--- Day changed Mon Jul 17 2017 00:10 < luke-jr> anyone have anything urgent / must be done before August I can help with for the next hour? 00:11 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:11 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:26 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/bf0a08be281d...6859ad2936bf 00:26 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ecd81df Alex Morcos: Make CoinControl a required argument to CreateTransaction 00:26 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 03ee701 Alex Morcos: Refactor to use CoinControl in GetMinimumFee and FeeBumper... 00:26 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1983ca6 Alex Morcos: Use CoinControl to pass custom fee setting from QT.... 00:26 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10706: Improve wallet fee logic and fix GUI bugs (master...improveWalletFeeLogic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10706 00:26 -!- coredump_ [~quassel@vpn-qld171.vpnsolutions.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 00:30 < wumpus> anyone opposed to adding #10829 as a last-ditch try to still have RPC multiwallet support in 0.15? 00:30 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10829 | Simple, backwards compatible RPC multiwallet support. by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10829 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 00:30 < wumpus> it is simple to review at least 00:34 < gmaxwell> I support it. 00:39 -!- Evel-Knievel [~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be] has quit [] 00:41 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:41 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has quit [Client Quit] 00:41 -!- promag1 [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:43 -!- Walter2 [~Walter@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:49 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/6859ad2936bf...91edda8f3c81 00:49 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1cc251f Patrick Strateman: Explicitly search for bdb5.3.... 00:49 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 91edda8 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10803: Explicitly search for bdb5.3.... 00:50 -!- Evel-Knievel [~Evel-Knie@d5152f744.static.telenet.be] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:50 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10803: Explicitly search for bdb5.3. (master...2017-07-02-bdb5.3) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10803 00:52 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 00:54 < gmaxwell> so on #10831 I'm ambivlent to the performance improvement; I created the PR because I understood that performance issue to be a blocker for increasing the default keypool size, which I think is really important to get out due to bad interactions with hd wallet and rescan. 00:54 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10831 | Batch flushing operations to the walletdb during top up and increase keypool size. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #10831 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 00:55 < luke-jr> we should probably just do keypool in the background..? 00:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift closed pull request #10847: Enable devirtualization opportunities by using the final specifier (C++11) (master...devirtualization) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10847 00:56 < wumpus> well, performance improvement or not, doing the keypool top-up in a single db transaction makes sense 00:56 < luke-jr> doing it in a single dbtx would necessitate blocking on it, though, no? 00:57 < sipa> ? 00:57 < luke-jr> at least before any of the keys can be used 00:57 < wumpus> especially on VMs with slow sync (most of them), it's super slow as it is right now 00:57 < wumpus> blocking on *what*? key generation is so fast 00:57 < sipa> if it weren't for db syncing, we can generate 10000 per second or so 00:58 < wumpus> the only reason it takes noticable time right now is because of the sync per key 00:58 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: the topup is already a single operation that holds the relevant locks the whole time. 00:58 < luke-jr> i c 00:58 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: yes, I was thinking we shouldn't do that, but otoh, if this is so much of a gain, maybe it doesn't matter 00:58 < wumpus> it's only done once anyhow! 00:58 < gmaxwell> sipa: well not quite that fast, the code paths it goes through per key are very twisty and inefficient, and we aren't multithreaded for it, and we do validate after create. :) 00:59 < wumpus> (at least, so much at once) 00:59 < gmaxwell> but thousands per second sure. 01:00 < wumpus> keypool generation happens a lot during testing though, so #10831 is going to speed up testing 01:00 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10831 | Batch flushing operations to the walletdb during top up and increase keypool size. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #10831 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 01:00 < wumpus> (euh.. it would at least if if the number of keys generated stayed the same) 01:00 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: if someone really cared, they could make topup run in batches of no more than X to reduce worst case blocking, it would be a couple lines improvement probably. 01:01 < gmaxwell> wumpus: it'll be faster even with the 1000 size increase, esp on things with slow IO. 01:01 < wumpus> ah yes it's 1000, yes srue 01:01 < wumpus> does it still log a line for every key? 01:01 < wumpus> probably want to get rid of that too 01:01 < luke-jr> well, if it's so fast, it doesn't matter 01:01 < gmaxwell> yes. 01:01 < luke-jr> "added N keys to keypool" ☺ 01:02 -!- promag1 [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 01:03 < gmaxwell> instagibbs reported for 1000 keys (new default) on his presumably SSD equipmt system it went from 20 second to 1.6. so I expect it's still a 20% speedup. We could in the future make many of the tests turn their keypool sizes down to speed them up further. 01:05 < gmaxwell> it would be a trivial (2 loc-ish) change to make it log only one line in the topup. 01:06 < wumpus> should certainly do that, I've always found the per-key message annoying during first run, and it's 10 times as annoying now :) 01:06 < gmaxwell> as in, remove the current line, re-add it two below using the missingInternal missingExternal variables as the count. 01:06 < gmaxwell> okay, should I just add another commit that does that to my PR? 01:06 < sipa> ack 01:06 < wumpus> remove the current line, or move it to debug category if someone theoretically could be interested while troubleshooting 01:07 < gmaxwell> I can't see the reason, it conveys no useful information that the summary wouldn't have. 01:07 < wumpus> agree 01:08 < gmaxwell> and yes, the old one annoyed me too. though leveldb logging with debug on has made me blind to log annoyances... (funny, I did that nice bitfield thing and I don't use it to deactivate leveldb) 01:09 < wumpus> heh yes that's kind of what it was meant for 01:10 < wumpus> though now that it's possible to enable/disable debug bits at runtime, I don't enable any by default anymore 01:11 < wumpus> well, bench. That one is nice. 01:11 -!- Walter2 [~Walter@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:17 < gmaxwell> pushed, not yet tested because it'll take me a half hour to compile it. 01:19 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:23 < wumpus> I can test np 01:24 < gmaxwell> I will test, just... when the build finishes. 01:25 < wumpus> half an hour for a single-line change, did you change to rpi for builds? :-) 01:26 < gmaxwell> wumpus: my laptop is slow, and I've switched trees, so its recompiling all the things. 01:34 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:41 < wumpus> ccache can help with that a lot 01:43 < gmaxwell> 2017-07-17 08:42:25 keypool added 2000 keys (1000 internal), size=2000 (1000 internal) 01:43 < wumpus> though, you need to set the cache size high to survive tree switches 01:43 < gmaxwell> yes, and with a full blockchain on a 256GB disk, I can't do that. :( 01:44 < gmaxwell> okay, only took me 25 minutes. 01:44 * wumpus wonders how well lzo compression fs will work for ccache objects 01:44 -!- harrymm [~wayne@125-227-70-105.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 01:45 < wumpus> 2017-07-17 08:45:03 Performing wallet upgrade to 60000 01:45 < wumpus> 2017-07-17 08:45:05 keypool added 2000 keys (1000 internal), size=2000 (1000 internal) 01:45 < wumpus> two seconds woohoo 01:45 < gmaxwell> yea, thats still pretty slow considering how fast the underlying crypto is... but fast enough. 01:52 < wumpus> well it's short enough not to be noticable in the overall process, could always be optimzied further if anyone cares 01:52 < gmaxwell> if we later change it to 10k it might be worth it. 01:53 < wumpus> 184s for 10k keys here, yea that's definitely too slow 01:53 < wumpus> sorry - 100k keys 01:54 < wumpus> but 18.4 seconds would also be too slow 01:54 < gmaxwell> it could also be broken up and run in the background, I didn't push for 10k for a different reason: bloats up the wallet currently. 01:55 < gmaxwell> esp if you use encryption and immediately mark all the keys you just generated as used. 01:55 < wumpus> then again you had a good point about the encryption 01:55 < wumpus> yes 01:55 < gmaxwell> but we can fix this later by not even creating the wallet until you do something like hit getnewaddress or do encryption. 01:55 < wumpus> there could be some kind of shortcut - if you *never* dealt out a key before encrypting 01:56 < wumpus> then it could just start over with an encrypted wallet 01:56 < gmaxwell> or that.. and also, by using smaller records for keypool entries. 01:56 < wumpus> for multiwallet it'd also be nice to be able to create wallets in encrypted mode 01:57 < wumpus> yes 01:57 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:59 -!- harrymm [~wayne@125-227-221-30.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:05 < gmaxwell> I think we should generally consider defered init of the wallet because it would allow us to better integrate mandatory backup/recovery. 02:07 < gmaxwell> e.g. in the GUI at least you don't do a wallet unless you complete a series of slightly paternalistic steps that make it likely you actually got some kind of backup. 02:07 < gmaxwell> so: starting with no wallet, and any effort to get an address prompts you to make one, along with a backup of some form. 02:28 -!- ivan [~ivan@unaffiliated/ivan/x-000001] has quit [Quit: lp0 on fire] 02:53 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 02:54 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:08 < morcos> wumpus thanks for merging 10706. The last thing I want to nag about is #10707. It hasn't gotten much review b/c it was dependent on 10706, but its not big. I think its important in terms of finalizing estimatesmartfee API now that it is no longer marked unstable. Not sure if you feel the cutoff for it is today. 03:08 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10707 | Better API for estimatesmartfee RPC by morcos · Pull Request #10707 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 03:09 < morcos> #10817 would be nice (and isn't yet tagged 0.15) but isn't critical, and so far I haven't heard anyone other than gmaxwell and I's opinion on it. 03:09 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10817 | Add a discard_rate to avoid small change by morcos · Pull Request #10817 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 03:14 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli opened pull request #10849: Multiwallet: simplest endpoint support (master...2017/07/mw_endpoint_simple) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10849 03:18 < gmaxwell> morcos: I would not for 10817 that the definition used there is a bit different then the one were thinking of using for the exact matching hurestic, because the dust threshold has a *3 in it. 03:19 < gmaxwell> I think thats okay, but its slightly less of a no-brainer than the factor of one hurestic (where the output is worthless at the long term feerate). 03:24 < morcos> gmaxwell: Yeah I argued a release ago we should remove the *3 from the definition of dust and correspondingly change the dust rate to 3 sat/B . It would make more sense to talk about everything like that. 03:25 < gmaxwell> morcos: I would agree with that change, makes a lot of sense. 03:25 < gmaxwell> if you make a commit that does that, fix the comment in IsDust which just seems to be inexplicable. 03:26 < gmaxwell> (there is no integer you can multiply 148 by to get 546) 03:26 < morcos> still want to try to do that for 0.15? or forget it for now 03:26 < morcos> heh! 03:27 < gmaxwell> Well I think you should put it in 10817, other than the 10817 behavior it's a no-op 03:27 < morcos> not forget, but postpone 03:27 < morcos> ok 03:27 < gmaxwell> I'd like to get it in 0.15, but wladimir's call. I think the PR would be better with it, esp as it makes it even a more benign change. 03:28 < gmaxwell> (also, I don't really think we have any other utxo bloat reducers in this release; gotta meet quota) 03:28 < morcos> But then you would make the discard rate still 5 sat/B or you'd make it higher 03:28 < gmaxwell> morcos: the 3x in there was due to the original somewhat stupid formulation that tied it to minimum relay fee. 03:29 < morcos> in the PR I gave the long term fee estimation rate can only serve to LOWER the discard rate 03:29 < morcos> it is not a max 03:29 < morcos> I think it is dangerous to use the existing long term fee estimation rate as a discard rate 03:29 < morcos> it got as high as 100 sat/B a couple months ago 03:30 < gmaxwell> Could be argued that leaving it at 5 is just more conservative and better than not having the feature. 03:31 < gmaxwell> 5 means the threshold is about at 1.5 cents at the current prices. 