personally feel that it was much simpler to run a full node back in 2013,... and not at least because of the disk requirement.
11:49 -!- protomar [~protomar@109.232.227.133] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:49 < instagibbs> Most people buying computers aren't optimizing for 100GB+ chain sizes.
11:50 < wumpus> "Some people told me that the prices per GB storage falls after moors law", indeed, that hasn't been true for quite a while
11:51 < gmaxwell> The setting based on size thing really doesn't work that well, the two logical settings are unpruned and the minimum.
11:52 < gmaxwell> so I'm not saying that keeping X or Y is useless, but we need a different interface to make them ever used.
11:52 < gmaxwell> And the big difference is "can people sync from you" -- p2p spv nodes are almost non-existant these days.
11:52 < wumpus> there is currently no reason to select anything but the minimum if you set up pruning
11:53 < wumpus> if it did serve the latter blocks I'd gladly set the pruning to larger, and I've heard similar things from other people, but there's just no reason now
11:53 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:53 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:54 < gmaxwell> The context here though is having yet another level.
11:54 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:54 < murchandamus> Howdy
11:55 < gmaxwell> I don't think having three levels of just pruning makes a lot of sense (nor do I think it's supported by the fetching data we have), when also there will be proposals for start-from-utxo-assumevalid which will have its own levels of storage.
11:55 < jonasschnelli> Right, the question is if both NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED_(LOW|HIGH) is enabled, should we then use a third, larger value (bit 1: 144, bit 2: 1008, both bits: ?)
11:55 < sipa> we could leave it undefined for now
11:56 < wumpus> on the other hand if there are three possibiilties with those bits, it makes sense to give the combination meaning too
11:56 < wumpus> or leave it explicitly undefined for future expansion,s ure
11:56 < sipa> merely the presence of having server-but-not-full-archival nodes will likely change things already
11:56 < gmaxwell> What I suggested was that it's undefined for setting, but for recieving you know it means at least X blocks, but it may also require other things, so you can't set it yet.
11:56 < sipa> and we'll learn from that
11:56 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-216-221-56-155.mtl.aei.ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:56 < jonasschnelli> Yes. It felt after a waste if we don't define it. Well, undefined (for future usecases) is also a definition.
11:56 < wumpus> agree
11:57 < instagibbs> gmaxwell, s/setting/sending/?
11:57 < gmaxwell> instagibbs: both.
11:57 < wumpus> gmaxwell: yes "it means at least..." makes a lot of sense for backwards compatibility
11:58 < gmaxwell> If you see both bits set, then it means they have at least 2016*2 blocks (which is what I suggested). But you don't set it yet, because it may (will) later be defined to say "And I offer a UTXO syncpoint" or whatnot. 
11:58 < wumpus> yes     
11:58 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
11:58 < gmaxwell> to be extra conservative it could just be defined to mean at least _HIGH  now. I don't have a strong opinion.
11:58 < gmaxwell> you can always increase the requirement later.
11:59 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:00 < wumpus> #startmeeting
12:00 < lightningbot> Meeting started Thu May 11 19:00:16 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
12:00 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
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 < sipa> present
12:00 < murchandamus> present
12:00 < wumpus> topics?
12:00 < sipa> murchandamus == murch?
12:00 < cfields> hi, here
12:00 < instagibbs> yes sipa 
12:00 < murchandamus> aye!
12:00 < morcos> gmaxwell: oh ok, i agree with not defining now..  maybe we should make just _HIGH more then though
12:00 < kanzure> hi.     
12:01 < gmaxwell> morcos: yes, I was thinking HIGH would be targeted at hosts syncing 2016 blocks, but I forget where the breakpoints were exactly in sipas' data.
12:01 < wumpus> any proposed topics? (we can continue the pruning service bits topic if people want that)
12:01 < BlueMatt> damnit, can enver remember topics i wanted to bring up come meeting time :(
12:01 < luke-jr> O.o?
12:02 < gmaxwell> wumpus: well we should talk about per-txo. I think it's ready for merge except for more testing/review.
12:02 < instagibbs> suggested topic: fee targeting/coin selection overhaul
12:02 < wumpus> #topic per-txo utxo database
12:02 < sipa> #10148
12:02 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10148 | [WIP] Use non-atomic flushing with block replay by sipa · Pull Request #10148 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:02 < gmaxwell> if people haven't seen the graphs: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/548488/25769030/c84fe65e-31c4-11e7-8819-264c44e50ddf.png
12:03 < sipa> oops, no, #10195
12:03 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:03 < morcos> sorry sipa, that has been on my list, but my list has been gathering dust for the last couple weeks
12:03 < BlueMatt> I'm still halfway through review
12:03 < gmaxwell> The graphs should be making all your mouths water.
12:03 < instagibbs> why is y-axis in block time :P
12:03 < wumpus> ah yes I was still testing #10148, should probably switch to #10195
12:03 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10148 | [WIP] Use non-atomic flushing with block replay by sipa · Pull Request #10148 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:03 < instagibbs> clock*
12:03 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:03 < gmaxwell> instagibbs: so that the flushing graph works out.
12:03 < sipa> instagibbs: so that the x axis of both graphs lines up
12:04 < cfields> i've made it through review, but I lack enough confidence to ACK the thing :\
12:04 < BlueMatt> gm2051: #10192
12:04 < gmaxwell> The most impressive thing about that chart isn't the ~33% speedup, it's the reduction in flushing frequency. 
12:04 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10192 | Cache full script execution results in addition to signatures by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10192 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:04 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: ^
12:04 < cfields> gmaxwell: yes, that's great.