03:31 < morcos> it seems not worth the complication to increase the discard rate from the preexisting 3 sat/B b/c of dust to 5 03:31 < morcos> from 3 to 15 then yes 03:32 < morcos> and i think the fact that it gets MIN'ed with long term fee estimation makes me not worry too much that the 15 will end up biting people in the ass later. (also it's configurable) 03:33 < gmaxwell> Yes, that also sounds fine to me. 03:33 < morcos> only other question is it's a bit dicey to change the definition of a command line argument like dustrelayfee, but in this case it's a hidden argument that i doubt anyone specified, so its probably ok. 03:33 < morcos> but thats more reason to do it now while it's only been out for one release 03:34 < gmaxwell> it's also good to get this in because the exact matcher code should signficantly increase the number of cases where this happens, so if people are gonna squak about the wallet throwing away a few more cents to avoid change it'll be good to hear about it. 03:35 < morcos> gmaxwell: 546 = 3 * (148 + 34) 03:35 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:36 < gmaxwell> ah thats where it comes from; it's including the txout itself. 03:40 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:43 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 03:43 -!- goatpig [56f75436@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.247.84.54] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:47 -!- rockhouse [~rockhouse@h54110.upc-h.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:52 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:06 -!- Lorena [~Lorena@static.22.144.99.88.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:07 -!- Lorena [~Lorena@static.22.144.99.88.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:12 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:12 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:15 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/91edda8f3c81...8bc6d1f179a0 04:15 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a8ae0b2 Dag Robole: Fix resource leak 04:15 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8bc6d1f Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10837: Fix resource leak on error in GetDevURandom... 04:16 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10837: Fix resource leak on error in GetDevURandom (master...20170715-fix-leak-1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10837 04:20 < morcos> gmaxwell: ok updated 10817 and reduced the discard rate from 15 to 10 04:39 -!- harrymm [~wayne@125-227-221-30.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 04:49 < luke-jr> wumpus: hmm, what about ;wallet=abc (path segment parameter)? 04:49 < wumpus> :-( 04:50 * luke-jr wonders if anything actually uses that part of the spec 04:50 < wumpus> let's pile up even more alternatives 04:50 < wumpus> heh I wonder too 04:50 < luke-jr> wumpus: well, it doesn't have the issue you were concerned with 04:50 < wumpus> maybe we should do something really obscure so that at least no one is happy with it either :p 04:51 < luke-jr> custom HTTP header? 04:51 < wumpus> :-) 04:51 < luke-jr> although that's not so obscure :/ 04:51 < wumpus> or a custom field in the JSON-RPC outer structure 04:52 < luke-jr> let's encode it in the Accept header! 04:52 < wumpus> or in the user agent 04:52 < luke-jr> lol 04:52 < jonasschnelli> :/ 04:52 < jonasschnelli> lets use sessions and states ... *duck* 04:52 < luke-jr> oooh perfect 04:53 < luke-jr> that would actually be useful for other stuff too 04:53 < luke-jr> historically anyway, maybe not post-named params 04:53 < jonasschnelli> Yes. Would be useful to lose all your coins.. :) 04:53 < jonasschnelli> *loose 04:53 < luke-jr> (I'm thinking settxfee) 04:53 < wumpus> how would that lose coins - store private keys in a session identifier? 04:54 < luke-jr> sounds like bc.i 04:54 < wumpus> "sorry, your session expired" but isntead of losing that long mail, you lose all your coins 04:54 < jonasschnelli> You may loose them because your session with "the other" wallet is still active... 04:54 < jonasschnelli> Though loosing may not directly be possible.. 04:54 < jonasschnelli> But sessions is the worst for APIS 04:55 < wumpus> I'm sure someone somewhere thinks it's a good idea 04:55 < jonasschnelli> hehe 04:55 < jonasschnelli> Me too 04:56 < luke-jr> Coinbase 04:56 < jonasschnelli> Does their API work keep state in sessions? 04:56 < luke-jr> OAuth2 is kinda inherently session-based tho. 04:56 < luke-jr> not state, I think 04:56 < jonasschnelli> For Auth, header fields are better IMO. 04:56 -!- harrymm [~wayne@125-227-85-143.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:57 < jonasschnelli> Bitpays stuff is pretty nice (ECDSA auth via signature of post in header) 04:57 < luke-jr> couldn't do session-less for OAuth2's use case 04:57 < jonasschnelli> Just sign each request 04:57 < luke-jr> because the user is authenticating, and the app is just accessing that session 04:57 < jonasschnelli> And add an upcounting nonce 04:57 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: the authenticator is not the API-accessor 04:58 < jonasschnelli> OAuth, yeah 05:01 < gmaxwell> the bitpay auth scheme is insecure. IIRC, has not anti-replay nonce 05:02 < gmaxwell> s/not/no/ 05:03 < morcos> settxfee needs to go away 05:04 < morcos> we're getting close to being able to just do it on a per rpc call 05:04 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: Indeed 05:04 < luke-jr> morcos: probably replacing it with sessions isn't the way though :p 05:06 -!- Ch4rlesM4ck4y [~Ch4r13sM4@41.90.179.68] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:08 -!- Ch4rlesM4ck4y [~Ch4r13sM4@41.90.179.68] has left #bitcoin-core-dev ["Leaving"] 05:34 -!- blznblzn2 [~blzn@cpe-66-69-58-75.satx.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:46 -!- RoyceX [~Cheeseo@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/cheeseo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:50 -!- cheese_ [~Cheeseo@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 05:51 -!- blznblzn2 [~blzn@cpe-66-69-58-75.satx.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 06:06 < wumpus> settxfee needs to go away <- yes please 06:06 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8bc6d1f179a0...2b0179d8a9b7 06:06 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e061d8d practicalswift: Remove declaration of unused function: void UpdatedTransaction(const uint256 &) 06:06 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2b0179d MarcoFalke: Merge #10834: Remove declaration of unused method: void UpdatedTransaction(const uint256 &)... 06:06 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #10834: Remove declaration of unused method: void UpdatedTransaction(const uint256 &) (master...remove-UpdatedTransaction) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10834 06:07 < wumpus> happy that we're moving to an API where all the important things can be set per transaction, so that different callers don't have to worry about messing up each other's global state 06:11 < promag> wumpus: remove https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10650 from project 8? 06:12 < wumpus> only 3 things in project 8 anyhow - maybe we should clean it out for now, and use the 0.15 milestone list instead 06:12 < wumpus> (it's what I'm doing at least) 06:13 < wumpus> (one thing now) 06:13 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@host-69-144-45-132.static.bresnan.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:28 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 06:31 < jonasschnelli> CodeShark: have you started to work on client side filtering after roasbeef's specs? 06:31 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:39 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@host-69-144-45-132.static.bresnan.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 06:42 < jnewbery> Chris_Stewart_5: to get all blocks and transactions to propagate, try BitcoinTestFramework.sync_all() 06:42 < jnewbery> wumpus gmaxwell: for getinfo, "nag": "This RPC will be deprecated." will be silently dropped by any clients that are picking individual fields from getinfo. 06:42 < jnewbery> Hiding getinfo behind a flag for one version *forces* users to acknowledge that the RPC is being deprecated (and gives them one release grace period to fix their scripts/whatever that is using getinfo) 06:42 < jnewbery> wumpus: > keypool generation happens a lot during testing though 06:42 < jnewbery> unit testing or functional testing? Default keypool size in the functional tests is 1 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py#L212) 06:44 < wumpus> jnewbery: didn't know that the keypool size was overridden for testing, so in that case this doesn't help testing become faster, well too bad :) 06:45 < wumpus> jnewbery: yes, we can do the other thing for 0.16, just too late to make such a change for 0.15 06:45 < wumpus> jnewbery: I honestly don't understand why this comes up on the last day before feature freeze 06:50 < jnewbery> I agree, it's late. But hiding getinfo behind a flag in v0.16 => removing in 0.17. getinfo is one of the bitcoin_server -> bitcoin_wallet dependencies. I was hoping we'd be able to remove all of those for 0.16 06:53 < wumpus> sure, but couldn't you have brought it up a few weeks earlier? 06:53 < gmaxwell> I'd still complain that we haven't dogfooded it enough. 06:55 < wumpus> we could just remove the wallet balance from there 06:55 < gmaxwell> I wouldn't complain about that. 06:55 < wumpus> it makes no sense with multiwallet anyway 06:56 < wumpus> then again, that doesn't need to be done last-minute for 0.15, the circular dependency won't be solved before then anyhow 06:56 < wumpus> but let's say it's the last thing holding back solving the build dependency, we could do that 06:57 < wumpus> I still think adding the nag: makes sense, most people using getinfo will likely use it from the command line 06:57 < gmaxwell> even if they don't use it always that way, it's more visible than even release notes. 06:57 < wumpus> yes it would be in addition to release notes, not instead 06:57 < gmaxwell> and we've mentioned it in release notes before (I think, I hope) 06:57 < wumpus> yes, we did 06:58 < wumpus> even with the new places where everything could be found 06:58 < wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.14.0.md#getinfo-deprecated 06:59 < wumpus> I don't know why we waited for 0.14 before doing that 07:04 < BlueMatt> yeesh y'all been busy this morning 07:04 < wumpus> anyhow as it was deprecated in 0.14 (the deprecation message in the help was even backported to 0.13.1), removing it completely in 0.16 should be fine 07:04 < BlueMatt> wumpus: I mean its not a strong concern, really, I pointed it out cause it would be a problem for automated users (which I hope are mostly not calling -cli) 07:05 < wumpus> BlueMatt: yes, the -cli change would mostly be for command line users, but now agree we shouldn't do that, external stats/info scripts should be external 07:06 < BlueMatt> well i was more curious to find out what the demand for it was (re: the "IRC discussion" referenced in that pr) 07:06 < wumpus> and -cli should be a minimal, dumb client utiltiy 07:06 < gmaxwell> I think we'll have to do ~something~ but the best way to find that and get it done is just to live with it for a while. 07:08 < wumpus> maybe some example of a stats script? I don't know - generally, those things have gone unmaintained fast, as they're personal, everyone is interested in different info 07:08 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:09 < wumpus> there is also such a low threshold to writing them 07:10 < gmaxwell> connection count + height + errors is pretty universal; and is a bit obnoxious from the cli in our post getinfo world. 07:11 < jnewbery> > couldn't you have brought it up a few weeks earlier? 07:11 < wumpus> well for example personally I'm not interested in totai connection count - my script shows in/out versus ipv4/ipv6/tor 07:11 < jnewbery> I brought it up in response to #10841. I thought it would be friendlier to hide the RPC behind a flag before removing it one release later 07:11 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10841 | [rpc] Give users one final warning before removing getinfo by jnewbery · Pull Request #10841 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:12 < wumpus> this is much more useful to troubleshoot any connectivity issues than the total number 07:12 < jnewbery> sorry, in response to #10838 07:12 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10838 | (finally) remove the longest-ever-deprecated RPC call getinfo by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10838 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:12 < gmaxwell> wumpus: the normal thing I'm interested in is 0/8/many. seperate in/out counts would be interesting. From a cli perspective there are a number of other interesting things to show; e.g. best block hash, without getting into those huge info dumps like getblockchaininfo. 07:12 * BlueMatt has 7 4k monitors full of stats monitoring scripts...anyone need some? 07:12 < wumpus> jnewbery: sure! BlueMatt was the original wtf 'why do you bring this up now', you tried to do a friendlier version, which is why I tagged that one 07:12 < jnewbery> If we're going to remove getinfo in v0.16, I suggest I close #10841 07:12 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10841 | [rpc] Give users one final warning before removing getinfo by jnewbery · Pull Request #10841 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:13 < wumpus> jnewbery: but I stil think it is too much for such a late change 07:13 < wumpus> gmaxwell: exactly, none of which getinfo currently does, it's been frozen for years (on purpose) 07:14 * BlueMatt had assumed it had been longer-deprecated, so figured it could just be removed, when it was pointed out that it was only deprecated in 14 (damn it) i withdrew, but making the deprecation more explicit is nice 07:14 < BlueMatt> i guess it doesnt matter much, though 07:14 < jnewbery> Yeah, doesn't matter too much. I'll close 10841. 07:14 < wumpus> we should have mentioned it in the release notes much earlier 07:14 < wumpus> jnewbery: I still think it makes sense to add a 'nag': to the result with your message, but anyhow 07:14 < gmaxwell> wumpus: I would have log ago proposed a 'status' rpc, but feared that the response would be "omg not another getinfo!" 07:15 < wumpus> gmaxwell: yes we're definitely not going to have any new server side call like that, that spans subsystems 07:15 < jnewbery> yeah, adding a "nag" field does no harm 07:15 < wumpus> client-side would have been ok with me, but runs into too much opposition, so we';re not going to do that either 07:15 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery closed pull request #10841: [rpc] Give users one final warning before removing getinfo (master...deprecate_getinfo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10841 07:16 < gmaxwell> wumpus: if it didn't span into the wallet, but was just blockchain stats and p2p stats? 07:17 < wumpus> gmaxwell: I don't think that's a good idea, no 07:17 < gmaxwell> I figured. 07:17 < wumpus> could potentially create another dependency in the future that will be so hard to get rid of 07:18 < wumpus> if getting rid of getinfo would have been easier, I would have thought differently about it, but this keeps haunting us forever 07:18 < gmaxwell> well, we have to do something. I don't pretend to know what. But having to run multiple commands just to get the most basic of health information, is a real burden for support. 07:18 < BlueMatt> can we call #10526 a fix for a performance regression (really, disk space usage regression) and tag it 15 and merge it later this week? 07:18 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10526 | Force on-the-fly compaction during pertxout upgrade by sipa · Pull Request #10526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:19 < wumpus> then do something: write a useful script taht collects that information, submit it as PR 07:19 < wumpus> I TRIED 07:19 < gmaxwell> I think we haven't gotten rid of it because we haven't replaced it for anything but programmatic users who care little about how many calls they make or how many pages of uninteresting data they toss. 07:19 < wumpus> I just mistakingly made it part of -cli 07:19 < gmaxwell> wumpus: I know. Though I admit I have mixed feelings about cli being anything but a dumb client too. I am not yelling at you. 07:19 < gmaxwell> you did great. 07:20 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: I believe we were waiting on feedback from wumpus to determine if there actually was a need there. 07:20 < wumpus> things that don't have to be done server side don't need to be done server side, this is the same reason I argue against #10804 07:20 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10804 | Add histunspent RPC by promag · Pull Request #10804 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:20 < wumpus> client side has the information, so can roll the statistics and display them in any way 07:21 < gmaxwell> yes, I also saw 10804 and thought that. 07:21 < wumpus> the RPC interface doesn't have to acoomodate end users specifics 07:21 < gmaxwell> then our issue is that we just don't have a cli interface, except we have a highly used cli interface. 07:21 < gmaxwell> :) 07:21 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: there was some question about the state of the node in question where he saw the not good results. 07:21 < wumpus> the same problem we had in 2012, and have had extensive discussions about since then, and no one is making that tool it seems 07:22 < wumpus> which I understand, I'm certainly not going to do it, too many opinions about it, I only write simple utility scripts for myself :) 07:22 < BlueMatt> wumpus: hmm, ok, now I understand the desire, thanks, yea thanks for making that pr. would be nice to just make it a bash script, but sadly fucking json :( 07:23 < wumpus> BlueMatt: it's trivial in python though 07:23 < gmaxwell> rename bitcoin-cli bitcoin-rpc and we create a real bitcoin-cli ? :P 07:23 < BlueMatt> true 07:23 < BlueMatt> lol 07:23 < mmgen> Just adding my two bits here: how about creating an addition cli command that aggregates info from various RPC calls and presents it in a readable way? 07:23 < wumpus> I have that script, could post it, but don't really feel like submitting such trivial things to the repo 07:23 < wumpus> mmgen: I DID THAT 07:24 < mmgen> wumpus: what's it called? 07:24 < wumpus> mmgen: no one liked it! 07:24 < BlueMatt> lol 07:24 < mmgen> I think that's the best solution 07:24 < mmgen> It could even be coded in Python 07:24 < wumpus> mmgen: I have a python and c++ implementation! 07:25 < gmaxwell> wumpus: I liked it except for one concern, the parity between the CLI and RPC is a major learing curve improvement. If we went down the path of a highly cooked bitcoin-cli then knoweldge wouldn't automatically transfer between them, improvements wouldn't automatically transfer, etc. 07:25 < wumpus> #8843 was the c++ one 07:25 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8843 | rpc: Handle `getinfo` client-side in bitcoin-cli w/ `-getinfo` by laanwj · Pull Request #8843 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:25 < mmgen> wumpus: need to convince the others I think 07:25 < wumpus> I don't have the python one online, but could post it if anyone cares 07:25 * BlueMatt was not aware of the python version 07:25 < BlueMatt> yea, I'd be interested in putting the python one in contrib 07:26 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:26 < gmaxwell> for a getinfo replacement that cooked vs not cooked argument doesn't really hold, since it would just be one command. 07:26 < wumpus> gmaxwell: sure, that's just a matter of documentation though 07:26 < gmaxwell> which could be documented ('here are the underlying rpcs') 07:26 < wumpus> gmaxwell: it could show where it collects the various fields from for getinfo 07:26 < wumpus> yeah... 07:26 < mmgen> My wallet basically does just that, so I have a bit of experience in this area 07:27 < wumpus> a python script is self documentingi nthat regard 07:27 < wumpus> and easier to edit if you want something else 07:27 < wumpus> so ok, I'll add that to contrib, not in 0.15 though 07:27 < gmaxwell> wumpus: if it went as far as .e.g the ncurses interface, then that isn't the case. :) 07:27 < gmaxwell> wumpus: we could use more python rpc examples, IMO, in any case. 07:28 < wumpus> gmaxwell: yes I mean a simple getinfo replacement 07:28 < wumpus> ncurses isn't trivial (though also not rocket science, I've gotten people to start linux coding using it) 07:29 < promag> I'm happy to close #10804.. the problem is that to compute the histogram it takes really long to get and dump the json to the client with large utxo set 07:29 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10804 | Add histunspent RPC by promag · Pull Request #10804 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:29 < mmgen> wumpus: ncurses is for wimps. real programmers use ANSI escape codes 07:29 < wumpus> mmgen: HAHA ansi escape codes are easier imo 07:30 < mmgen> wumpus: the fact is they are 07:30 < BlueMatt> morcos: wait, i thought min conftarget was 2? 07:30 < wumpus> (depending on what you want to do, if you need windowing and partial refresh etc, and menus, ncurses is definitely the way to go) 07:31 < mmgen> wumpus: true 07:31 < gmaxwell> promag: how long is really long? for how large? With thousands of txouts it still takes a fraction of a second to listunspent last I checked. 07:31 < wumpus> if you want to go wild with displaying 24-bit color unicode graphs, ansi escape colors are definitely easier 07:33 < wumpus> promag: sure, computing the statistics server-side will be faster, but it's all a compromise... 07:34 < wumpus> promag: in that case maintaining a private patch set might make sense - the use for those statistics is probably specific to you 07:34 < gmaxwell> there are certantly things where I've written a python script to collect some data.. started it.... got tired of waiting, wrote it into the daemon on another host, recompiled, ran it, got the result... 07:34 < promag> gmaxwell: let me get fresh numbers for you 07:34 < gmaxwell> its unfortunate that rpc from python (and perhaps rpc in general) is so slow, though it is much faster than it used to be. 07:35 < BlueMatt> yea, Ive run python rpc clients that literally look days to complete 07:35 < mmgen> gmaxwell: I use it all the time. Haven't noticed that it's slow 07:36 < mmgen> but this is with my own RPC library 07:36 < wumpus> in that case it makes sense to implement it server-side in c++, but less sense for it to be merged upstream 07:36 < gmaxwell> mmgen: try doing something simple like graphing the size of all blocks from it... takes rather long time. (or better, fee income from each block) at least with the normal python bitcoinrpc stuff 07:37 < wumpus> there's not really any API that can help you in that case, I guess there could be a dynlib plugin interface to load things into bitcoind, but does that ever make things easier than just recompiling? 07:37 < mmgen> gmaxwell: I don't use python-bitcoinrpc. I just connect to the daemon directly 07:38 < gmaxwell> I believe we've factored up the relevant interfaces now that it shouldn't be hard to maintain external patches for things like this. Presumably we could take other changes that improved it further. 07:38 < gmaxwell> mmgen: may be that it's mostly the python side handling making it slow now. (didn't used to be the case, but the rpc has become a lot faster) 07:39 < mmgen> gmaxwell: Probably is. Python is slow 07:39 < mmgen> in general 07:39 -!- whphhg [~whphhg@unaffiliated/whphhg] has left #bitcoin-core-dev ["Leaving"] 07:39 < morcos> BlueMatt: huh? 07:40 < BlueMatt> morcos: new docs for estimatesmartfee says nblocks minimum is 1? 07:40 < BlueMatt> in #10707 07:40 < wumpus> sometimes speeding up python is easy, a lot of code works as-is with pypy 07:40 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10707 | Better API for estimatesmartfee RPC by morcos · Pull Request #10707 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 07:41 < mmgen> wumpus: never tried pypy 07:41 < morcos> BlueMatt: you mean conf_target :) 07:41 < morcos> it is the minimum you can request, however asking for 1 will give you an answer for 2 07:41 < mmgen> wumpus: but everything remains single-threaded anyway 07:41 < BlueMatt> morcos: yes, sorry, was reviewing the first commit first :p 07:41 < BlueMatt> morcos: so lets just make the minimum 1? 07:41 < BlueMatt> (or at least mention that in the docs) 07:42 < morcos> it always worked to ask for 1, i didn't want to change that 07:42 < morcos> it seems like a semi-common thing a user might ask for 07:42 < BlueMatt> ok, so mention it in the docs, i guess 07:42 < wumpus> mmgen: it's still quite a big linear speedup for tight loops, better than you'd get with multithreading in most cases 07:43 < wumpus> (and it's no extra work, unlike multithreading) 07:43 < morcos> Also I think it preserves the ability to in the future return something different/smarter for a as fast as possible conf_target of 1 07:45 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:45 -!- Murch [~murch@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:47 < morcos> BlueMatt: ok, while I'm at it, should I change the return parameter name from "blocks" now that we changed the argument to "conf_target" or leave it? 07:48 < morcos> I guess I vote leave it 07:49 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag closed pull request #10804: Add histunspent RPC (master...2017-07-rpc-add-histunspent) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10804 07:49 < BlueMatt> morcos: leave it, id say 07:51 -!- owowo [ovovo@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-anpelghusyfvwjrl] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 08:00 < BlueMatt> morcos: "fee estimation is *only* able to return".... 08:02 < morcos> BlueMatt: did you read the whole sentence? 08:02 < morcos> that would make no sense 08:03 < BlueMatt> morcos: oh, its one sentence 08:03 < BlueMatt> ok, whatever 08:04 < morcos> just ACK it already 08:05 < BlueMatt> i did 08:07 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 08:08 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:13 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2b0179d8a9b7...89bb0365b97a 08:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dba485d Wladimir J. van der Laan: init: Factor out AppInitLockDataDirectory... 08:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 89bb036 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10832: init: Factor out AppInitLockDataDirectory and fix startup core dump issue... 08:14 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10832: init: Factor out AppInitLockDataDirectory and fix startup core dump issue (master...2017_07_appinitlockdatadirectory) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10832 08:16 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 5 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/89bb0365b97a...0b019357ff09 08:16 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3a53f19 Gregory Maxwell: Pushdown walletdb object through GenerateNewKey/DeriveNewChildKey.... 08:16 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 30d8f3a Gregory Maxwell: Pushdown walletdb though CWallet::AddKeyPubKey to avoid flushes.... 08:16 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 41dc163 Gregory Maxwell: Increase wallet default keypool size to 1000. 08:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10831: Batch flushing operations to the walletdb during top up and increase keypool size. (master...topup_batch_flush) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10831 08:19 < cfields> wumpus: re qt, no, i don't think it's worth messing with for now 08:22 < wumpus> ok 08:23 < BlueMatt> gah, github is missing notification emails :( 08:26 < BlueMatt> wumpus: hmmm....I think (in addition to github actually missing notification emails) github wont send an email for a merge unless you comment merged. 08:26 < BlueMatt> can you do that? 08:27 < wumpus> hm? 08:27 < morcos> BlueMatt: I've never gotten more than about 1 in 3 of my expected github notification emails 08:27 < BlueMatt> eg #10831 08:27 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10831 | Batch flushing operations to the walletdb during top up and increase keypool size. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #10831 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 08:27 < BlueMatt> morcos: did you mail support@? 08:27 < wumpus> github should send an automated mail when something gets merged 08:27 < BlueMatt> morcos: i just for the first time missed some emails 08:27 < morcos> i complained to sdaftuar, does that count 08:27 < BlueMatt> ........ 08:27 < morcos> it didn't used to happen to him, but now it does too 08:27 < BlueMatt> well whatever, I have all mailserver logs and didnt get any, so I'm gonna bitch to support@ 08:27 < wumpus> but I don't know what you mean with 'comment merged' 08:28 < BlueMatt> wumpus: as in usually when sipa merges he comments on the pr merged when he closes it 08:28 < BlueMatt> iirc 08:28 < BlueMatt> saying "Merged" 08:28 < wumpus> huh? no, he doesn't 08:29 < BlueMatt> oh? 08:29 < wumpus> see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10735 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10844 08:29 < wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10840 08:30 < BlueMatt> hmm, oh, you're right! 