12:04 < sipa> i was very surprised by how much it reduces flushing
12:04 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:04 < wumpus> nice chart
12:04 < sipa> my guess is that the resulting speedup isn't that dramatic because it's running on a system with pretty fast I/O
12:05 < wumpus> heh, but most users have systems with slow i/o
12:05 < sipa> oh, one downside: chainstate db goes from 2.2G to 2.7G
12:05 < gmaxwell> right, testing it on a system with slow i/o would be interesting. But will take forever.
12:05 < BlueMatt> 2.7 seems fine
12:06 < luke-jr> hmm     
12:06 < sipa> the TODOs that i know of are a few code cleanups (marked as TODO in the code), and better UI wrt the upgrade process
12:06 < sipa> there is a one-time upgrade of the old db to the new db at startup, which can be interrupted
12:06 < gmaxwell> The upgrade doesn't take long on a system with fast IO at least.
12:06 < BlueMatt> sipa: it needs way more review
12:07 < sipa> BlueMatt: of course
12:07 < BlueMatt> there are lots of things in that queue, sadly
12:07 < wumpus> upgrade should be fast if it just iterates through the db in sorted order
12:07 < wumpus> even on systems with fairly slow (seek) i/o
12:07 < sipa> wumpus: it does, it takes a couple of minutes on a system with fast I/O
12:08 < wumpus> I'll try it out this week
12:08 < gmaxwell> One thing to keep in mind is that keeping it unmerged reduces testing. Absolutely it needs more review before being merged, but we also should try to get it merged sooner rather than later.
12:08 < gmaxwell> So that we get more time baking on it in master.
12:08 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
12:09 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: we're not even close to that point
12:09 < BlueMatt> but, yes, we should be agressive about merge, as long as its a ways before release
12:09 < morcos> agreed gmaxwell, same thing with #10199
12:09 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10199 | Better fee estimates by morcos · Pull Request #10199 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:09 < sipa> morcos: i'll do another review pass on that today
12:09 < wumpus> yes, this shouldn't be something to merge last minute for 0.15
12:09 < morcos> good thing about that one, is its a lot less likely to casue a disaster
12:09  * BlueMatt finds 10199 to be wayyyy more important than per-utxo
12:09 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@173.209.61.61] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:09  * morcos disagrees
12:10 < gmaxwell> I strongly disagree.
12:10 < wumpus> they're both important for different reasons
12:10 < wumpus> it's comparing apples and oranges
12:11 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:11 < BlueMatt> anyway, do we have any real topics?
12:11 < sipa> i have one low-priority idea i'd like to talk about (running utxo commitments)
12:11  * BlueMatt wishes the ny weather were better...
12:11 < BlueMatt> sipa: shoot
12:11 < wumpus> #topic fee targeting/coin selection overhaul (instagibbs)
12:11 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: it's beautiful here in mountain view today.
12:12 < sipa> instagibbs: topic
12:12 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: A bit cloudy here in Palo Alto though. ;)
12:12 < instagibbs> So I tried my hand at doing redoing fee targeting #10360 without directly changing coin selection
12:12 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10360 | [WIP] [Wallet] Target effective value during transaction creation by instagibbs · Pull Request #10360 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:12 < instagibbs> Was wondering if people were wary of that, versus a complete overhaul
12:12 < instagibbs> morcos has concerns
12:12 < morcos> wary is a good word for it
12:12 < morcos> not opposed
12:13 < gmaxwell> I feel a little uneasy about the changes to augment selection while we don't have a strategy to sweep dust. It worries me that we're potentially going to again untintentionally create another UTXO count blowup event.
12:13 < sipa> instagibbs: i haven't looked into the details... is it just treating the net value of its output as amount - feerate*size_of_spend ?
12:13 < murchandamus> I've talked a bit with instagibbs about it and it seems to me that when that approach finds a direct match it may have a huge number of inputs
12:13 < instagibbs> sipa yes
12:13 < gmaxwell> murchandamus: that sounds great to me. :P
12:13 < murchandamus> I've combined a similar approach but trying to combine inputs by size large to small
12:14 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
12:14 < instagibbs> sipa, so you may get more smaller inputs that directly match, for example
12:14 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: I think that slightly bigger average transaction with lower variance in transaction size are better than huge variance in transaction size
12:14 < morcos> i like the idea of being at least somewhat fee smart, and including more inputs when fees are lower
12:14 < sipa> but even if it spends many inputs, it always does so in a way that is economical
12:14 < instagibbs> sipa, it will always use "positive effective value" inputs
12:14 < sipa> so unless you assume that the feerate is going down in the future, there is little reason to postpone spending them
12:15 < murchandamus> morcos: Exactly. We have huge variance in fees over the week
12:15 < gmaxwell> murchandamus: high to low sounds like it would destroy privacy. 
12:15 < morcos> the idea of wanting to do a quick transaction and paying 200 sat/byte to do it, and you include tons of little inputs that have little to none net value seems bad to me
12:15 < murchandamus> sipa: But adding a single input costs as much as four outputs, so you'd probably rather add a change output when fees are high than add another input, and later in the week do a few consolidation transactions
12:15  * luke-jr wonders how contentious it would be to move to a system where dust requires a larger proof so it can be pruned from the UTXO set
12:16 < murchandamus> I've been hearing that some people do this to save money
12:16 < gmaxwell> morcos: I though about that and I think a nice estimate would be the ratio between the current feerate set and the BIG_NUM target (e.g. 1008 block target).  If this ratio is low, then you should be agressive in spending. 