08:30 < wumpus> being the last things he merged, he commented on none of them, besides an utACK in some cases, but no "Merged". Github does that. 08:30 < BlueMatt> ugh, yea, so github notifications ar ejust fucked 08:30 < BlueMatt> yea, ok, ill go bitch at them 08:31 < BlueMatt> clearly we should be doing dev on our own hosted infrastructure so that we dont miss notification emails :p 08:32 < wumpus> as if sending mails from your own infrastructure (and having them actually arrive) is a sure thing, or was that the joke? :) 08:32 < BlueMatt> it was a joke 08:32 < gmaxwell> "now you have two problems" 08:32 < BlueMatt> yea 08:32 < BlueMatt> i mean they'd arrive for me, cause i run the receiving mailserver too :p 08:33 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: but feel free to setup mirrored infra... :) 08:33 < BlueMatt> lol, I'll pass 08:33 < BlueMatt> i already manage too much shit 08:37 -!- Murch [~murch@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Snoozing.] 08:38 < gmaxwell> What do we think of #10817 ? I didn't notice until a day ago that it wasn't 15 flagged, I think it's ready to go. And its a likely useful lead up to work in 0.16-- in that it will increase change discarding somewhat, while planned work for 0.16 (the exact match coin selecter) will increase it a lot more... might be good to have in field feedback (are people going to be irate about it throwing 08:38 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10817 | Redefine Dust and add a discard_rate by morcos · Pull Request #10817 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 08:38 < gmaxwell> away an extra 5 cents in bitcoin to avoid change outputs) 08:39 < wumpus> tagged 08:39 < gmaxwell> danke. 08:39 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #10851: depends: bump fontconfig to 2.12.4 (master...fontconfig-bump) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10851 08:43 -!- Murch [~murch@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:44 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:48 < gmaxwell> I think 9728 can be untagged for 15, retagged for 16. 08:49 < instagibbs> freeze is after today yes? 08:49 < wumpus> gmaxwell: ok, agree 08:49 < instagibbs> ack re 9728, we still have work on it 08:50 < instagibbs> but should def be ready for 16 08:50 < wumpus> instagibbs: seems we're slipping with regard to multiwallet 08:50 < instagibbs> yeah I noticed, but I don't have the strongest opinion so kinda ducked out of that 08:50 < wumpus> instagibbs: but yeah, please no new stuff now 08:51 < wumpus> (unless they're bugfixes, ofcourse) 08:51 < gmaxwell> that was the only thing in the 15 tags that seemed to me that obviously wouldn't make it. (I'm sure some other things won't too) 08:53 < morcos> #10830 is missing the 0.15 tag and probably still needs the most work 08:53 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10830 | [WIP] [wallet] keypool restore by jnewbery · Pull Request #10830 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 08:53 < BlueMatt> ok, what are we doing about multiwallet for 15? 08:53 * BlueMatt ducks before the impending swats 08:53 < gmaxwell> morcos: Agreed, though I consider 10830 a bugfix. It should still be tagged. (the other PR was tagged) 08:54 < gmaxwell> sipa: Have you looked at the redo of the endpoint change... it's much simpler and drop-in usable than the earlier one. 08:54 -!- pandabull [~pandabull@2603:3005:715:c400:8c88:1ced:8ab0:ed20] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:55 -!- pandabull [~pandabull@2603:3005:715:c400:8c88:1ced:8ab0:ed20] has quit [Client Quit] 08:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10853: [tests] Fix RPC failure testing (again) (master...cleanup_jsonrpc_asserts) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10853 08:55 < morcos> As for multiwallet, everyone just vote 0, 1, or 2 votes for either #10829 or #10849 based on how stronly you feel, and lets just pick one. honestly, we'll be fine with either choice, but lets concentrate our effort on one of them 08:55 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10829 | Simple, backwards compatible RPC multiwallet support. by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10829 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 08:55 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10849 | Multiwallet: simplest endpoint support by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10849 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 08:55 < gmaxwell> #10821 tag for 0.16 08:55 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10821 | Add SSE4 optimized SHA256 by sipa · Pull Request #10821 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 08:56 < morcos> I vote 0 votes 08:56 -!- Murch [~murch@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Snoozing.] 08:56 < gmaxwell> do not vote for SSE4 optimized multiwallet. 08:56 < BlueMatt> oooo, 2 votes for that (whatever the hell it is) 08:56 < morcos> as my 2 year old would say whenever we tell him no.. "not yet?" 08:56 < instagibbs> 1.6x as secure as regular multiwallet 08:57 -!- Murch [~murch@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:57 -!- owowo [ovovo@gateway/vpn/mullvad/x-txfbzykjfrwtqgph] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:02 < jnewbery> Is #10650 definitely dead? It had 4 ACKs and instagibbs and I had both tested it. 09:02 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10650 | Multiwallet: add RPC endpoint support by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10650 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 09:03 < jnewbery> If it is dead, then my 1 vote is for #10849, since I've reviewed and tested that manually, and I think endpoints is the correct way to go 09:03 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10849 | Multiwallet: simplest endpoint support by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10849 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 09:03 < instagibbs> 1 very vehement NACK, basically 09:03 < instagibbs> (not saying right or wrong) 09:04 < jnewbery> but if other people have reviewed and tested #10829 then I can also live with that. I see the multiwallet interface in v0.15 as unstable/experimental, so as long as something gets in, I'm happy 09:04 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10829 | Simple, backwards compatible RPC multiwallet support. by ryanofsky · Pull Request #10829 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 09:05 < instagibbs> I mostly reviewed that things behaved like they should, I can do the same today for either of the other two. I'm happy with whatever works. 09:06 < gmaxwell> -1 on 10650, I think like 10849 better than 10829, as I think it will be more usable in practice but I will be fully willing to help throw out either interface later, so I don't care overly much. 10849 is a newer pr... both presumably still need a lot of review love. 09:07 -!- mmgen [~mmgen@178-175-130-19.ip.as43289.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 09:12 < gmaxwell> morcos: care to review #10672 09:12 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10672 | Avoid division by zero in the case of a corrupt estimates file by practicalswift · Pull Request #10672 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 09:17 < cfields> BlueMatt: are you still wanting #10652 for 0.15 ? 09:17 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10652 | Small step towards demangling cs_main from CNodeState by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10652 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 09:17 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:20 < gmaxwell> #10335 sounds like something should be done. 09:20 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10335 | back-compat: add fallback getentropy implementation by theuni · Pull Request #10335 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 09:35 < cfields> gmaxwell: thanks for the reminder. fixing that up now. 09:35 -!- mmgen [~mmgen@178-175-130-19.ip.as43289.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:35 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 09:36 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:40 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: fengling, [Author], Magma 09:41 < BlueMatt> fizzwont: nah, think its gonna slip now 09:41 < BlueMatt> cfields: ... 09:41 < instagibbs> little worried about 10829 since named support is still a bit flakey. I think merging that would mean fixing up named arg support becomes priority. 09:41 < BlueMatt> it would've been nice, but i dont think its critical enough to care, just untag 10672 09:42 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: whats the 'fizzwont' context for your message? 09:42 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: bad auto-tab, its a user on here 09:42 < cfields> :( 09:43 < BlueMatt> cfields: meh, its mostly a bugfix for not-really-issues bugs 09:43 < BlueMatt> the cleanup to do the demangle is gonna be a through-16 process 09:44 < fizzwont> i'm honored...but just observing 09:59 -!- Murch [~murch@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Snoozing.] 10:01 -!- Murch [~murch@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:03 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] gmaxwell opened pull request #10854: Avoid using sizes on non-fixed-width types to derive protocol constants. (master...rbf-numlimit-fix) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10854 10:06 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:10 -!- herzmeister[m] [herzmeiste@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-btxfbnqxxqauiyky] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 10:11 -!- draadpiraat[m] [draadpiraa@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-htndlxztmovbuhke] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 10:12 -!- kewde[m] [kewdematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-myjotnxaxexfxmat] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 10:15 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theuni closed pull request #10335: back-compat: add fallback getentropy implementation (master...getentropy-back-compat) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10335 10:16 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:18 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #10855: random: only use getentropy on openbsd (master...getentropy-openbsd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10855 10:19 -!- herzmeister[m] [herzmeiste@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-rmixzbrllswjykqo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:23 -!- Murch [~murch@96-82-80-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Snoozing.] 10:24 -!- Murch [~murch@96.82.80.28] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:26 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@68.168.119.229] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:27 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 10:30 -!- jamesob_ [~james@tempo-automation.static.monkeybrains.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:37 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:42 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 10:42 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 10:43 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:44 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:47 -!- jtimon [~quassel@102.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:50 -!- nakaluna [~nakaluna@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/nakaluna] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:52 < morcos> yeah someone please tag #10758 for 0.15 10:53 < sipa> done 10:54 < morcos> instagibbs: to be clear, there are no rpc calls where you can't use named arguments right? there just might be some where you need to specifically specify the default value if you want to name a later argument (but this is the same thing you have to do with positional) 10:54 < sipa> wasnt't there a PR to fix that? 10:55 -!- kewde[m] [kewdematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-guhwirafpxbxiuxz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:55 -!- draadpiraat[m] [draadpiraa@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-yfckjyxenywlrbkm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:55 < instagibbs> morcos, oh, true 10:55 < instagibbs> yes you'll have to enter in all values for some 10:55 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10758 | Fix some chainstate-init-order bugs. by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #10758 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 10:55 < instagibbs> so, less urgent :) 10:55 < morcos> sipa: yeah, i was just trying to understand the urgency 10:56 < instagibbs> merely annoying 10:56 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 10:57 < BlueMatt> lol, somehow i thought 10758 was already tagged 15 10:57 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 10:57 < morcos> i guess people didn't like my voting idea or don't have an opinon on which multiwallet PR to merge. can we decide so we can make it happen? i'm happy to review 10849 if we prefer that one 10:57 < sipa> i'll review the last PR before giving an opinion 10:57 -!- PaulCape_ [~PaulCapes@ip72-209-228-52.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Quit: .] 11:00 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip72-209-228-52.dc.dc.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:03 < ryanofsky> i'd give one vote to 10829 (obvs), and one conditional vote to 10849 if it uses a plain query parameter, or has some documentation explaining the path schema 11:05 < sipa> i think a query parameter is inferior to just a named parameter, and doesn't really simplify later moving to a new process 11:06 < sipa> i'm fine with named parameters for now, as a stopgap measure because a full new API isn't complete 11:06 < sipa> documentation can come later 11:06 < sipa> that doesn't need to be ready by the feature freeze 11:08 < sipa> but i do think a new endpoint is eventually the way to go - whether that happens in 0.15 or not 11:08 < ryanofsky> sipa i think moving to new process is basically orthogonal. reason why i think query parameter is better is it leave uri-path space open for future uses and an actual thoughtful design. current design is changing multiple times a day 11:08 < ryanofsky> add v1, subtract v1, forward node calls through wallet, then stop, then start again 11:09 < sipa> ryanofsky: i really disagree with that... the point of an endpoint is that clients can be configured to point to a new process 11:09 < ryanofsky> i'm trying to understand... 