12:16 < morcos> admittedly its a difficult problem...  how do you distinguish a user that only does 200 sat/byte txs vs one that has a range
12:16 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: I don't think it does, because it's only the selection for making exact matches
12:16 < morcos> gmaxwell: yes, i agree... something like that
12:16 < murchandamus> and you don't know if the first combination that matched was actually among the largest in your wallet
12:16 -!- Cheeseo [~x@c-73-85-53-85.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:16 -!- Cheeseo [~x@c-73-85-53-85.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]     
12:16 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:17 < morcos> anyway, clearly there are a lot of ideas here, and i kidn of think that the amount of consideration that has to go into most changes is almost the same, and it might not be worthing doing all of that sanity checking if we're only making a small change
12:17 < instagibbs> yes, so there are plenty of interesting strategies, the question is should we not be making semi-obvious fixing until we can agree on those :)
12:17 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: interesting approach
12:18 < instagibbs> related: can we kill minimum total fee?
12:18 < morcos> at the very least, i'd think this should be lower priority for 0.15 than the prevously mentioned things right now... so we have to think about resources
12:18 < morcos> instagibbs: +1 on that for a first step
12:18 < sipa> instagibbs: ack
12:18 < instagibbs> morcos, yes that was the feeling I get
12:18 < murchandamus> instagibbs: Accounting for UTXO in selection by effective value does take a load of pain out of selection strategies
12:19 < gmaxwell> instagibbs: but if a 'semi obvious fix' blows up other considerations thats bad.  Do you have a reason to believe your change won't cause a massive increase in utxo accumulation?
12:19 < morcos> also i have a PR #9343 that also removes edge case logic.  cleaning these things up now will make future improvements easier to do and reason about
12:19 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9343 | Dont create change at dust limit by morcos · Pull Request #9343 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:19 < murchandamus> instagibbs: I'm not sure that just this change with the current selection strategy of Core does much better in the selection, because of the selecting/deselecting pass
12:19 < instagibbs> gmaxwell, no, I wasn't assuming as much, sorry if that seemed implied
12:20 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: Pretty sure it would rather decrease UTXO footprints
12:20 < murchandamus> right now Core will often fail in the first few passes when it selects more inputs because it hadn't accounted for the fees in advance
12:20 < sipa> instagibbs: which feerate are you using?
12:20 < instagibbs> sipa, whatever the user has selected via settings
12:21 < gmaxwell> instagibbs: well, thats why I ask. basically, in any mature system you can have 'bugs' which you depend on. at first glance it semeed to me that your PR might fix a bug where we're overly agressively spending TXO that are negative value. But we may depend on that bug to help manage the UTXO size.  At least that was my impression.
12:21 < murchandamus> with this change it would always succeed as soon as it finds an exact match
12:21 < sipa> instagibbs: oh, duh
12:21 < instagibbs> well, aside from total minimum fee, because that's stupid
12:21 < instagibbs> gmaxwell, could be. Maybe next step, aside from general refactor and cleaning, is to get better data
12:22 < gmaxwell> murchandamus: I'm not following your logic. Yes, the first few passes will fail, then it will target a higher amount, and be successful.
12:22 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: Yes, it shoudl never select UTXO that are negative effective value
12:22 < instagibbs> and stop throwing away money as fees egregiously: #10333
12:22 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10333 | [wallet] fee fixes: always create change, adjust value, and p… by instagibbs · Pull Request #10333 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:22 < gmaxwell> murchandamus: By "should" do you mean the current behavior?
12:22 < instagibbs> current behavior almost certainly does
12:22 < gmaxwell> The current behavior absolutely will select txos with negative value.
12:23 < sipa> So how about we fix that first?
12:23 < gmaxwell> And "fixing" that may have severely deletarious effects on the network.
12:23 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: It only fails if it doesn't find a transaction input set within the number of estimated inputs from the previous tries
12:23 < morcos> sipa: yeah i was thinking that 
12:23 < instagibbs> I could always just make it ignore negative effective value
12:23 < morcos> gmaxwell: disagree
12:23 < instagibbs> ...     
12:23 < instagibbs> lol     
12:23 < instagibbs> I mean either it's a feature, and we shouldnt fix it, or a bug and we should
12:23 < morcos> instagibbs: yeah exactly
12:24 < gmaxwell> It can be both! :)
12:24 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: I meant "should" as in when you calculate the effective value of a UTXO, if it is a negative effective value it shouldn't be selected
12:24 < instagibbs> aspirational should?
12:24 < sdaftuar> so there's a difference here between generally factoring in feerates in the coin selection, and throwing out inputs that have negative value.  i assume that's what we're getting at?
12:24 < murchandamus> gmaxwell: actually yes
12:24 < gmaxwell> It's a feature when its mild and happening during times of low feerate. And a bug when its severe when it is insane and happening during high feerate.
12:24 < murchandamus> current behavior would select them
12:24 < instagibbs> gmaxwell, fair enough...
12:25 < wumpus> yes, eating utxos with negative value cleans up the utxo set
12:25 < morcos> gmaxwell: right now when feerates vary from 10 to 200 sat/byte.   something that is 0 at 200 sat/byte should be cleaned up at a lower fee rate, not thrown away
12:25 < gmaxwell> Fixing it unconditionally without doing something about dust cleanup may be quite harmful to the network.
12:25 < wumpus> of course it's better to not create them in the first place
12:25 < morcos> wumpus: yes!  see #9343
12:25 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9343 | Dont create change at dust limit by morcos · Pull Request #9343 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:25 < murchandamus> morcos: That's what I meant
12:25 < instagibbs> ^I should review that one
12:25 < morcos> i'm not sure thats the only way they are created, perhaps we could do more to avoid creating them also
12:26 < gmaxwell> morcos: well they're created by people being buttheads. 