11:09 < sipa> you can't do that with query parameters 11:09 < ryanofsky> ? why not? 11:10 < sipa> what if some of them are process-specific, and some or not? 11:10 < sipa> the client software would need to go modify the url to put in extra things 11:10 < sipa> i guess it isn't worse - as long as everything you'd put in the path becomes a query parameter and nothing else 11:11 < sipa> but it also doesn't gain you anything 11:11 < jtimon> ryanofsky: it's about simplyfing concurrency 11:11 < sipa> jtimon: wut? 11:11 < jtimon> is it not? 11:11 < sipa> what does that have to do with anything 11:11 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:11 < ryanofsky> i'm not understanding what you're saying sipa... did you change your mind midway? 11:12 < sipa> ryanofsky: yes, i did; i agree that query parameters can do anything that a URI can... but it also doesn't gain you anything 11:12 < ryanofsky> advantage of query parameter is it leaves more options for the future that don't require us to break compatibility 11:12 < ryanofsky> nothing to do with multiprocess 11:13 < ryanofsky> specific example of what i'm talking about: maybe we want to have web interface listening on /wallet. maybe we want to add versioning in the future 11:13 < sipa> ryanofsky: but the point is creating a namespace 11:14 < jtimon> right, each wallet can get its own lock even with query paramters, then I don't undesrtand what's the point either...can't you serve the rpc more concurrently with different http addresses more concurrently either (ie maybe a server for each or something)? 11:14 < sipa> separating things off, which can later move elsewhere 11:14 < ryanofsky> doing these things cleanly means planning out url design somewhat, which hasn't been done. in these prs url design is constantly in flux 11:14 < sipa> jtimon: that's completely orthogonal; we're talking about interface here 11:14 < jtimon> well, I remembered that about the most convincing argument in favor of this interface 11:15 < jtimon> s/about/as/ 11:15 < sipa> jtimon: we already have multithreaded RPC... 11:15 < jtimon> sipa: oh, nice 11:15 < sipa> jtimon: ... 11:16 < ryanofsky> jtimon, fwiw, i don't see connection there either 11:16 < sipa> jtimon: the RPC implementation isn't very concurrent, but that's an implementation detail that can be improved independently 11:17 < jtimon> I didn't know, sorry, then I don't understand why this wallet/ is better than wallet= in the rpc either. but I'll read your conversation and see if I get it 11:17 < sipa> (overeager locking in many places) 11:17 < sipa> jtimon: it's so that things can move to a different process 11:17 < sipa> if the wallet weren't handled by bitcoind anymore, it would have its own RPC server, which runs on a different port or something 11:17 < jtimon> sipa: how is moving things to a different process unrelated to concurrency? 11:18 < sipa> jtimon: because it's already multithreaded! 11:18 < jtimon> then what's the point of moving it to a different process? 11:18 < sipa> the reason for moving things to a different process is for security (don't have your private keys connected to a network interface) and modularity (run it on a different machine) 11:19 < jtimon> ok, thanks, I wrongly assumed the reason was concurrency 11:19 < ryanofsky> my the way my conditional vote for 10849 had an OR in it. if query parameter is worse for some reason (aesthetics?) and path interpretation is way to go, please just document/respond what actual plans are for path interpretation. what compatibility is being promised 11:19 < sipa> ryanofsky: of course it needs documenting 11:20 < sipa> ryanofsky: if we aren't clear on how the namespace separation should happen, i agree that just an RPC named parameter for selecting a wallet is better for now 11:20 < sipa> ryanofsky: but if we are, we should do it... and url parameters seem like a very odd thing for a namespace 11:21 < ryanofsky> i don't understand the point about a namespace. is an aesthetic thing, or a practical difference? 11:22 -!- DaggerHashimoto [~Adium@207.188.17.51] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:22 < ryanofsky> i'm asking for documentation not just because documentation is needed, but also because i really think i am missing something about rationales (or that rationales haven't actually been thought through) 11:22 < sipa> ryanofsky: my concern is that uri parameters don't force us to think about separation 11:22 < jtimon> but the parameters don't need to go in the url, do they? they can go with the json data (ie with method, params, jsonrpc and id) 11:23 < sipa> jtimon: yes, that's the discussion... there are 4 approaches suggested 11:24 < jtimon> I think I'm missing one from the last meeting... 11:24 < sipa> jtimon: in the URL (http://localhost:8333/v1/wallet/[walletname]), in a URL parameter (http://localhost:8333/v1?wallet=[walletname]), in a JSON RPC parameter (pass wallet: "[walletname]" as named argument), through RPC auth (every rpc user has his own wallet) 11:25 < jtimon> I see, rpc auth was the one I was mising 11:25 < sipa> ryanofsky: people may be inclined to add things to URI parameters that don't naturally correspond to separation (say, an option for changing the default currency unit) 11:25 < sipa> ryanofsky: or expect those to go there 11:25 < jtimon> no, I thought we agreed some users will have more than one, and I think some users may not want one too 11:26 < sipa> ryanofsky: sure you can say, "well don't do that" 11:26 < ryanofsky> not sure why a query option like that would be bad at all. do you also think a timeout query option would be bad? 11:26 < BlueMatt> it may be unfair, but ryanofsky succcessfully convinced me over lunch....the user experience of upgrading is gonna be the same no matter how we do it, and the args approach is much simpler for users to add 11:26 < BlueMatt> rather than the endpoints approach 11:27 < sipa> ryanofsky: ok, say we have ?wallet=[walletname]&timeout=30 11:27 < sipa> all in one process 11:27 < BlueMatt> the endpoints stuff is kinda nice in that it makes users thing, but realistically its just another hop to upgrade, cause if we move to process isolation now its all a different ip/port connection anyway 11:27 < BlueMatt> so its just a useless upgrade hop 11:28 < sipa> now the wallets move to different processes 11:28 < BlueMatt> and now the split is by connection port, and not endpoint anyway :p 11:28 < sipa> you can't just go reconfigure the client software 11:29 < sipa> it needs to mix something from the configured URI (which likely has the ?wallet= part) and from the application (which likely has the ?timeout= part) 11:29 < BlueMatt> actually args makes it easier at that point than endpoints? 11:29 < BlueMatt> precisely cause it doesnt require client reconfiguration 11:29 < BlueMatt> wait, now maybe I'm confused, why are we re-adding uri parameters now 11:29 < sipa> but client reconfiguration is easy 11:29 < ryanofsky> sipa are you talking about a node process that forwards requests to various wallets? 11:29 < sipa> ryanofsky: no 11:29 < ryanofsky> BlueMatt, i have same confusion 11:30 < ryanofsky> so you are talking about what matt is talking about. wallet process listening on own port 11:30 < BlueMatt> doing wallet split today is very doable - have multiple rpc clients pointed at different listening ports 11:30 < sipa> i want to just tell my client app (instead of http://localhost:8333, you can use http://localhost:8333/v1/wallet/bla) 11:30 < BlueMatt> but you cant with most clients/ 11:30 < BlueMatt> ? 11:30 < ryanofsky> wait sipa, that sounds like you are saying one port for node and wallet? 11:30 < sipa> ryanofsky: ??? 11:30 < sipa> as long as they're in the same process 11:31 < ryanofsky> port 8333 is wallet process or node process? 11:31 < sipa> it's the process process 11:31 < sipa> there is just one 11:31 < BlueMatt> instead of btc = AuthServiceProxy(); btc.getwalletinfo(); btc.getmininginfo(); its now wallet_btc = AuthServiceProxy(...:8332); node_btc = AuthServiceProxy(...:8331)...... 11:31 < sipa> ryanofsky: i'm talking about the case before things move to a idfferent process 11:31 < BlueMatt> sipa: I'm horribly confused 11:31 < ryanofsky> AH ok 11:31 < ryanofsky> so single process just like today 11:32 < BlueMatt> sipa: I think ryanofsky's point (and my point) is that we should focus on making it easier for clients to do the upgrade (which wallet arg is, imo) cause the isolation is gonna come from different listening ports in the future anyway 11:32 < sipa> however, afterwards, when things move to a new process, you don't need to change the application software, just reconfigure it to use a different URI (which is now maybe running on a different port, or a different host) 11:32 < BlueMatt> so trying to force endpoints is just an extra step for users for no reason 11:32 < BlueMatt> sipa: you can already do that? 11:32 < ryanofsky> sipa, how is wallet named arg a problem in that scenario? 11:32 < BlueMatt> just tell your app software that you have two different rpc hosts 11:32 < ryanofsky> i think wallet named arg is a feature even in that scenario 11:33 < sipa> ryanofsky: because wallet named arg requires at the very least the client application to know which wallet it is talking to 11:33 < ryanofsky> because it's easy to imagine starting wallet processes and confusing yourself about port numbers 11:33 < sipa> while it can be encapsulated in the uri 11:34 < BlueMatt> sipa: if you're gonna change the rpc library to support endpoints, you can also change it to support a global wallet argument 11:35 < ryanofsky> i'm confused again. now we are talking about separate wallet process listening it's separate wallet port. what is the harm of wallet param there (used or unused)? 11:35 < BlueMatt> whereas arguments are nice cause you dont have to change the library, if it already supports named args 11:35 < sipa> BlueMatt: but after process separation there may not even be a need for a global wallet argument 11:35 < jtimon> for what is worth, I like v1 in the uri more than "jsonrpc": "1.0" in the json data, but do we need 2 of them? 11:35 < sipa> BlueMatt: endpoint support means there is just one change 11:35 < BlueMatt> sipa: sure, and its, in fact, easier to remove the wallet arg at that point than the endpoints 11:35 < sipa> to the application 11:35 < BlueMatt> cause we can even start ignoring the arg 11:36 < sipa> you really think so? that first requiring everything to add a wallet configuration option, and then later change it again because now it's done in a different URI 11:36 < sipa> is easier than just allowing to configure a URI? 11:36 < ryanofsky> oh sipa, now i finally get it, yes i agree 11:36 < BlueMatt> sipa: think about eg the python library which is never updated 11:36 < BlueMatt> you could use multiwallet even before the library is updated 11:37 < BlueMatt> and if you update the library then its the same 11:37 < ryanofsky> yes that is an argument against named json-rpc params in favor of urls 11:37 < BlueMatt> (either the library silently adds the wallet arg to all calls, or it doesnt) 11:37 < sipa> i'm confused 11:37 < BlueMatt> instead of silently adding the wallet endpoint to all calls, or not 11:37 < ryanofsky> it's not an argument for wallet in uri-path instead of wallet in url query-string 11:37 < sipa> BlueMatt: it shouldn't silently add wallet endpoints! 11:37 < sipa> BlueMatt: you should tell it "MY URL IS ...../v1/wallet" 11:38 < BlueMatt> sipa: does the current python client support that? 11:38 < sipa> it shouldn't even know there is such a thing as wallet names 11:38 < BlueMatt> (I dont know, I'm asking) 11:38 < sipa> BlueMatt: i don't know, but it'd be trivial to add 11:38 < sipa> and certainly easier than updating it to selectively go add wallet parameters everywhere 11:38 < sipa> and then later making that optional 11:39 < jtimon> sipa: how is "encapsulated in the uri" different from "encapsulated on the json data like 'jsonrpc' and 'method'"? if that's better, why not move the method to the uri too? 11:39 < sipa> jtimon: because thr rpc method and parameter are decided by the application 11:39 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:39 < sipa> jtimon: and the URI is decided by the person configuring the software 11:40 < jtimon> sipa: and so it's the uri? 11:40 < sipa> no 11:40 < sipa> you tell your application which host and port the RPC server runs on, 11:40 < sipa> you can also tell it what URI to use 11:40 < sipa> ryanofsky: i agree that technically url query-string can do as much as uri-path... but i do believe that this approach can only work if we clearly think about what can be separated 11:40 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 11:40 < BlueMatt> sipa: issue is I do not believe most client libraries support that today 11:40 < jtimon> mhmm, well, that's were I'm confused, I don't see how you could have control of the json data bur not of the uri 11:40 < sipa> BlueMatt: sure, so? 11:40 < BlueMatt> (I was informed that the python-bitcoinrpc library does not) 11:40 < sipa> BlueMatt: they can be updated 11:40 < jtimon> s/were/where 11:41 < BlueMatt> sipa: whereas client libraies may already support a wallet argument 11:41 < BlueMatt> silently, easily 11:41 < ryanofsky> sipa, maybe an example of where query-string would not work & uri-path would work? 11:41 < sipa> 18:10:59 < sipa> i guess it isn't worse - as long as everything you'd put in the path becomes a query parameter and nothing else 11:41 < ryanofsky> by the way, one reason i am more inclined to named wallet param is that i think it is actually better for safety 11:41 < sipa> ryanofsky: there isn't 11:42 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:42 < jtimon> sipa: oh, ok, then that's where I was confused! what are we discussing then? 11:42 < sipa> jtimon: JSON RPC argument vs URI 11:42 < sipa> jtimon: i'm not talking about URI path vs URI query string 11:43 < ryanofsky> named arguments are safer than positional arguments, because harder to screw up ordering, explicitly specifying wallet is better than not because easy to mess up port numbers 11:43 < ryanofsky> so i tend to think even with multiprocess wallet, param has utility 11:44 < jtimon> sipa: right, so there's no difference between JSON RPC argument vs URI, right? 11:44 < sipa> jtimon: yes there is 11:45 < sipa> jtimon: with URI based approaches, we can avoid the need for applications to know what wallet they're talking to 11:45 < sipa> or even know that there is such a thing as multiwallet 11:45 < jtimon> I thought you just said there isn't an example of what ryanofsky was asking for? 11:45 < jtimon> I'm getting more confused, sorry 11:45 < sipa> jtimon: sigh... that was about URI path vs URI query 11:45 < jtimon> I'll read the full conversation 11:46 < ryanofsky> jtimon, talking about 3 different things. (1) wallet in jsonrpc param (2) wallet in uri query param (3) wallet in uri-path 11:46 < jtimon> I don't think ryanofsky was asking anything about URI query, I know I wasn't 11:46 < BlueMatt> sipa: but thats my point...we cant cause none of the client libraries support it, and they're all like barely maintained last I heard 11:46 < sipa> ryanofsky: every JSON-RPC library supports passing in a URI 11:46 < sipa> eh, BlueMatt ^ 11:46 < sipa> BlueMatt: the bitcoin specific shims can be trivially patched to pass that through 11:47 < sipa> adding a named wallet arg everywhere is far harder, and requires logic that imho is totally unneeded at that level 11:47 < jtimon> ryanofsky: and who is defending 2 ? 11:48 < jtimon> ryanofsky: I really thought we were only duscussing 1 vs 3 already, sorry 11:48 -!- THoVer [4e3a800f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.58.128.15] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:48 < sipa> jtimon: the main discussion is (1) vs (3)... though ryanofsky has suggested that he'd prefer (2) over (3) 11:48 < ryanofsky> i'm defending 2. i think there are practical tradeoffs between 1 & 2, but that 3 has no practical advantages over either and has disadvange of introducing undocumented half-baked url scheme 11:48 < BlueMatt> sipa: you could add a shim that passes the wallet arg in everywhere, too, which is already supported by some rpc client libraries, and all of this debate is useless if we have a process split anyway, cause then its about port numbers anyway 11:49 < BlueMatt> at least then we wont have new endpoints to maintain, just an extra arg that we can ignore 11:49 < sipa> BlueMatt: port numbers are also part of the URI 11:49 < jtimon> ok, I missed that, as said I will read the beginning of the discussion... 11:49 < BlueMatt> yes, but are treated differently by some rpc client software :p 11:49 < sipa> ? 11:49 < BlueMatt> well apparently at least python-bitcoinrpc does not support endpoints, but does, obviously, already support a different port to connect to 11:49 < BlueMatt> or so I'm told 11:49 < sipa> yes, but that's easy to fix 11:50 < sipa> and doesn't change that's better if client libraries don't need to know what wallet they're connected to 11:50 < jtimon> yeah, don't know python-bitcoinrpc but I can't imagine how it wouldn't be trivial to adapt either way 11:50 < ryanofsky> BlueMatt, python-bitcoinrpc doesn't support multiple endpoints currently, you have to choose one in advance if you want to write a test that uses multiple wallets for example. but jonas pr changes that 11:51 < BlueMatt> ohoh, wait, so it does support endpoints but you just need multiple AuthServiceProxy's for it? 11:51 < jtimon> afk 11:51 < BlueMatt> wait, that might change my view 11:51 < BlueMatt> ugh 11:51 < BlueMatt> i give up 11:51 < ryanofsky> BlueMatt, exactly 11:51 < BlueMatt> oh, well i mean thats kinda more analygous to the port number changes :( 11:51 < BlueMatt> lol, sorry sipa 11:51 < sipa> ryanofsky: i think that you do bring up a good point that there is a risk in creation a half-baked url scheme 11:52 < ryanofsky> sipa, that is why i am fine with 2 11:52 < sipa> ryanofsky: i believe (2) has more risk in going the wrong way than (3) 11:53 < sipa> and i guess part of that argument is aesthetics 11:53 < ryanofsky> i also want to point out that there we are talking about 1 practical tradeoff between 1 & 2/3, there are other practical advantages to 1 like not having to modify bitcoin-cli 11:53 < BlueMatt> can we use the lsb of the next blockhash? 11:54 < ryanofsky> sipa, ok that is what i think i'm not understanding. is there more to the argument than aesthetics... 11:54 < sipa> ryanofsky: i am fine with (1) over (2)/(3) if we believe the separation isn't thought out enough 11:54 < sipa> ryanofsky: it's a slippery slope argument, so you can counter anything i say with "well, we can just decide not to do that" 11:55 < sipa> ryanofsky: but i believe there is a risk that (2) will make it too easy for us to say "oh, let's put the currency unit in the URI" 11:55 < ryanofsky> sipa, not sure i understand an example of something bad.... 11:55 < ryanofsky> you were saying some other parameters are bad to put in query strings? 11:56 < sipa> actually, i change my mind - that wouldn't be bad 11:57 < ryanofsky> also just to list other practical advantages i see in (1) over (2/3). Requires no changes to bitcoin-cli. Is properly documented, easy to understand, just a param. Encourages named arguments. Allows checking wallet name for safety even with multiprocess. 11:58 < sipa> so yes, my preference for (3) over (2) is aesthetics (and, _if_ we have a well thought-out separation, i also think (2) does not really have advantages over (3)) 11:58 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:59 < ryanofsky> agree maybe (2) may not have advantages over (3) if you have a well-thought uri-path schema 11:59 < sipa> and things like a currency type or timeout can still be query string options rather than paths 12:00 < ryanofsky> i definitely have opposite aesthetics though, straight key=value named argument vastly preferable to me to inflexible /positional/path/stuff 12:01 -!- d_t_ [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:01 < sipa> well, (purely aesthetics argument), paths feel like "i am now talking to a different subsystem!"; query options feel like "here is some extra stuff that may or may not affect how you're interpreting my request" 12:01 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:02 < ryanofsky> sure, i can see that 12:03 < sipa> and given an intention (if we agree to that) to move the wallet out, i think it makes sense to treat it as a different subsystem 12:03 < morcos> at the risk of derailing this convo on the brink of agreement, sipa: achow: do you still want #10579 for 0.15, it doesn't look as far along as 10571 12:03 < ryanofsky> maybe i don't understand what you see in multiprocess world. i see wallet=filename still being something you can specify for safety 12:03 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10579 | [RPC] Split signrawtransaction into wallet and non-wallet RPC command by achow101 · Pull Request #10579 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:04 < ryanofsky> but you are seeing us do this elaborate /v1/wallet/ /v1/node thing and then the /v1/wallet stuff goes in the trash because it is no longer a "separate subsystem"? 12:04 < morcos> oops achow101 ^ 12:04 < sipa> ryanofsky: no, /v1/wallet would remain - the wallet process just would not expose /v1/node anymore 12:05 < ryanofsky> sipa, ok. that is aesthetically ugly to me :) 12:05 < sipa> ryanofsky: please clarify 12:05 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79.98.72.176] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:05 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@79.98.72.176] has quit [Changing host] 12:05 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:06 < sipa> (as in, i'd genuinely interested in hearing why) 12:06 < sipa> *i'm 12:06 < ryanofsky> wallet filename at that point is no longer "specifying a subsystem". it is just redundant at that point. we have to go on treating it as this magical thing different from other parameters forever 12:07 < sipa> ryanofsky: well i expect one process to remain capable of handling multiple wallets 12:07 < sipa> a lightweight node is far cheaper than a full node, but handling an individual wallet compared to that is still orders of magnitude less 12:08 < achow101> morcos: I would like to have it in 0.15 but it hasn't been getting any review 12:09 < sipa> ryanofsky: actually, no 12:09 < sipa> ryanofsky: the whole point of having it in a URI is that it shouldn't be treated as part of the interface 12:09 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:10 -!- helo [~helo@unaffiliated/helo] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 12:10 < sipa> someone could create a new lightweight implementation that has the same API (unlikely, i know), which only exposes what we have now under /v1/wallet/[walletname], but just exposes it as '/blah' 12:10 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:10 -!- helo [~helo@unaffiliated/helo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:12 < jnewbery> sorry, I was away from my desk. Seems like I missed out on all the fun. 12:12 < sipa> however, if people feel that we haven't thought through the implication of that, and whether we can do that separation cleanly... we should just do (1) 12:12 < jnewbery> At the risk of going over old ground, I prefer (3) for a couple of reasons: 12:13 < jnewbery> 1. each wallet is conceptually a separate resource, so it makes sense to me to have different URIs 12:13 < jnewbery> That's true whether or not we go for wallet separation in future 12:14 < jnewbery> *wallet process separation 12:14 < ryanofsky> thanks jnewbery, you are finally writing the documentatino i was asking for :) 12:14 < jnewbery> 2. It offers a smoother upgrade path for clients if we do go for wallet process separation and each wallet binds to its own port 12:15 < jnewbery> namely: change the endpoint now to /wallet/, and then change the endpoint later to 12:15 -!- THoVer [4e3a800f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.58.128.15] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 12:16 < jnewbery> I'm *much* less worried than ryanofsky about implementing a uri scheme now that we want to get rid of later. This should all be considered unstable/experimental anyway 12:16 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:10ad:39bb:2562:2d6b] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 12:16 < jnewbery> yes, I'll happily write documentation 12:17 < sipa> ryanofsky: if anything - thanks for discussing this; it's made your point clearer to me, and helped me understand my own preferences better 12:17 < ryanofsky> your second reason is reason sipa & gmaxwell like approaches (2)&(3) over approach (1), in that respect there is no distiniction between (2)/(3), and countervailing tradeoffs like having to modify bitcoin-cli and other things i mentioned above 12:18 < ryanofsky> and yes, it is clear that i am wayyy more concerned with backwards compatibility than other people 12:19 < jnewbery> In general, I'm also concerned about backwards compatibility. But in this specific case, I'm not 12:19 < ryanofsky> i'm probably just an outlier in that respect 12:20 < instagibbs> jnewbery, a brief(!) recap in the PR itself on the design choice being made would be nice for review/historicity sake 12:21 < jnewbery> > countervailing tradeoffs like having to modify bitcoin-cli 12:21 < ryanofsky> yes named arguments require no changes to bitcoin-cli 12:21 < sipa> ok, i just looked over #10849, and it is suffuciently simple that i don't think i care about implementation complexity compared to 10829 12:21 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10849 | Multiwallet: simplest endpoint support by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #10849 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:22 < jnewbery> I think (2) is better in that respect. We need to modify bitcoin-cli, but we have those changes already coded. With (1), every script that calls wallet methods using bitcoin-cli needs to be changed because positional arguments are no longer supported 12:22 < jnewbery> or have I misunderstood? 12:22 -!- d_t [~d_t@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:22 -!- tiagotrs [~tiago@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:22 < sipa> jnewbery: that is also a good argument 12:23 < ryanofsky> jnewbery, you understood. i see that is an argument the other way because named arguments are safer 12:24 < jnewbery> with (2), the bitcoin-cli caller needs to change to include a `-usewallet` argument. With (1) the entire invocation needs to change 12:24 < ryanofsky> jnewbery, correct 12:24 < jnewbery> so with (2), it's just as safe. There's no default wallet - it has to be explicitly specified 12:25 < ryanofsky> i'm talking about general safety of named parameters vs positional arguments 12:25 < ryanofsky> i don't think discouraging positional arguments is bad, i actually think it is good 12:25 -!- d_t_ [~textual@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com] 12:25 < jnewbery> oh, absolutely agree there - everyone should use named. But that's an orthogonal point 12:26 < sipa> ryanofsky: that seems orthogonal 12:26 < ryanofsky> i think changes to bitcoin-cli are simple but ugly 12:26 < ryanofsky> anyway these are minor points 12:26 < ryanofsky> i think we all understand tradeoffs between 1 / 2&3 at this point? 12:27 < ryanofsky> for those who have clear notions of what "conceptually a separate resource" means & who don't care about backwards compatibility, there is no difference between 2&3 12:29 < sipa> for those who don't have clear notions, you mean? 12:29 < ryanofsky> i'm saying i don't know clearly what "separate resource" means. it just seems like an arbitrary distinction 12:30 < ryanofsky> it just seems weird to me that you'd want to structure a path scheme around wallet filename, but if you're confident that this is the way to go, then great 12:31 < sipa> how about this: all parts of a request that are expected to be identical between all calls made by a single client application should go into a path 12:31 < jnewbery> Yes, I think we all understand the tradeoffs. My preference order is still 3 > 2 > 1, but I'm happy with any of them going in now, and then coming up with a stable design for all of this in time for v0.16. 12:32 -!