12:26 < morcos> i should say, i'm sure thats not the only way
12:26 < instagibbs> I noticed in current logic we create near-dust, but when we're modifying change, we have much higher bar to clear
12:26 < gmaxwell> and no amount of fixing the wallet will prevent their creation.
12:26 < instagibbs> we should sync this
12:26 < wumpus> yes, we should get that one in
12:26 < wumpus> gmaxwell: well not creating them ourselves is not a total solution, but it helps
12:27 < gmaxwell> wumpus: absolutely, sorry if it sounded like I said otherwise.
12:27 < morcos> gmaxwell: yeah its a good question how many are created unintentionally vs intentionally
12:27 < morcos> it wouldn't be unreasonable to raise the limit for intentionally creating them in Core, in adddition to imporving unintentional behavior
12:27 -!- Firescar96 [~nchinda2@dhcp-18-111-123-221.dyn.mit.edu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:27 < gmaxwell> and at least as far as the "some anonymous third party sends you a few bitcents"  I think it's fine to spend those at a slight loss, esp if its in a privacy preserving way, and double especially if it's at as low a fee rate as you expect to see.
12:27 < murchandamus> morcos: Core never creates change outputs smaller than 0.01 BTC unless the wallet is being almost depleted with the transaction, right?
12:28 < morcos> murchandamus: well.. thats the design goal, i don't think its achieved
12:28 < instagibbs> it's not achieved at all 
12:28 < instagibbs> sad!
12:28 < gmaxwell> what morcos said
12:28 < gmaxwell> well it's better since 0.13.whatever when we fixed some things.
12:28 < gmaxwell> with the target/2 checks.
12:29 < murchandamus> I'll have to check out the linked issue
12:29 < morcos> in particular, if you have nTotalLower < target + CENT, you aim for target, and almost definitely create some stupidly small change
12:29 < morcos> among other posibilities
12:29 < murchandamus> morcos: Ah right, I forgot about the pre-selection before knapsack
12:29 < morcos> the linked issue is even more edge case
12:29 < murchandamus> thanks for the reminder
12:30 < morcos> but like nTotalFee needs to go away before its easy to clean up the general case
12:30 < morcos> easIER
12:30 < murchandamus> morcos: I think the way to go would be to dissect and modularize the coin selection out of wallet.cpp, if that's possible
12:30 < murchandamus> right now it is such a moloch
12:31 < instagibbs> I mean you can basically just throw away anything at or below SelectCoins, imo
12:31 < wumpus> murchandamus: yes please
12:31 < gmaxwell> Moloch whose mind is pure machinery!
12:32 < murchandamus> I think instagibbs and I might coordinate something there, and jnewberry was also interested AFAIK
12:32 < gmaxwell> can we new-subject?  good discussion on this, lots of PRs for people to look at and discuss more. :)
12:32 < instagibbs> morcos is also interested
12:32 < instagibbs> yes I'm satisfied, we can continue offline
12:32 < murchandamus> thanks, me too
12:32 < wumpus> #topic running utxo commitments (sipa)
12:32 < sipa> ok     
12:32 < gmaxwell> instagibbs: in any case, that one concern: that we might 'fix' what is dedusting the UTXO is the only reason I didn't ACK your patch. So we should try to get confidence there or add some other fix for that.
12:33 < instagibbs> gmaxwell, my firster iteration didnt even "fix" it :P
12:33  * jonasschnelli think we should have a graphical 3D "real coins" (in the size of the BTC value) manual drag'n'drop coin selection
12:33 < sipa> so, gmaxwell and i have been thinking about the possibility of maintaining a UTXO commitment hash all the time
12:34 < sipa> this would be useful for making gettxoutsetinfo instantaneous, or for syncing from someone else's UTXO set, or as the basis for a softfork later
12:34 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has quit [Quit: Connection reset by Beer]     
12:34 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
12:34 -!- Rob [8f739f35@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.115.159.53] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:34 < wumpus> yes, that would be useful
12:34 < sipa> and it seems it would be possible to have an implementation that does this at a cost of a few microseconds per input and per output
12:34 -!- Rob is now known as Guest50211     
12:34 < gmaxwell> A first requirement for any kind of UTXO assumevalid is having a continuous commitment value to simplify review.
12:34 < sipa> in a cryptographically secure way
12:35 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Bye]     
12:35 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: that's pretty much just "a better GUI for coin control" right?
12:35 < gmaxwell> Effectively, we construct an incremental unordered hash for sets-- so you can add and remove entries one at a time... Because just one scheme isn't enough, we actually constructed several, and now have a fun tradeoffs challenge to decide between them.
12:35 < sipa> there are a few different possible implementations (one is based on multiplying big numbers mod a big prime, one is based on EC math, one is based on adding large hashes toether)... with different performance and security tradeoffs, i'll send a mail about it to the ML soon
12:36 < BlueMatt> ah, ok, was gonna ask what the design was, cool
12:36 < instagibbs> i love the alternative explanations...
12:36 -!- cbits [~cbits@2607:f380:a61:650:c0ae:e98f:b9d:79bb] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:36 < BlueMatt> i mean we can also not use complicated solutions and be willing to do it in the background at a cost of however many milliseconds later
12:36 < BlueMatt> dunno how complicated your proposal is, of course
12:36 < sipa> BlueMatt: map every UTXO to either a 3072-bit integer and multiply those for all outputs, or to an EC point and all those for all outputs
12:37 < sipa> the multiplication approach is faster, but harder to cache 
12:37 < gmaxwell> The strength of our proposals is strictly better than the discrete log assumption.  Neighter are especially complex, though the multiplying one is probably simpler for joe-fool to implement as long as they don't care about performance.