- promag [~joao@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:32 < ryanofsky> sipa, to me it's ugly you even want to make that distinction. aesthetically i prefer if all parts of request should just be treated as similarly as possible 12:33 < sipa> ryanofsky: actually, that sentence applies to (2) and (3) equally 12:33 < sipa> so replace 'path' with 'uri' in it 12:33 < ryanofsky> there are practical reasons (imo weak ones for wanting to make wallet special enough to go in url rather than json request). but making it root of brand new uri schema seems overboard to me 12:34 < jtimon> sipa: I guess we don't move "jsonrpc": "1.0" to the path because it's part of the rpc scheme specification or something? 12:34 < sipa> jtimon: no, it's part of the JSON-RPC spec 12:34 < sipa> oh, that's what you mean; yes 12:34 < ryanofsky> in (1) wallet is just one of many normal params. in (2) wallet is special enough to be a url param. in (3) wallet is root of a new uri-scheme 12:34 < jtimon> right, that's what I meant, but didn't rename json-rpc name 12:35 < ryanofsky> uri-path scheme i mean 12:35 < jtimon> wouldn't putting the wallet there violate the json-rpc spec ? 12:35 < sipa> no 12:35 < sipa> it's just a different URL you're using 12:37 < jtimon> no, I mean, putting wallet in the json data alongside method, jsonrpc, params and id 12:38 < ryanofsky> jtimon, that isn't (1) (2) or (3). 12:38 < sipa> that's not what's being suggested 12:38 < ryanofsky> (1) is just sticking it into params 12:38 < sipa> (1) suggests making the wallet part of 'params' 12:38 < jtimon> oh, I see 12:43 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 12:47 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 12:55 -!- jamesob__ [~jamesob@c-73-241-180-136.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:55 -!- jamesob [~jamesob@c-73-241-180-136.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:55 -!- corebob [~corebob@2a02:fe0:c150:1a00:8958:6277:6ca3:b2cf] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:57 < promag> BlueMatt: saw some rpc functions, all have spaces in () 12:57 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:58 < BlueMatt> promag: hmm, ok 13:00 < morcos> wumpus: not sure where we are with feature freeze, but i think #10707 is going to make it, looks ready for merge 13:00 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10707 | Better API for estimatesmartfee RPC by morcos · Pull Request #10707 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 13:00 < morcos> #10672 can also be merged 13:00 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10672 | Avoid division by zero in the case of a corrupt estimates file by practicalswift · Pull Request #10672 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 13:02 < BlueMatt> we should probably pull an 0.14 and just say that we're frozen with an exception for things already tagged that make it in the next day or two? 13:02 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:03 < morcos> someone PLEASE tag #10830 13:03 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10830 | [WIP] [wallet] keypool restore by jnewbery · Pull Request #10830 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 13:03 < morcos> I keep forgetting about it b/c its not on the milestone list 13:04 < morcos> sipa: aren't you the one that was threatening to rip the entire wallet out if we didn't get a version of that in 13:04 < sipa> morcos: lol 13:04 < sipa> tagged 13:05 < morcos> thanks! 13:05 < jnewbery> I'm working on a cut-down version of #10830 13:05 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10830 | [WIP] [wallet] keypool restore by jnewbery · Pull Request #10830 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 13:05 < jnewbery> probably under a different PR number - sorry! 13:05 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:05 < jnewbery> I think the prevailing view is we don't need the node sync pause stuff for 0.15 13:06 < sipa> jnewbery: you'd need to do something, though 13:06 < sipa> what is your suggestion? 13:07 < jnewbery> I'm trying to understand what's required. You've mentioned before that HD split makes things worse, but I can't understand why that would be true 13:07 < sipa> it doesn't; i was confused 13:07 < jtimon> so, regarding #9806 txoutsbyaddress, txoutsbyscript and all that...what are the plans for 0.15 again (if any), it seems I may have misunderstood things there 13:07 < jnewbery> ok, good 13:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9806 | txoutsbyaddress index (take 3) by droark · Pull Request #9806 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 13:08 < jnewbery> so, I'll keep the stuff that marks all keys up to a used key as used 13:08 < jnewbery> gmaxwell says "we could couple that with something that prolongs keeping an encrypted wallet unlocked while syncing/rescanning is running". I'm just looking at how locking/unlocking works to understand what's required there 13:09 < sipa> i think you can just shutdown when the keypool goes below some threshold 13:10 < sipa> which can only happen when you're recovering from an old wallet backup anyway 13:10 < jnewbery> hows that? What if your wallet is encrypted and you can't top up? 13:11 < sipa> then you have a problem 13:11 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:11 < sipa> because you're going to silently miss transactions 13:11 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:12 < jnewbery> right. Sorry - I don't understand how your keypool can only go below a threshold if you're recovering from an old wallet backup 13:13 < sipa> during normal operation, you never see a key used on the network that you didn't create with getnewaddress, which will make you top up 13:16 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 13:16 < jnewbery> ok, so I get a bunch of adddresses with getnewaddress, I hand them out, my wallet locks, and then I start seeing transactions to those addresses. What next? Isn't my unused keypool running down as I see those transactions? 13:16 < sipa> jnewbery: getnewaddress already marked those keys as used 13:16 < sipa> it can refuse to give you a new one before topping up 13:17 < jnewbery> ah, ok 13:17 < sipa> it does now, but the threshold is 0 13:17 < sipa> that's probably too low, but easy to change 13:17 < sipa> if you're able to avoid hitting a keypool of 0 when its maximum is 100, you're certainly able to avoid hitting 100 when the default is 1000 13:18 < jnewbery> ok, I'll take a look. Thanks 13:21 < promag> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9502 it's supposed to keep syncing headers? sipa? 13:22 < sipa> promag: i'm not sure what it's supposed to do, but i believe that is what it does yes 13:29 -!- harrymm [~wayne@125-227-85-143.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:30 < BlueMatt> sipa: can you update the state of #10526? 13:30 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10526 | Force on-the-fly compaction during pertxout upgrade by sipa · Pull Request #10526 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 13:31 < BlueMatt> can we confirm if we need it for 15 or not? 13:34 < sipa> BlueMatt: willdo 13:35 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:38 < jnewbery> sipa: if we shutdown when the keypool goes below a threshold, how would I start with an old encrypted wallet that has fewer than the minimum threshold keypool? It'll shutdown before I have a change to unlock the wallet 13:40 < sipa> jnewbery: i don't know 13:45 -!- harrymm [~wayne@61-219-114-121.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:46 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 13:46 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:54 < jtimon> btw, with gettxout I think it should either include confirmed utxos when calling with include_mempool or have include_mempool renamed to mempool_only or something of the sort. At the very very least s/Whether to include the mempool/Only search in the mempool. Default: true/ 13:54 < jtimon> thoughts ? 13:55 < sipa> jtimon: include_mempool is the wrong name 13:55 < sipa> it either presents the view of the utxo at the last block 13:55 < sipa> or the one as seen by the mempool 13:56 < jtimon> right, my point is that if we want to maintain the name, we can first consider the mempool, if not, the current utxo; and the caller can check whether "confirmations" == 0 or not 13:57 < jtimon> but I take it as you prefer just renaming, right? 13:57 < sipa> or properly documenting 13:57 < sipa> but the RPC is about viewing the utxo set... not random access to txouts 13:58 < sipa> we have two utxo sets... the one defined by the blockchain, and the one defined by the blockchain+mempool 13:58 -!- jamesob [~jamesob@c-73-241-180-136.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:58 -!- promag [~joao@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 13:59 -!- nakaluna [~nakaluna@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/nakaluna] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 14:00 < jnewbery> sipa: I can think of a couple of good solutions to the old encrypted wallet at start: 1. have a bitcoin-wallet util that can topup the keypool offline. 2. have a `loadwallet` RPC that can decrypt on load 14:00 -!- jamesob__ [~jamesob@c-73-241-180-136.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 14:00 < jnewbery> obviously neither of those are in v0.15. It seems a shame to merge something that could make an encrypted wallet file unloadable 14:01 < jnewbery> there would be one way to recover a blocked wallet: invalidateblock at the wallet's best block, load and unlock the wallet, topup keypool, then reconsiderblock. But I don't think we should be telling users to do that! 14:02 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:02 < jtimon> sipa: mhmm, but a confirmed utxo won't appear if you call with include_mempool 14:03 < sipa> jtimon: of course not 14:03 < sipa> it is not an unspent output, when looking at the mempool 14:03 < sipa> wait 14:03 < sipa> i'm not sure what you're saying 14:04 < sipa> jtimon: my answer is about a transaction that is unspent in the chain, but spent by a mempool tx 14:05 < jtimon> right, that won't appear if you chose include_mempoo=true 14:05 < sipa> yes, intentionally 14:05 < jtimon> ok 14:06 < sipa> because it is not an unspent output when looking at the mempool 14:06 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:07 < jtimon> oh, I see, but if it's both spent in the chain and the mempool it will appear, I was missing that, thanks 14:07 < sipa> unspent, you mean 14:07 < jtimon> perhaps we should test that too 14:08 < jtimon> yeah, unspent sorry 14:08 < jtimon> ok, so I think I'll write a PR correcting the documentation and testing that case 14:09 < sipa> cool 14:10 < jtimon> but before closing #10822, I would like to know more about what the general thoughts about gettxoutbyaddress, gettxoutbyscript and all that 14:10 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10822 | RPC: Also serve txo from gettxout (not just utxo and mempool) by jtimon · Pull Request #10822 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 14:11 < sipa> jtimon: i believe other people have different opinions, but imho that does not belong in core 14:11 -!- nakaluna [~nakaluna@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/nakaluna] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:12 < sipa> or at least only if we modularize the code enough so that it's a totally separately pluggable thing 14:14 < jtimon> by thought was to have something like -scriptpubkeyindex analogous to txindex or something like that, but I see you don't like having -txindex already 14:14 < sipa> yes 14:15 < sipa> i'm very strongly opposed to any functionality that requires having a fully indexed blockchain 14:15 < jtimon> of course I don't need this to be in core for my purposes, but since people were talking about it I was trying to find synergies 14:15 < sipa> if it's just the utxo set... it's less bad, but i still think it's beyond our scope 14:16 < jtimon> but a -scriptpubkeyindex only for current utxo would be more acceptable? 14:16 < jtimon> ok 14:18 < jtimon> thanks, I will ask on the next meeting about if I haven't closed #10822 by the time if more people give me their opinion 14:18 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10822 | RPC: Also serve txo from gettxout (not just utxo and mempool) by jtimon · Pull Request #10822 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 14:19 < sipa> i think we're a bit too busy with 0.15 :) 14:20 -!- jamesob [~jamesob@c-73-241-180-136.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:21 -!- jamesob [~jamesob@c-73-241-180-136.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:23 -!- earlz [~earlz@198.74.62.58] has quit [Quit: convert to sasl] 14:25 -!- jamesob [~jamesob@c-73-241-180-136.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:29 -!- earlz [~earlz@earlz.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:33 -!- earlz [~earlz@earlz.net] has quit [Client Quit] 14:33 -!- earlz [~earlz@earlz.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:35 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 14:38 < sipa> jnewbery: yeah, i don't know 14:39 < sipa> a cleaner solution is to actually support stopping a sync, and allowing it to continue with a keypool unlock 14:39 < sipa> but this is an unusual situation, which will only be reached when recovering from a backup anyway 14:41 < jcorgan> just fyi, we (gnuradio project) just got a github PR with a malware PDF attached to a comment, looked automated 14:41 < jcorgan> well, assuming it is malware, virustotal found 0 hits 14:44 < sipa> jcorgan: good to know, thanks 14:51 < jtimon> sipa: yeah, sure, no hurry on my part, I just thought something re gettxoutbyaddress for 0.15, I guess it was just for after 0.15 14:52 -!- mmgen [~mmgen@178-175-130-19.ip.as43289.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] 14:56 -!- earlz [~earlz@earlz.net] has quit [Quit: more irssi bs] 14:56 -!- earlz [~earlz@earlz.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:57 -!- jtimon [~quassel@102.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 14:59 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:01 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web501.webfaction.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:01 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has quit [Client Quit] 15:02 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web501.webfaction.