12:37 < sipa> the EC approach could allow us to cache the effect of a single transaction, and then instantly apply it to the running commitment
12:38 -!- jonasschnelli is now known as joe-fool     
12:38 < sipa> hahaha
12:38 < wumpus> interesting proposal
12:38 < sipa> so, even though 5us per input/output may not seem much, it's several hours of CPU time for a node syncing from scratch
12:39 < BlueMatt> sipa: hmm, i assume you have a pointer to a crypto accumulator somewhere?
12:39 < BlueMatt> paper*
12:39 < BlueMatt> ehh, I'll just wait for your ml post
12:39 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
12:39 < sipa> BlueMatt: it's a really uninteresting accumulator, as it can't be used to prove anything
12:39 < sipa> i'll include some references
12:39 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:39 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: there have been several papers on related schemes-- however.  Of course, the papers ignore the performance considerations.  And especially in our case we have tradeoffs around block validation latency.
12:40 -!- dclxvi [~DCLXVI@95-44-201-135-dynamic.agg1.whi.bdt-fng.eircom.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
12:40 < instagibbs> I still want compact proofs, get back to work.
12:40 < sipa> also, the DL approach would mean we need an implementation of a fast multiplication mod a (fixed) prime , or a GMP dependency
12:40 < instagibbs> (ducks)
12:41 < sipa> instagibbs: so one advantage that these things have is that they're not incompatible with other UTXO/TXO commitment approaches
12:41 < gmaxwell> in any case, ML post will talk about the tradeoffs and schemes.
12:41 < cfields> is ordering relevant? any effects on parallel validation/caching?
12:41 < sipa> cfields: it's 100% parallellizable
12:41 < gmaxwell> cfields: they're totally independant of ordering.
12:41 < wumpus> if at least it can be done in parallel with some of the i/o  (e.g. database lookups) it wouldn't have to add that much to the total validation time
12:41 < cfields> whew
12:41 < instagibbs> sipa, ack
12:41 < gmaxwell> And as sipa is pointing out, unlike other utxo commitments they do not break STXO like schemes where you have nodes that don't store the whole utxo set.
12:41 < sipa> ordering is irrelevant... it's effectively a set commitment that is homomorphic wrt to set union and subtraction
12:43 < sipa> but if we have this, we could for example log the UTXO commitment hash in the UpdateTip debug.log lines
12:43 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: well the validation latency tradeoffs are mostly removed by commiting to the previous block's utxo commitment, no?
12:43 < BlueMatt> is there some reason we should avoid doing so?
12:43 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:43 < gmaxwell> So the applications I see for this are: an instant gettxouset info,  being able to have updatetip log the UTXO state (making checking nodes much easier), a start on an ability to do an ASSUMEVALID UTXO sync. ('start on' because there is a security/philosophy debate if the value must also be commited to the chain if we're to do an assumevalid like sync)
12:43 < sipa> BlueMatt: well we're not even talking about commiting to it in blocks (though that is an interesting possibility later)
12:44 < BlueMatt> sipa: great! so lets not do it inline and do it in the background later
12:44 < sipa> BlueMatt: and delayed commitments are more complicated if you actually want the latency reduction... you need a backlog and background processing
12:44 < BlueMatt> as long as its under 100ms rpc is still instant
12:44 < BlueMatt> ish     
12:44 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
12:44 < gmaxwell> oh well none of this is anywhere near that slow in any case.
12:44 < sipa> which would interfere with CPU demand for signature validation
12:45 < sipa> gmaxwell: if we need an mod inverse in the RPC, it could be 10ms or so with a naive implementation
12:45 < gmaxwell> I think with sutiable caching we're talking about worst case impact, if done inline, on the order of 10ms. 
12:45 < sipa> anyway, not that much more to say about it
12:45 < BlueMatt> i think we can live with 10ms :p
12:46 < BlueMatt> anyway, looking forward to the ml post :)
12:46 < wumpus> #topic PRs high priority for review
12:46 < sipa> i just wanted to give a heads up
12:46 < BlueMatt> (in an rpc that would otherwise block cs_main...)
12:46 -!- joe-fool is now known as jonasschnelli     
12:46 < sipa> BlueMatt: that 10ms can even run without cs_main
12:46 < instagibbs> a less-extreme wallet PR for consideration to 0.15: #10333
12:46 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10333 | [wallet] fee fixes: always create change, adjust value, and p… by instagibbs · Pull Request #10333 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:47 < instagibbs> there are still n > 1 reports of extremely high feerates with large num inputs
12:47 < BlueMatt> sipa: thats my point :p
12:47 < instagibbs> they seem to match up with this case
12:48 < wumpus> instagibbs: added 0.15 tag
12:48 < instagibbs> thanks
12:48 < gmaxwell> Where are we with multiwallet?
12:49 < wumpus> there were plenty of review comments on luke-jr's pull, but he hasn't addressed them yet AFAIK
12:49 < gmaxwell> I haven't been following it closely because I've been more focused on per-txo/the above commitment stuff/etc.
12:49 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: ^ plz.
12:49 < jonasschnelli> #8694 needs still rebase
12:49 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8694 | Basic multiwallet support by luke-jr · Pull Request #8694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:49 < luke-jr> wumpus: it's pending on jtimon's PR
12:50 < wumpus> luke-jr: which one?
12:50 < wumpus> I merged a few jtimon PRs this week
12:50 < luke-jr> #9494
12:50 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9494 | Introduce an ArgsManager class encapsulating cs_args, mapArgs and mapMultiArgs by jtimon · Pull Request #9494 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:50 < luke-jr> which actually looks mergable?
12:50 < wumpus> ok, seems that one is already in high priority for review
12:50 < sipa> wumpus: yeah, i marked it so last week
12:51 < luke-jr> reason being 8694 touches mapMultiArgs
12:51 < wumpus> luke-jr: good to know, will take a look at it soon and merge it
12:51 < luke-jr> rather than avoid that, it seems better to just fix the locking for ti
12:51 < wumpus> yes     
12:52 < wumpus> sipa: thanks
12:52 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@173.209.61.61] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
12:52 < jonasschnelli> Also, consider reviewing HD-Auto-Restore #10240 (it's currently not in high prio), we should have this in 0.15, otherwise users need to do loop10000(getnewaddress), rescan(genesis) to restore funds.
12:52 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10240 | Add HD wallet auto-restore functionality by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10240 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:53 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: added 0.15 milestone
12:53 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: I'd missed that you got that going. good to hear.
12:54 < jonasschnelli> I'll rebase and fix the points soon.
12:54 < gmaxwell> I'll take a look at it after I finish my code review on some other PRs that I'm currently working on.
12:55 < jonasschnelli> thanks gmaxwell 
12:57 < instagibbs> 3 minutes
12:57 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:57 < sipa> my #1 is still #10195 :)
12:57 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1 | JSON-RPC support for mobile devices ("ultra-lightweight" clients) · Issue #1 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:57 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10195 | Switch chainstate db and cache to per-txout model by sipa · Pull Request #10195 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:57 < sipa> eh     
12:57 < sipa> ah!     
12:57 < wumpus> yep     
12:58 < wumpus> #endmeeting
12:58 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu May 11 19:58:15 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
12:58 < lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-11-19.00.html
12:58 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-11-19.00.txt
12:58 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-05-11-19.00.log.html
12:58 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: The 3D graphical coin selection was a joke.. though, for educational use, it would be great
12:58 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: yes I like the idea, I'd probably use it, I currently always use manual coin selection already
12:58 < jonasschnelli> You have a wallet, then you 3d-pick some coins... and you get back a change into your wallet
12:59 < jonasschnelli> Yes. I personally always do manual coin selection.
12:59 < jonasschnelli> But not sure about the majority of users. :)
12:59 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: I think it was in Milan that someone showed some wallet app that had 2d physics effects with coins
12:59 < instagibbs> I've never done coin selection personally
12:59 < luke-jr> 2D would be enough
12:59 < wumpus> don't remember which one, but it looked quite funny
12:59 < jonasschnelli> luke-jr: Today everything needs to be 3D,... even 2D. :)
13:00 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@91.207.57.51] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
13:00 < gmaxwell> 2d is probably better, 3d illustrations often confuse people about volumes.  But if you show more valuable coins as bigger that will create a false impression that bigger coins cost more to spend, no?
13:00 < instagibbs> simply tossing current coin selection and adding random selection would probably be a huge plus sadly.
13:00 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: ☹
13:00 < wumpus> I don't think it's *useful* for most people but those things can be fun to play with and people learn how it works
13:00 < jonasschnelli> 3D would be in a form you woudnl't recognize. The depth and shadows only slighly change when you drag the coins.
13:01 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: oh, so no tetris blocks? :-)
13:01 < jonasschnelli> heh     
13:02 < jonasschnelli> Someone I feel if – from the beginning – coin selection would have been a "manual process", people would understand Bitcoin transactions better.
13:02 < wumpus> plane tiling puzzle but with the goal to get as close as possible to the spend value :p
13:02 < jonasschnelli> Also the "feerate" problem.. that it's not absolute.
13:02 -!- Firescar96 [~nchinda2@dhcp-18-111-123-221.dyn.mit.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
13:02 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: I tend to agree
13:03 < gmaxwell> A better visualization might be be the coins being sized based on how much weight they add to the txn, and different metals based on value. :P
13:03 < jonasschnelli> Automatic coin selection may be something large wallets / exchanges are using.
13:03 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: Oh. Different metals... I like this.
13:03 < instagibbs> "Silver, since when did I have Litecoin?"
13:04 < jonasschnelli> With a SW badge? :-)
13:04 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: yeah, I was thinking numbers rather than colours
13:04 < luke-jr> maybe both?
13:05 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
13:05 < wumpus> niec idea
13:05 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: well yea, both of course.
13:05 -!- Guest50211 [8f739f35@gateway/web/freenode/ip.143.115.159.53] has quit [Quit: Page closed]     
13:06 < luke-jr> gold for > 1 ᵐTBC, silver for > ᵗTBC, bronze for > 1 TBC, and "plastic" for smaller
13:06  * luke-jr hides
13:06 < gmaxwell> hah     
13:10 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:11 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:12 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@38.95.111.67] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:16 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:16 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:17 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:19 -!- jcliff42 [~jcliff42@4.16.87.162] has quit [Client Quit]     
13:26 -!- cbits [~cbits@2607:f380:a61:650:c0ae:e98f:b9d:79bb] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
13:28 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
13:36 -!- rgod [~rgod@12.20.48.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:37 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:38 < instagibbs> my p2p-fullblocks test is timing out on a couple of my machines... is this known issue
13:39 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@cpe-68-174-97-76.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:40 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:41 < instagibbs> oh scratch that, this seems to be an assertion error
13:42 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
13:42 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
13:45 -!- cbits [~cbits@2607:f380:a61:650:e052:2630:2e9b:7e78] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:49 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]     
13:53 -!- Sprh [~Sprh@12.20.48.10] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:04 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:938:8075:2144:b338] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:06 -!- gm2051 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:a8b8:db05:7e5c:8b0c] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
14:13 -!- Firescar96 [~nchinda2@18.111.54.106] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:18 -!- JackH [~laptop@79-73-189-229.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
14:23 -!- [Author] [~Author]@2401:a400:3200:5600:bad:d09:15:90d] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]     
14:27 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:28 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:cd6:c008:6453:f19] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:28 -!- [Author] [~Author]@2401:a400:3200:5600:bad:d09:15:90d] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:31 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:938:8075:2144:b338] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
14:33 -!- cbits [~cbits@2607:f380:a61:650:e052:2630:2e9b:7e78] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
14:34 -!- talmai [~T@c-76-24-28-74.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: mining]     
14:35 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:cd6:c008:6453:f19] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:38 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:cd6:c008:6453:f19] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
14:39 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
14:44 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
14:50 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:58 -!- Sprh [~Sprh@12.20.48.10] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
15:00 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: sipa: petertodd: luke-jr:   Bitcoin-dev is as useful as we make it.  There are certian reliable parties that will crap-post reply to every useful idea posted to the list.  When we respond directly point by point arguing their foolish positions, the list becomes useless for technical discussions.
15:00 -!- protomar [~protomar@109.232.227.133] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:01 < gmaxwell> I would strongly recommend that whenever you get a message from someone who has reliably made useless progress blocking responses that you do not respond to them point by point, but instead make sure their concerns are addressed in a message responding to a productive point raised by someone else.
15:02 < gmaxwell> Otherwise, the thread just becomes an endless argument over stupidity and people who are likely to make reasonable responses will ignore the thread.
15:04 -!- kadoban_ [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:04 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
15:07 -!- rgod [~rgod@12.20.48.10] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:22 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:24 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:26 -!- Firescar96 [~nchinda2@18.111.54.106] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:26 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:29 < sipa> frequency of depths of blocks downloaded from my node over the past 3 months: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/depths.png
15:30 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:30 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:31 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:35 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:c508:692a:6772:1971] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:38 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:39 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:cd6:c008:6453:f19] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
15:42 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:c508:692a:6772:1971] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:42 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:43 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@cpe-68-174-97-76.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
15:44 -!- gm2051 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:c508:692a:6772:1971] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:45 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:c508:692a:6772:1971] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:47 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:c508:692a:6772:1971] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
15:53 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:2168:e55a:5fa6:846f] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
16:05 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:06 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-24.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:14 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:5848:5926:f23b:b2ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:18 -!- gm2051 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:c508:692a:6772:1971] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
16:20 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:8556:e9ad:e0f4:27b4] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:23 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:5848:5926:f23b:b2ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:30 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@172.58.19.153] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:34 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:746f:a705:2d2f:f0f0] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:38 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:8556:e9ad:e0f4:27b4] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:39 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
16:45 -!- chatter29 [8a44b6b5@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.68.182.181] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:45 < chatter29> hey guys
16:45 < chatter29> allah is doing
16:45 < chatter29> sun is not doing allah is doing
16:45 < chatter29> to accept Islam say that i bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad peace be upon him is his slave and messenger
16:45 < chatter29> As-salāmu ʿalaykum (Arabic: السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ‎‎ [asːaˈlaːmu ʕaˈlaikum]) is a greeting in Arabic that means "peace be upon you". The greeting is a standard salutation among Muslims and is routinely used whenever and wherever Muslims gather and interact, whether socially or within worship and other contexts. [1] The typical response to the greeti
16:45 < chatter29> ng is waʿalaykumu s-salām (وَعَلَيْكُم السَّلَام [waʕaˈlaikumu sːaˈlaːm]; "and upon you, peace").
16:46 -!- mode/#bitcoin-core-dev [+o luke-jr] by ChanServ     
16:46 -!- chatter29 was kicked from #bitcoin-core-dev by luke-jr [spam]     
16:46 -!- mode/#bitcoin-core-dev [-o luke-jr] by luke-jr     
16:46 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:845a:2fa7:6916:304a] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:50 -!- chatter29 [8a44b6b5@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.68.182.181] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:50 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:746f:a705:2d2f:f0f0] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
16:50 -!- kline [~kline@freenode/staff/enucs.kline] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:51 -!- chatter29 [8a44b6b5@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.68.182.181] has quit [Client Quit]     
16:52 -!- kline [~kline@freenode/staff/enucs.kline] has left #bitcoin-core-dev ["It's... scared..."]     
16:54 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
16:57 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@172.58.19.153] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
16:57 -!- waxwing__ [~waxwing@108.61.48.116] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:59 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:00 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]     
17:01 -!- waxwing [~waxwing@38.95.111.67] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
17:01 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
17:07 -!- anthonyjd [~Anthony@2001:470:daef:e1e1:27a3:b8c8:9db:79f6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:25 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-216-221-56-155.mtl.aei.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
17:30 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:4188:a120:e4a1:46c2] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:30 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-199-102-159-103.mtl.aei.ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:32 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:cd95:595a:5c0c:bc3d] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:33 -!- gm2051 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:c1a8:12d8:2428:9ef7] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:33 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:845a:2fa7:6916:304a] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
17:35 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:35 < instagibbs> sipa, could you plot as CDF?
17:36 < sipa> instagibbs: https://bitcoin.sipa.be/depths.xz
17:36 < sipa> have fun :)
17:36 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:4188:a120:e4a1:46c2] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
17:37 -!- e4xit [~textual@cpc1-cmbg20-2-0-cust188.5-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
17:37 -!- e4xit [~textual@cpc1-cmbg20-2-0-cust188.5-4.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:38 < gmaxwell> I've been chewing on that data, and I don't think it really supports the 144 block target very much.
17:42 -!- NewLiberty_ [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:9d81:67d3:fd20:96c7] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:44 -!- NewLiberty [~NewLibert@2602:306:b8e0:8160:cd95:595a:5c0c:bc3d] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
17:52 -!- Firescar96 [~nchinda2@macgregor-six-thirty-six.mit.edu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:02 < gmaxwell> sipa: do you have more detailed data?
18:08 < sipa> i have timestamps + depth for each block transfer
18:10 < gmaxwell> logically we'd want to put our breakpoints at peaks in the second derivative of the total blocks served (the cumulative version of that data).  Which would in peaks of the derivative of your data.. but it's measurements so getting a useful derivative is hard.   working from a smoothed spline it looks like the peaks are at 29, 199, and then there is so much periodic behavior that its hard to see 
18:10 < gmaxwell> any other trend.   What I think I'm seeing is 24 hour-ish cycles,  but they're spread out in block count due to difficulty changing. 
18:10 < gmaxwell> e.g. if you want to fully capture a 24-hour sycle then perhaps you need 200 blocks, because there can be 200 blocks in a day.
18:12 < petertodd> gmaxwell: when have I last responded to a post that you think wasn't worth responding too?
18:12 -!- kadoban_ is now known as kadoban     
18:12 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-povogtabbjlakkpj] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
18:15 -!- echonaut4 [~echonaut@46.101.192.134] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:15 -!- echonaut [~echonaut@46.101.192.134] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
18:22 < gmaxwell> petertodd: I can't think of a recent example, remark wasn't intended to criticize your behavior. Sorry if it came off that way.
18:40 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:a52b:d0ce:547b:14b5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:44 -!- gm2051 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:c1a8:12d8:2428:9ef7] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
18:47 < gmaxwell> sipa: so from this data, I'm not seeing a lot of justification for anything but a single level at around 200 blocks +plus a dozen or so blocks for headroom (so, e.g. 288 would be fine).    If I use a cumulative maximum from the end to estimate how many transfers are due to fullsync-- there are 107, if then subtract those off, 90% of the cumulative transfer is met by depth 244, and 99% by 410.
19:08 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:d57e:b47c:3e74:dc76] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:12 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:a52b:d0ce:547b:14b5] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
19:38 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #10390: [wallet] remove minimum total fee option (master...killminfee) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10390
19:43 -!- Firescar96 [~nchinda2@macgregor-six-thirty-six.mit.edu] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
19:56 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
19:59 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@100.15.117.236] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:06 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@100.15.117.236] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
20:07 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:31 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
20:31 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
20:32 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:37 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
20:37 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
20:38 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:39 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:43 -!- cryptapus_afk [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
21:00 -!- waxwing__ [~waxwing@108.61.48.116] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
21:02 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:03 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Client Quit]     
21:04 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:12 -!- waxwing__ [waxwing@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-hlazujvbwqbfaomp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:16 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #10391: OP_CHECKBLOCKATHEIGHT anti-replay (BIP 115; logic only) (master...cbah) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10391
21:26 -!- dcousens [~anon@110.22.219.15] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:31 -!- waxwing__ [waxwing@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-hlazujvbwqbfaomp] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
21:33 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:35 -!- shockoo [~shockoo@ip-94-112-163-197.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:49 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Quit: bye]     
21:50 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:a492:777c:1f54:19e0] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:53 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:d57e:b47c:3e74:dc76] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
22:08 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
22:09 -!- gm2053 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:448c:722d:fff0:cd62] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
22:12 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
22:13 -!- gm2052 [~gm2051@2a02:c7d:12e:100:a492:777c:1f54:19e0] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]     
22:59 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]     
23:00 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:00 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-199-102-159-103.mtl.aei.ca] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
23:00 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-199-102-159-103.mtl.aei.ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:07 -!- d_t [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
23:10 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: Agree on what you said about the bitcoin-dev list. I refuse to answer.
23:16 < dcousens> jonasschnelli: here I was thinking about the "2048" of coin selection
23:16 < jonasschnelli> 2048?
23:17 < dcousens> https://gabrielecirulli.github.io/2048/
23:18 < jonasschnelli> I wasn't aware of that game,...
23:18  * jonasschnelli 's productive goes rapidly down
23:18 < dcousens> jonasschnelli: ha, my bad
23:19 < jonasschnelli> ;-)     
23:19 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-sbibnlgefajgorpk] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:23 < sipa> jonasschnelli: oh god, i lost about 6 months of my life to that game
23:25 -!- juscamarena_ [~justin@47.148.176.74] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:25 -!- juscamarena [~justin@47.148.176.74] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:26 -!- juscamarena is now known as Guest29791     
23:29 -!- Guest29791 [~justin@47.148.176.74] has quit [Client Quit]     
23:29 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
23:42 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-199-102-159-103.mtl.aei.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
23:49 -!- dermoth [~thomas@dsl-199-102-159-103.mtl.aei.ca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:50 -!- shockoo [~shockoo@ip-94-112-163-197.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
23:58 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]