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:07 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 15:08 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:13 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0b019357ff09...fee0d803fb55 15:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8276e70 Chris Stewart: Adding assert to avoid a memory access violation inside of PartialMerkleTree::CalcHash()... 15:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fee0d80 Pieter Wuille: Merge #9980: Fix mem access violation merkleblock... 15:13 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #9980: Fix mem access violation merkleblock (master...fix_mem_access_violation_merkleblock) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9980 15:16 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt] 15:18 -!- jcorgan [~jcorgan@unaffiliated/jcorgan] has quit [Quit: leaving] 15:20 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 15:27 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 15:27 -!- spinza [~spin@196.212.164.26] has quit [Quit: Coyote finally caught up with me...] 15:27 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:28 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:30 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:31 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@206.54.118.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:32 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:32 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:33 -!- spinza [~spin@196.212.164.26] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:35 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #10857: [RPC] Add a deprecation warning to getinfo's output (master...deprecate-getinfo) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10857 15:36 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 15:37 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:c786:6bc2:cabf:11d4] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:42 -!- discreteunit [~discreteu@2601:14d:8701:d6a0:c58c:8c7f:e8e3:328f] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:43 -!- tiagotrs [~tiago@unaffiliated/tiagotrs] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 15:50 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 15:53 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:53 -!- jcorgan [~jcorgan@unaffiliated/jcorgan] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:08 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 16:09 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:13 -!- rockhouse [~rockhouse@h54110.upc-h.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:14 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #10858: [RPC] Add "errors" field to getblockchaininfo and unify "errors" field in get*info RPCs (master...getblockchaininfo-errors) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10858 16:26 -!- discreteunit [~discreteu@2601:14d:8701:d6a0:c58c:8c7f:e8e3:328f] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com] 16:27 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 16:34 -!- justan0theruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:36 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 16:37 -!- coredump_ [~quassel@vpn-qld171.vpnsolutions.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:41 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:41 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-67-168-4-85.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:48 -!- nakaluna [~nakaluna@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/nakaluna] has quit [Quit: -] 16:53 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:54 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 3 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fee0d803fb55...75b5643c47c3 16:54 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 439c4e8 Alex Morcos: Improve api to estimatesmartfee... 16:54 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 06bcdb8 Alex Morcos: Convert named argument from nblocks to conf_target... 16:54 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 75b5643 Pieter Wuille: Merge #10707: Better API for estimatesmartfee RPC... 16:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #10707: Better API for estimatesmartfee RPC (master...bettersmartfeeapi) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10707 17:01 -!- promag [~joao@2001:8a0:fe30:de01:c786:6bc2:cabf:11d4] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 17:04 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-67-168-4-85.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:09 -!- goatpig [56f75436@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.247.84.54] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 17:10 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@68.168.119.229] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 17:28 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #10859: RPC: gettxout: Slightly improve doc and tests (master...b15-rpc-gettxout-mempool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10859 17:29 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 17:38 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:41 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:46 -!- talmai [~T@c-24-147-97-55.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:46 -!- Guest38971 [~jorge@ool-44c26294.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:49 -!- jnewbery1 [~Thunderbi@static-100-38-11-146.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 17:50 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 17:54 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:56 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 17:57 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:57 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 18:03 -!- PRab [~chatzilla@c-68-56-234-28.hsd1.mi.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.93 [Firefox 54.0.1/20170628075643]] 18:04 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:07 < Guest38971> lets say I wanted my node to support bip148. What do I need to configure in order to allow this? I am currently running bitcoin core 0.14.2 am I just ammending a line of code into the config file? I just need a reference if possible or is it advised to just wait for a release from bitcoin core?. I do not know if this is the proper channel for this so I apologize in advance. Thank you very much for the help. 18:11 < sipa> Bitcoin Core at this point does not support BIP148 18:11 < sipa> There are forks of the codebase that do. 18:13 -!- jamesob_ [~james@tempo-automation.static.monkeybrains.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 18:18 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 18:19 -!- Victor_sueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:20 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 18:20 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 18:22 < Guest38971> Understood my question was hypethical. My main concern is if I am running my node how can I test BIP148 suppost. I found a link that allows me to download bitcoin core with BIP148 support, but I did not know if this was trustworthy. Thank you 18:34 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:50 -!- QBcrusher_ [~QBcrusher@cpe-71-72-246-231.insight.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 18:52 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web501.webfaction.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:53 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web501.webfaction.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:03 -!- Murch [~murch@96.82.80.28] has quit [Quit: Snoozing.] 19:05 -!- blznblzn2 [~blzn@2605:6001:f28d:e600:cf36:4af4:2baf:900a] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:06 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 19:07 -!- mappum_ [sid43795@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yniqqchwaadxnshm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:07 -!- mmoya_ [sid208131@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qfvcmfdljakvjjkn] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:08 -!- michagogo_ [uid14316@wikia/Michagogo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:09 -!- emzy_ [~quassel@raspberry.emzy.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:09 -!- Bootvis_ [bob@baltar.lan.endoria.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:09 -!- Lauda__ [~quassel@unaffiliated/lauda] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:09 -!- niska` [~niska@68.ip-149-56-14.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:12 -!- Guest38971 [~jorge@ool-44c26294.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Quit: Guest38971] 19:13 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: mappum, hsmiths, bordeaux_facile, Lauda, Bootvis, niska, emzy, mmoya, michagogo 19:14 -!- michagogo_ is now known as michagogo 19:14 -!- mmoya_ is now known as mmoya 19:14 -!- mappum_ is now known as mappum 19:19 -!- Netsplit over, joins: bordeaux_facile 19:30 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qfxkunhswdscnnqn] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 19:32 -!- harrymm [~wayne@61-219-114-121.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 19:34 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@host-69-144-45-132.static.bresnan.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:39 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ryanofsky closed pull request #10829: Simple, backwards compatible RPC multiwallet support. (master...pr/multiparam) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10829 19:44 -!- roasbeef [~root@104.131.26.124] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 19:50 -!- harrymm [~wayne@125-227-70-105.HINET-IP.hinet.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:51 -!- Arvidt [~Arvidt@p5DE6ADEB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:57 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-249-218.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 19:58 -!- roasbeef [~root@104.131.26.124] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:01 -!- Arvidt [~Arvidt@p5DE6ADEB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Quit: leaving] 20:01 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:02 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:03 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:05 -!- justan0theruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 20:07 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Client Quit] 20:08 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:08 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20:09 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:12 -!- ivan [~ivan@unaffiliated/ivan/x-000001] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:23 -!- fengling [~fengling@2400:8901::f03c:91ff:fe61:b65c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:24 -!- fengling [~fengling@2400:8901::f03c:91ff:fe61:b65c] has quit [Client Quit] 20:25 -!- fengling [~fengling@2400:8901::f03c:91ff:fe61:b65c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:33 -!- justan0theruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:36 -!- justan0theruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Client Quit] 20:36 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 20:37 -!- justan0theruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:04 -!- hsmiths [uid95325@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xleptcrytlxbyoxz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:05 -!- Lauda__ is now known as Lauda 21:24 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:32 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-249-218.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:13 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@host-69-144-45-132.static.bresnan.net] has quit [] 22:19 -!- talmai [~T@c-24-147-97-55.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: mining] 22:22 -!- mmgen [~mmgen@178-175-130-19.ip.as43289.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:25 -!- d_t [~d_t@108-65-78-188.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 22:45 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 22:53 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:57 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:58 -!- mmgen [~mmgen@178-175-130-19.ip.as43289.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 23:04 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:08 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:09 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:11 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:14 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:18 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:24 -!- arowser [~quassel@45.32.248.113] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:25 -!- jouke [~worst@unaffiliated/komkommer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:27 -!- jouke [~worst@2001:1c02:1600:9200:406:8248:465b:8ee9] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:27 -!- jouke [~worst@2001:1c02:1600:9200:406:8248:465b:8ee9] has quit [Changing host] 23:27 -!- jouke [~worst@unaffiliated/komkommer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:30 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/75b5643c47c3...81560b07ce8a 23:30 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 077d01f Cory Fields: random: only use getentropy on openbsd 23:30 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 81560b0 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10855: random: only use getentropy on openbsd... 23:31 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10855: random: only use getentropy on openbsd (master...getentropy-openbsd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10855 23:44 < sipa> wumpus: how about a --sha256= option, which now defaults to basic, but can be changed to auto or a specific implementatio 23:44 < sipa> ? 23:44 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 23:45 -!- Dyaheon [~Dya@a91-156-192-39.elisa-laajakaista.fi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:46 < wumpus> sipa: if you want to go that way, it needs to be future-proof to be able to add more sha algorithms in the future and select multiple, I guess 23:47 < wumpus> that's why I proposed a a generic 'experimental assembly' flag, which is not so specific 23:47 < wumpus> but sure, that makes sense 23:56 -!- Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca