--- Day changed Thu Oct 12 2017 00:00 -!- RoyceX [~Cheeseo@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:01 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] justicz closed pull request #11201: [WIP] [RPC] Add verifyrawtransaction RPC (master...maxj_add_verify_tx_rpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11201 00:18 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:19 -!- sanada [~bitktn@36-2-119-80.chiba.ap.gmo-isp.jp] has quit [] 00:20 -!- Guyver2 [AdiIRC@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:22 -!- RoyceX [~Cheeseo@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 00:24 -!- sanada [~bitktn@36-2-119-80.chiba.ap.gmo-isp.jp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:54 -!- pbase [~pbase@unaffiliated/pbase] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 00:58 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:08 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:17 -!- Guyver2 [AdiIRC@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)] 01:19 -!- alreadylate [~textual@37.247.1.221] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:24 -!- alreadylate [~textual@37.247.1.221] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:25 -!- Cogito_Ergo_Sum [~Myself@80.107.149.120] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:29 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:32 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 01:32 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:33 -!- clusk [~cluskinat@69-26-128-235.mxu.aerioconnect.net] has quit [] 01:33 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 01:35 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:38 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lapfvduyqqjhltux] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 01:43 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:05 -!- Emcy_ [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 02:06 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:19 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:21 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:22 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:36 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:38 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 02:47 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 02:53 -!- roadcrap [~roadcrypt@unaffiliated/roadcrap] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:02 -!- h1d [~h1d@unaffiliated/h1d] has quit [Quit: h1d] 03:02 -!- pbase [~pbase@unaffiliated/pbase] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 03:05 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:17 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:19 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:22 -!- promag [~promag@bl6-24-70.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:29 -!- btcdrak [uid239175@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-olejnezdsxsubozn] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 03:32 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:37 -!- wxss [~chatzilla@62-4-22-47.rev.poneytelecom.eu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:40 -!- xHire [~xHire@kos.paskuli.cz] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:47 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:48 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:50 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 03:52 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:58 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 03:59 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:01 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:02 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 04:27 -!- esotericnonsense [~esotericn@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/esotericnonsense] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 04:34 -!- SopaXorzTaker [~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 04:40 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/892809309c1b...a865b38bf332 04:40 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 55509f1 practicalswift: Document assumptions that are being made to avoid division by zero 04:40 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a865b38 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11133: Document assumptions that are being made to avoid division by zero... 04:41 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11133: Document assumptions that are being made to avoid division by zero (master...div0) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11133 04:41 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a865b38bf332...3bb77ebee6e3 04:41 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master bfebc0b Eelis: Remove dead store in ecdsa_signature_parse_der_lax.... 04:41 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 3bb77eb Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #11073: Remove dead store in ecdsa_signature_parse_der_lax.... 04:42 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11073: Remove dead store in ecdsa_signature_parse_der_lax. (master...deadstore) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11073 05:01 -!- xwin [~dpitic@CPE-60-228-174-44.lns2.ken.bigpond.net.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:01 -!- xwin [~dpitic@CPE-60-228-174-44.lns2.ken.bigpond.net.au] has left #bitcoin-core-dev ["Leaving"] 05:04 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:06 -!- Aaronvan_ [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 05:29 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 05:46 -!- PaulCapestany [~PaulCapes@ip72-209-228-52.dc.dc.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 05:49 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jmqnjwtmhgflzwdr] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 05:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 7 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3bb77ebee6e3...f74459dba6de 05:55 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master edafc71 Russell Yanofsky: Fix uninitialized URI in batch RPC requests... 05:55 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e02007a Russell Yanofsky: Limit AuthServiceProxyWrapper.__getattr__ wrapping... 05:55 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 9f67646 Russell Yanofsky: Make AuthServiceProxy._batch method usable... 05:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #11277: Fix uninitialized URI in batch RPC requests (master...pr/mb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11277 06:22 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:38 -!- merehap_ [~sean@c-73-239-115-62.hsd1.wa.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 06:42 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 06:49 -!- DrOlmer [~DrOlmer@unaffiliated/drolmer] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 06:50 -!- DrOlmer [~DrOlmer@unaffiliated/drolmer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 06:56 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:22 < wumpus> github has something new apparently 07:22 < wumpus> Label issues and pull requests for new contributors 07:22 < wumpus> Now, GitHub will help potential first-time contributors discover issues labeled with help wanted or good first issue 07:24 < wumpus> a good idea, though I don't like that we have to add labels in exactly their syntax (and probably capitalization) now 07:25 -!- wraithm [~wraithm@unaffiliated/wraithm] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:30 < Sentineo> yeah I saw that, but the idea is certainly nice 07:31 -!- NielsvG [~Necrathex@unaffiliated/necrathex] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:38 < wumpus> maybe rename "Easy to implement" to "good first issue"? it's the same idea after all 07:38 < wumpus> was introduced for the same reason 07:39 < Sentineo> well easy to implement is relative :) easy for who? 07:41 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:52 < wumpus> it only makes sense as a label if it's broadly true 07:54 < Sentineo> indeed 07:54 < wumpus> everything might be easy to implement for a single person with matching super-specialized knowledge 07:55 < wumpus> we can add an "easy to implement for sipa" label and add it to all issues *ducks* 07:58 -!- harding [~harding@mail.dtrt.org] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 07:58 < sdaftuar> +1 08:11 < midnightmagic> +1 08:19 < Sentineo> :D 08:24 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 08:25 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:26 -!- wasi [~wasi@gateway/tor-sasl/wasi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:29 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 08:45 -!- jb55 [~jb55@70-36-49-138.dyn.novuscom.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 08:47 -!- Ofelia [~Ofelia@ns334669.ip-5-196-64.eu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:50 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 08:53 -!- ananteris [~user@unaffiliated/ananteris] has quit [Quit: leaving] 09:26 -!- jb55 [~jb55@208.98.200.100] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:28 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:31 -!- karelb [~karelb@li1380-211.members.linode.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 09:42 < promag> sipa: in case you missed https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11221/files#r143359150 09:51 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 09:55 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:56 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 09:57 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:26 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ygyxjwfwqfmrddko] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:27 -!- timothy [tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 10:33 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-204-28-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 10:45 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 10:45 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Client Quit] 11:17 -!- mess110 [~kiki@78.97.218.2] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:26 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-28-226-107-190.nextelmovil.cl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:26 < mess110> hi, I am trying to work on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7734 and I wanted to ask for advice 11:26 < mess110> I added the icon on the GUI, designed the icon for proxy/no proxy (still needs work, but I got this), you can see my progress here: 11:26 -!- wxss [~chatzilla@62-4-22-47.rev.poneytelecom.eu] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 11:26 < mess110> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...mess110:add_proxy_icon?expand=1 11:26 < mess110> I am stuck figuring out if I need to show the icon enabled or disabled depending if a proxy/tor proxy is used. 11:26 < mess110> I can look into settings, but I don't think that is a complete solution because it doesn't handle command line options. 11:26 < mess110> I tried itterating over proxies here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...mess110:add_proxy_icon?expand=1#diff-0db7dd184df07a48c307ccc182021a68R266 11:27 < mess110> but I always get not connected, even with tor browser running locally, so I was wondering if someone could give me some advice, thanks in advance 11:34 -!- mmgen [~mmgen@gateway/tor-sasl/mmgen] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:40 < luke-jr> I guess there's a question of what conditions the icon should be lit; Tor *only*, or Tor at all? 11:41 < sipa> how do we know you're proxying through tor? 11:42 < wumpus> in the case of torcontrol automatically using tor it's easy 11:42 < wumpus> for an arbitrary socks5 proxy it's harder to say 11:43 < mess110> the way I see it: no proxy icon not lit. other proxy proxy icon lit. tor proxy different icon 11:43 < wumpus> maybe easier to do would be a proxy icon 11:44 < wumpus> then later on worry about tor detection 11:44 < wumpus> (say, in a followup PR) 11:44 < sipa> there is -tor, but that's about configuring a proxy for tor connections 11:44 < mess110> ok, but would checking the settings be enough? 11:44 < sipa> mess110: no 11:44 < wumpus> you should check the same thing getnetworkinfo checks 11:44 < sipa> in normal circumstances you'd just use -proxy 11:45 < wumpus> it has the information, per network, whether a proxy is used 11:45 < luke-jr> our node needs to know if it has a Tor address to advertise.. 11:45 < wumpus> I'd say show the icon only if all networks use a proxy, becaues that's usually what the user wants to be informed of ("is everything I do proxied") 11:46 < luke-jr> so there should never be a question whether Tor is setup or not 11:46 < wumpus> luke-jr: yeah advertising the onion is what torcontrol does, let's focus on proxy first, tor later 11:47 < luke-jr> "are we binding any non-localhost ports?" 11:47 < wumpus> if a proxy is used for everything *and* that is the tor proxy, it could show a special tor icon, but that's easier to do 11:47 < wumpus> eh harder 11:47 < wumpus> this is not really about binding 11:47 < wumpus> proxy is foremost about outgoing connections 11:47 < mess110> sipa: I am using the GUI to set tor proxy and restarting the client. there is a chance I am not actually connected though a proxy because I am doing similar things like getnetworkinfo 11:47 < wumpus> though you could check the listening too... 11:48 < wumpus> if you set a proxy in the GUI, it will use a proxy next restart 11:48 < luke-jr> wumpus: I'm not sure why users would care only about outgoing connections? 11:48 < wumpus> luke-jr: because that's the only ones that go through a proxy 11:48 < luke-jr> we broadcast transactions on incoming connections too 11:48 < luke-jr> presumably the icon is desired to get a feel for privacy level 11:48 < wumpus> sure, but if you provide -proxy at least it disables incoming connections 11:50 < luke-jr> IMO, we should have 3 states: public, proxy (no non-local inbound connections accepted; outbound via proxy), and tor (no non-local inbound connections accepted; Tor hidden service address configured [and known to be working?]) 11:50 < wumpus> yeah that sounds ok 11:51 < mess110> luke-jr: thats my long term plan now. will focus on detecting public/proxy in my first PR 11:52 < mess110> and thx, I got confirmation that getnetworkinfo is what I should look at 11:52 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ysyovlnuzuwyhdbl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 11:52 < luke-jr> yeah, that's probably a good example to go from 11:55 -!- clarkmoody [~clarkmood@47-218-248-206.bcstcmta04.res.dyn.suddenlink.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:00 < sipa> WOOSH 12:00 < achow101> meeting? 12:00 < Chris_Stewart_5> and HERE WE GO. 12:00 < gmaxwell> wumpus 12:01 < jonasschnelli> hi 12:01 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:02 < achow101> hi 12:02 < wumpus> #startmeeting 12:02 < lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 12 19:02:17 2017 UTC. The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:02 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 12:02 < luke-jr> before we officially start, does anyone mind if I collapse the fixups in #11383 ? 12:02 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11383 | Basic Multiwallet GUI support by luke-jr · Pull Request #11383 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:02 < wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 achow101 12:02 < kanzure> hi. 12:03 < cfields> hi 12:03 < wumpus> luke-jr: probably best to do that just before merge 12:03 < BlueMatt> suggested topics: backdating segwit/p2sh 12:03 < BlueMatt> suggested topics: segwit wallet 12:03 < BlueMatt> suggested topics: pre-2x release (possibly with no segwit wallet)? 12:04 < wumpus> #topic Backdating segwit/p2sh (BlueMatt) 12:04 * BlueMatt nominates sdaftuar/sipa/jl2012 to talk 12:04 < sdaftuar> i guess matt wants me to talk about this one 12:04 * sipa listens 12:04 < jl2012> hi 12:04 < meshcollider> Hello 12:05 < gmaxwell> I am pro backdating but wasn't sure how we should handle the rollback and replay. Rolling back the whole chain would be unfortunate. :P 12:05 < sdaftuar> in thinking about p2sh and segwit, they both have the property that it doesn't make sense to ever accept blocks that violate those rules 12:05 < sdaftuar> in the case of p2sh, there was only one historical block that violated SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH 12:05 < jl2012> I think backdating segwit is not trivial because the inclusion of witness commitment pre-fork 12:05 < sdaftuar> in the case of segwit, no blocks have ever violated the segwit scritp flag SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS 12:06 < gmaxwell> jl2012: I thought all the prefork ones were valid. 12:06 < sdaftuar> but of course, the witness commitment validation rules don't really work for backdating 12:06 < wumpus> backdating to when? to the beginning of the chain? 12:06 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: i don't think that is true, though i didn't verify myself 12:06 < sdaftuar> wumpus: yes 12:06 < wumpus> interesting 12:06 < cfields> jl2012: i checked the pre-activation commitments on mainnet and found them to all be valid 12:06 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: somehow i thought many of them were invalid 12:06 < BlueMatt> oh! 12:06 < jl2012> gmaxwell: not exactly, because of lack of the 0000.....0000 coinbase witness 12:06 < sdaftuar> cfields: oh! 12:06 < achow101> isn't segwit only backdateable to p2sh activation at earliest? 12:07 < gmaxwell> I think in general its cleanest when we can backdate softforks to the start. 12:07 < BlueMatt> achow101: we're talking about backdating p2sh as well (with one exception) 12:07 < sdaftuar> yes it would take some work to manufacture the witness nonces as jl2012 points out 12:07 < sipa> what is the advantage over just hardcoding a height for segwit and p2sh start? 12:07 < sdaftuar> but if it is really true that none were invalid, that might change the way i look at it 12:07 < wumpus> sipa: no need to handle the non-segwit case for initial validation anymore ,I guess 12:07 < BlueMatt> sipa: it is a very nice property (imo) that you will *never* accept any chain with invalid segwit/p2sh spends 12:07 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:07 < BlueMatt> irrespective of reorgs 12:08 < jl2012> sdaftuar: and for some blocks that was very close to 1MB, adding the coinbase witness will make it over 4M weight 12:08 < sipa> BlueMatt: sure, but i'm not sure that weighs up against the complication of adding exceptions, make-pretending to have coinbase witnesses nonces, ... 12:08 < gmaxwell> it also simplifies reasoning about further changes, e.g. what happens if someone forks early during IBD and feeds us a chain with things we assumed were impossible. 12:08 < BlueMatt> in any case, I believe sdaftuar's suggestion was to backdate SCRIPT_VERIFY_WITNESS/P2SH, but dissallow witnesses in blocks pre-activation, effectively disabling segwit 12:08 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: yeah that's basically the reason i started thinking abotu this 12:08 < sipa> BlueMatt: ugh 12:08 < sdaftuar> but i don't feel strongly either way 12:08 < BlueMatt> sipa: you can skip the witness nonce part 12:09 < luke-jr> jl2012: are any of those blocks *also* with the commitment? 12:09 < sipa> that's effectively splitting the segwit logic into 2 deployments, with one always active? 12:09 < gmaxwell> I don't feel strongly about it except the general principle that it's better to backdate wheverever possible. 12:09 < BlueMatt> sipa: well I would call that splitting it into one deployment and one consensus rule 12:09 < BlueMatt> but ok 12:09 < morcos> well an always active deployment is kind of not a deployment 12:09 < morcos> right 12:09 < sdaftuar> sipa: the branch i have splits the witness commitment rule from the script verification rule, basically 12:09 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:09 < sipa> BlueMatt: so you're not getting rid of the deployment overhead 12:09 < sdaftuar> i was not sure it was an improvement 12:10 < BlueMatt> sipa: indeed, it does not significantly simplify, it (mostly) just adds a very nice property 12:10 < BlueMatt> (and, as gmaxwell points out, may simplify future fork logic) 12:10 -!- Guyver2 [AdiIRC@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:10 < sipa> i understand the advantage of making a consensus rule always active, allowing you to get rid of some logic 12:10 < jl2012> luke-jr: I guess so, especially from f2pool. They mine exactly 1MB block quite frequently 12:10 < sdaftuar> jl2012: that weight issue is a good point 12:10 < sipa> but it doesn't seem that's really possible here without further complication 12:10 -!- wxss [~chatzilla@62-4-22-47.rev.poneytelecom.eu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:10 < BlueMatt> I dont think its adding significant new complication 12:11 < gmaxwell> Not just simplfy but reduce the incidence where the community makes design errors due to reasoning from current rules without realizing they don't apply in IBD. 12:11 < gmaxwell> but what sipa says, I don't think backdating is worth non-trivial extra complexity. 12:11 < luke-jr> what's the downside to allowing witness in pre-activation blocks? 12:11 < sipa> luke-jr: makes my head hurt 12:11 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:12 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: that we'll make changes in the future based on an assumption that they're never there. 12:12 < BlueMatt> sipa: I'm looking at https://github.com/sdaftuar/bitcoin/compare/2649d1690ce9458aa344a8ccfb1fa8548b2ac57c...2017-09-p2sh-segwit-from-genesis 12:12 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:12 < gmaxwell> We also don't have to decide this forever now, we could e.g. set it to activate at the real height now, and then later adjust it further back. 12:12 < morcos> sipa: i just really hate the attack scenarios that involve feeding alternate chains that eventually get reorged out but possibly with poor consequences... perhaps this is not a problem with segwit, but perhaps it is... say your wallet loses money in an unexpected way or something? 12:13 < sipa> BlueMatt: that doesn't look too bad, i guess 12:13 < sipa> but i need to think about it 12:13 < BlueMatt> sipa: yes, sorry, should have shared the code since we're arguing based on different understandings...anyway, something to think about, I dont think I feel *that* strongly, but I am vaguely in favor 12:13 < sdaftuar> if this is worth discussion, i can open a PR 12:13 < sdaftuar> i wasn't sure whether to move this forward 12:14 < sipa> but in regards to the next topic, do we want all that in 0.15.1? 12:14 < morcos> no, i don't 12:14 < sdaftuar> i don't think this so either 12:14 < BlueMatt> i dont think so? 12:14 < sipa> okay 12:14 < wumpus> would be kind of hurried IMO 12:14 < BlueMatt> very 12:14 < gmaxwell> It would be really nice if 0.15.1 were out before the B2X split, but we're on the thin edge of that now I think. 12:14 < wumpus> also let's not increase the scope of 0.15.1 12:14 < BlueMatt> ok, so #action sdaftuar opens pr? next topic? 12:14 < sipa> so this is unrelated to #11389 12:14 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11389 | Support having SegWit always active in regtest by sipa · Pull Request #11389 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:14 < wumpus> #topic segwit wallet 12:15 < achow101> if we want 0.15.1 out before B2X, it probably needs to go into rc's within the next week 12:15 < jonasschnelli> For the GUI, I'm working on a Bech32 error pointer (red underlines where errors appear) 12:15 < sipa> achow101: seems unreasonable 12:15 < sipa> i first want to get 11389 in, but there seems to be some discussion about the right approach 12:15 < BlueMatt> (which probably means no segwit wallet) 12:15 < wumpus> 0.15.0.2? :p 12:15 < BlueMatt> yea, that 12:16 < sipa> or 0.15.1 without segwit wallet, 0.15.2 with 12:16 < wumpus> we'll just do minor-minor releases until we have the damn segwit wallet :) 12:16 < BlueMatt> yea, numbers...isnt someone in charge of those so I dont have to think about them? 12:16 < sipa> haha 12:16 < jnewbery> I think #11389 is related to Suhas's suggested change, no? 12:16 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11389 | Support having SegWit always active in regtest by sipa · Pull Request #11389 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:16 < gmaxwell> well, RC by then at least would be good if not out... 12:16 < BlueMatt> sipa: wait, so you want to have segwit always active in regtest for segwit wallet, or what am I misunderstanding about the need for segwit-regtest for 0.15.1? 12:16 < sipa> BlueMatt: yes 12:17 < sipa> adapting the tests to deal with segwit activation halfway through them is a giant pain 12:17 < wumpus> so if we'd do 0.15.1 without segwit wallet, is there anything that still needs to go in? or can we tag rc1 after the meeting? 12:17 < BlueMatt> test_framework().activate_segwit() ? 12:17 < morcos> as much as i really want to concentrate on segwit wallet 12:17 < sipa> jnewbery: i was starting to respond to you, but to the last point "We already have control to make a BIP9 deployment active at a certain height in regtest using -vbparams. What advantages do you see for making a deployment buried instead of just activated at a height?" -> -vbparams doesn't permit having segwit active before block 432 12:17 < achow101> what's the point of doing 0.15.1 without segwit wallet? 12:17 < morcos> i think practically speaking we should focus on what would be good to have before 2X 12:17 < wumpus> I'm not sure what is the rationale for doing 0.15.1, are there important bugfixes that we need to get out? 12:17 < morcos> and we should do that withotu segwit wallet 12:18 < BlueMatt> wumpus: mostly I want https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11487/commits/09cf35122a219217f841e4e4f7847386eb0b0b8a pre-b2x 12:18 < achow101> what needs to be done before 2X then? 12:18 < BlueMatt> but dunno if thats a realistic goal (it probably isnt) 12:18 < morcos> wumpus: there are a few edge cases with invalid chains that might cause for annoying behavior 12:18 < wumpus> I mean MarcoFalke backported a lot of things, that's nice to have in #11447 12:18 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11447 | 0.15.1: Backports by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #11447 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:19 < wumpus> BlueMatt: so 11487 should get 0.15.1 tag? 12:19 < BlueMatt> its not critical, but having edge cases that you may see if you're offline during the fork and suddenly you accept blocks that are on the 2x chain (if they're <4m weight and more work and within our pruning window) thats kinda annoying 12:19 < wumpus> or really just that commit? 12:20 < gmaxwell> Just for the record I think it is terrible that we're effectively being forced to delay segwit wallet due to this nonsense. 12:20 < wumpus> if so, please open a separate PR for that 12:20 < BlueMatt> wumpus: the rest of that pr is just test changes and other tiny things 12:20 < wumpus> gmaxwell: yes, me to, I'd personally prefer not to change our plans for them 12:20 < gmaxwell> (even if we don't bump around the versions for it, the fact that people are spending time on these other things creates delays) 12:21 < wumpus> but if we need robustness changes now, better to do it 12:21 < meshcollider> And add to high priority for review? 12:21 < wumpus> yes, and remove the rest probably 12:21 < gmaxwell> In any case, so far I haven't seen PRs that we need in advance merged yet, if there were some in, I would support doing a release with them. 12:21 < gmaxwell> It's hard to anticipate what we'll need a month in advance... 12:22 < BlueMatt> wumpus: again, I dont think its a "need", but its open for discussion 12:22 < wumpus> if we want to do rc1 start of next week we'll really need to hurry 12:22 < gmaxwell> esp because B2X has already changed their behavior to undermine our protections in the past... :-/ 12:22 < BlueMatt> its really gross that we may accept/store blocks on a chain we know is invalid 12:22 < BlueMatt> but its not gonna do anything but use a bit more disk 12:22 < gmaxwell> Yes, okay, that is a concern. 12:22 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:22 < meshcollider> #11446 probably won't make it either will it 12:23 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11446 | [WIP] Bad block interrogation by achow101 · Pull Request #11446 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:23 < wumpus> yes that's kind of gross 12:23 < gmaxwell> meshcollider: well thats the sort of thing we're talking about right now. 12:23 < achow101> I think 11446 would be necessary for a pre-B2X release so that we kick all peers that give us invalid blocks, not just the first 12:23 < gmaxwell> basically to do these things we'll need to more or less drop working on SW wallet for a moment, get those things, and RC them. ASAP. 12:24 < achow101> and/or maybe #10593 12:24 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10593 | Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers by luke-jr · Pull Request #10593 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:24 < meshcollider> Yeah a release including both of those would be worth it if they're ready for merge in time 12:24 < gmaxwell> misleading PR title. :P 12:25 < wumpus> ok tagged both of them for 0.15.1 12:25 < wumpus> will move the rest that's tagged with 0.15.1 and unmerged to 0.15.2 when we actually decide to do the release 12:25 < sdaftuar> fyi i have one more pr that is along these same lines that i will be opening shortly... basically trying to implement some of the outbound peer protection we talked abotu last week's meeting 12:26 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: I'll put some time into helping review that. (though I'll be in the air much of the weekend...) 12:26 < sdaftuar> awesome, thanks 12:26 < cfields> sorry, i had to run out for a min.... Lots of people are expecting 0.15.1 as the release that enables more segwit wallet functionality. Releasing without that will be very confusing to lots of people. Is there any reason not to call it 0.15.0.2 ? 12:26 < sipa> no opinion on versioning 12:26 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: how is it misleading? 12:26 < jonasschnelli> agree with cfields 12:27 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 12:27 < jnewbery> +1 for 0.15.0.2 12:27 < cfields> It's just that they've been told over and ove to wait for 0.15.1... 12:27 < meshcollider> Agree with cfields as well 12:27 < jl2012> ack 0.15.0.2 12:27 < wumpus> no opinion on how to call it either, 0.15.0.2 was really a joke though, usually we do minor-mimor versions only for tiny changes 12:27 < gmaxwell> I'd prefer to call 0.15.1 the one with segwit wallet just due to comms reasons. 12:27 < luke-jr> personally, I'd prefer to move segwitwallet to 0.16, but it's numbers so who cares 12:27 < wumpus> anyhow if everyone wants 0.15.0.2 , we'll have 0.15.0.2 12:27 < luke-jr> comms reasons probably outweigh any reason to move it 12:27 < meshcollider> Or look at #9653 now and throw everyone into confusion ;) 12:27 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9653 | Versioning convention for Bitcoin Core · Issue #9653 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:28 < wumpus> yes, agree with that 12:28 < gmaxwell> (comms reasons is that there are a billionity messages on the internet saying 0.15.1 has segwit wallet) 12:28 < wumpus> we've kind of promised segwit wallet in 0.15.1 12:28 < cfields> right 12:28 < achow101> what if we did segwit wallet this weekend? *ducks* 12:28 < luke-jr> let's go with 0.15.½ :P 12:28 < wumpus> achow101: if we did that, we'ld not get around to the ultra-high-priority ones that warrant releasing now 12:28 < meshcollider> Lol 12:28 < gmaxwell> so obviously we release 0.15.3 ... and then 0.15.1 after it... 12:28 < wumpus> luke-jr: hehe floating point version numbers 12:29 < wumpus> luke-jr: eh I mean fractions 12:29 < meshcollider> 0.15.0.../.1 12:29 < cfields> gmaxwell: starting to sound like gcc. Obviously gcc 8.0 is the beta :p 12:30 < gmaxwell> 0.15.A 12:30 < wumpus> ok, so 0.15.0.2 it is, will create a milestone and change the tags 12:30 < gmaxwell> in any case, lets worry about that when we're actually ready to release; I think we understand the tradeoffs. 12:30 < gmaxwell> sounds good to me 12:30 < cfields> sorry for the late chime-in 12:32 < wumpus> yeah no problem, I guess we covered both "segwit wallet" and "pre-2x release" - any other topics? 12:32 < morcos> So not clear to me if we've decided 12:32 < morcos> Are we doing a pre-2X release or trying to at least 12:33 < wumpus> my impression is that we're going to try 12:33 < morcos> It would be helpful to note if we're clearly prioritizing that and putting them on high-priority-for-review 12:33 < wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/milestone/32 12:33 < wumpus> yes, they should be (and anything else should go for nwo) 12:33 < gmaxwell> it sounds like we're going to try... 12:34 < gmaxwell> also keep in mind that there is value in having protections in master, even if they're not in a release... a small percentage of nodes in the network being protected can help improve stability for everyone. 12:35 < morcos> achow101: can you please update title and description for #11446 12:35 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11446 | [WIP] Bad block interrogation by achow101 · Pull Request #11446 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:35 < achow101> morcos: hehe sure 12:35 < morcos> And do you think we don't need #10593 if we have 11446? 12:35 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10593 | Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers by luke-jr · Pull Request #10593 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:35 < gmaxwell> in any case, based on CST prices, I think we should focus on protections that help in the case that we have disguised B2X peers and they're getting no blocks at all (Because they've rejected the bitcoin chain). 12:36 < achow101> morcos: #10953 does something mostly different 12:36 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10953 | [Refactor] Combine scriptPubKey and amount as CTxOut in CScriptCheck by jl2012 · Pull Request #10953 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:36 < sipa> wrong pr number? 12:36 < morcos> 593, see above 12:36 < achow101> oops 10593 12:36 < gmaxwell> #10593 12:36 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10593 | Relax punishment for peers relaying invalid blocks and headers by luke-jr · Pull Request #10593 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub 12:36 < morcos> in 593 you say it does the same as 11446 12:37 < wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 updated 12:37 < achow101> I suggested it because luke-jr that it would do about the same thing plus some more, but I noticed that it doesn't really 12:37 < morcos> basically i'm just trying to get concept acks here on what we're going for 12:37 < morcos> ok 12:37 < achow101> see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10593#issuecomment-334946691 12:38 < achow101> I thought luke-jr might change it to include what 11446 does 12:38 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: yes, regarding b2x peers that have less hashpower and are disguised, I believe thats what sdaftuar is working on 12:38 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: great, okay! 12:38 < morcos> OK Can someone motivate 10593 for me 12:39 < morcos> I mean not really motivate, but explain why it is important before 2X 12:39 < luke-jr> It's more important before the next softfork, not so much before 2X, AFAIK 12:39 < morcos> ok, that was my reading... 12:39 < luke-jr> (if 2X would accept a reorg, it'd be useful, but 2X doesn't) 12:40 < luke-jr> oh, if 2X users want to switch to Bitcoin, it might be useful for them 12:40 < gmaxwell> I thought it also added disconnects on invalids that we currently don't have? 12:40 < gmaxwell> luke-jr: because it turns some bans into disconnects? 12:40 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: right 12:40 < morcos> can we perhaps remove that from high priority and concentrate on the pre-2X things... (hmm, good point i suppose) 12:40 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: IIRC, the disconnect-on-merely-invalid is achow101's PR 12:41 < achow101> gmaxwell: it turns bans into disconnects, which includes the ban on the first time we see an invalid block 12:43 < gmaxwell> I think that in and of itself is less critical. 12:43 < luke-jr> so I guess 10593 is a nice-to-have before 2X, but not a must-have 12:43 < luke-jr> ? 12:43 < achow101> luke-jr: agreed 12:44 < morcos> that sounds right to me 12:44 < gmaxwell> sounds reasonable to me. 12:45 < wumpus> so 10593 is less-than-higher-priority-for-review? :p 12:45 < sdaftuar> slightly-higher-priority-for-review 12:45 < sipa> elevated-priority 12:45 < morcos> or as we used to do it in Core: 14275131000 12:46 < sipa> $ date --date "@14275131000" 12:46 < sipa> Thu May 12 03:10:00 PDT 2422 12:46 * sdaftuar laughs after alex explained the joke 12:46 < achow101> ??? 12:46 < morcos> heh, i made up the number b/c i was lazy, but there were number ranges.. one was for medium-high priority 12:46 < BlueMatt> lol, ok, so did we ever discuss segwit wallet? 12:47 < BlueMatt> sorry, I kinda derailed things :( 12:47 < sipa> apparently we discussed it being less priority 12:47 < sipa> or something 12:47 < wumpus> TIL that date command line can convert unix timestamps, thanks sipa 12:47 < BlueMatt> noooooo :( 12:47 < sipa> wumpus: also, date "+%s" 12:47 < morcos> how did you do that otherwise? 12:47 < gmaxwell> 57599999 12:47 < morcos> thanks gmax 12:47 < BlueMatt> wumpus: oh, another hint, when reading git logs, it is useful to have a vim keybinding to call that command so you can see when it happened :p 12:47 < wumpus> morcos: time.ctime(n) or time.localtime(n) in python 12:48 < gmaxwell> morcos: python is pretty useful for date math. 12:48 < sipa> BlueMatt: i will work on describing the alternatives for segwit wallet support, and some thoughts on wallet/ismine in 0.16 12:48 < sipa> BlueMatt: but blocker is the always-segwit-active 12:48 < gmaxwell> e.g. script I use for IBD benchmarking uses python to difference bitcoin log dates. 12:48 < wumpus> gmaxwell: exactly 12:48 < sipa> so review/discussion can focus on that for now, i think 12:49 < BlueMatt> sipa: well, at least personally, I'm also fine with taking the always-active-segwit pr and then reverting it if we decide we want something more like jl2012's on master, isnt a big changeset either way 12:49 < BlueMatt> so I'm not sure I'd call it a "blocker" in that sense..... 12:49 < sipa> fair 12:50 * luke-jr needs to move his bitcoin git to a SSD 12:51 < wumpus> any other topics? 12:51 < BlueMatt> #action activate segwit 12:51 < wumpus> luke-jr: well at least your entire SSD won't be full with one git checkout, as with the linux kernel :-) 12:52 * sipa fetches his DeLorean 12:52 < wumpus> activate segwit in 1970 12:52 < luke-jr> wumpus: git-show of a tag is taking me a full minute here :/ 12:52 < BlueMatt> luke-jr: is that on a 10-year-old sd card?! 12:52 < gmaxwell> $ git grep -i delorean | wc -l 12:52 < gmaxwell> 1 12:52 < sipa> BlueMatt: it's on core memory 12:52 < wumpus> luke-jr: git show? that just retrieves an object, that's slow even for a mechanical hd 12:52 < cfields> BlueMatt: pretty sure we did that in a previous meeting. Though we could do it again and make it 2x activations... 12:52 < luke-jr> BlueMatt: fairly newish 5400 RPM magnetic drive 12:52 < luke-jr> wumpus: it does many many MB of reading for some reason 12:53 < wumpus> git log can be kind of slow here, especially when showing branches (as I have about 800 local branches), but show is super quick 12:53 < BlueMatt> 5400 RPM? eww 12:53 < jonasschnelli> :-) 12:53 < luke-jr> wumpus: I suspect part of the cause is that I never prune my git repo 12:53 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 12:53 < wumpus> luke-jr: can you prune a git repo? 12:53 < wumpus> (or do you mean gc?) 12:53 < sipa> git gc 12:53 < wumpus> I interpreted that literally, like converting it to a shallow repo 12:54 < sipa> git prune also exists, just removes unreachable objects 12:54 < sipa> gc does that + compacting storage 12:54 < luke-jr> wumpus: gc 12:54 < sipa> shallow repo is something else 12:54 < wumpus> git gc --aggresive --force --prune=all 12:54 < luke-jr> my gc is configured to only compress :P 12:54 < sipa> why? 12:55 < luke-jr> so I can git-show any object hash from any point in time, even if it's long-dead 12:55 < CryptAxe> luke-jr I do 2 ssds in raid 0 + rsync backup to disk and it works great 12:55 < luke-jr> .git is only 1.1 GB, surprisingly 12:55 < sipa> perhaps you can split up your repo in an archive version + working version 12:55 < luke-jr> sipa: well, I'm hoping simply moving it to SSD will be good enough XD 12:55 < BlueMatt> #topic optimal git workflows for Core memory users 12:55 < sipa> seems this meeting is out of topics? 12:56 < sipa> #link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory 12:56 < luke-jr> wumpus: you suggested waiting to squash fixups into multiwallet until it's about to be merged; but jnewbery is asking for a rebase.. :x 12:57 < wumpus> when I started using worktrees I've moved everything to work from a single .git tree (with seaprate checkouts for some branches), but a seperate archive and working copy sounds pretty good 12:57 < sipa> if you need a rebase anyway, i generally don't care about squashing fixups 12:57 < wumpus> mercury delay line memory ftw 12:57 < wumpus> luke-jr: yes in that case feel free to squash 12:58 < luke-jr> k, *done* 12:58 < wumpus> #endmeeting 12:58 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Oct 12 19:58:39 2017 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) 12:58 < lightningbot> Minutes: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-12-19.02.html 12:58 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-12-19.02.txt 12:58 < lightningbot> Log: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-10-12-19.02.log.html 13:01 < wumpus> btw the meetings hasn't been updated since june https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/, anyone know what happened to G1lius? 13:03 < gmaxwell> I've seen him posting on reddit, I assume he's just been busy. 13:03 < wumpus> he's had no github activity at all since :/ 13:03 < wumpus> okay 13:04 < karelb> wumpus: yeah I wanted to ask this too, I wanted to read some recent summaries 13:04 < wumpus> good to know he's alive and kicking on reddit at least :) 13:04 < wumpus> if he's too busy we can try to find another volunteer 13:05 -!- Cheeseo [~Cheeseo@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:05 < achow101> I can see if someone at my school's cryptocurrency club is interested in doing that 13:05 < wumpus> achow101: cool, thanks 13:05 < achow101> or we could ask harding :) 13:05 < wumpus> it doesn't have to be as extensive as he did, but the basic info such as a link to the irc log and big bullet points would be nice 13:06 < wumpus> what G1lius did was really great though 13:06 < wumpus> harding is probably too busy too 13:07 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:17 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-28-226-107-190.nextelmovil.cl] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 13:29 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:31 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-28-226-107-190.nextelmovil.cl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:34 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:37 -!- Giszmo [~leo@ip-28-226-107-190.nextelmovil.cl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 13:43 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-73-68-232-79.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:44 -!- Cogito_Ergo_Sum [~Myself@80.107.149.120] has quit [] 13:51 -!- wvr- [~wvr@232.red-83-40-193.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 13:52 -!- wvr [~wvr@181.red-83-57-81.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 13:54 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:06 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sdaftuar opened pull request #11490: Disconnect from outbound peers with bad headers chains (master...2017-10-outbound-peers-good-chain) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11490 14:09 < sdaftuar> wumpus: ^ this is the PR i had in mind as a consideration for 0.15.0.2 14:10 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 14:13 < wumpus> ok, will tag 14:15 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] 14:23 -!- mmgen [~mmgen@gateway/tor-sasl/mmgen] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:24 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] mess110 opened pull request #11491: [gui] Add proxy icon in statusbar (master...add_proxy_icon) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11491 14:26 -!- Emcy [~MC@unaffiliated/emcy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:36 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:39 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:45 -!- esotericnonsense [~esotericn@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/esotericnonsense] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:50 -!- DrOlmer [~DrOlmer@unaffiliated/drolmer] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 14:50 -!- DrOlmer [~DrOlmer@unaffiliated/drolmer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 14:56 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 6 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f74459dba6de...470c730e3fa9 14:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 55224af practicalswift: Remove redundant NULL checks after new 14:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7466991 practicalswift: Remove redundant check (!ecc is always true) 14:56 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b5fb339 practicalswift: Remove duplicate uriParts.size() > 0 check 14:56 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10898: Fix invalid checks (NULL checks after dereference, redundant checks, etc.) (master...invalid-logic) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10898 14:58 -!- eck [~eck@fsf/member/eck] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 14:58 -!- asoltys [~adam@115.96.198.104.bc.googleusercontent.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:03 -!- eck [~eck@fsf/member/eck] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:06 -!- asoltys [~adam@115.96.198.104.bc.googleusercontent.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:20 < promag> jnewbery: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11472#issuecomment-336280787 same PR or new? 15:22 < harding> achow101, wumpus: I'll poke G1lius and see what's up with the meeting notes. 15:22 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] promag opened pull request #11492: Fix leak in CDB constructor (master...2017-10-cdb-constructor-leak) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11492 15:22 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:23 -!- dermoth [~dermoth@gateway/tor-sasl/dermoth] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:30 -!- wraithm [~wraithm@unaffiliated/wraithm] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 15:32 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 15:35 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/470c730e3fa9...424be0330514 15:35 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8c2f4b8 Jeremy Rubin: Expose more parallelism with relaxed atomics (suggested in #9938). Fix a test to check the exclusive or of two properties rather than just or. 15:35 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 424be03 Pieter Wuille: Merge #10099: Slightly Improve Unit Tests for Checkqueue... 15:35 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #10099: Slightly Improve Unit Tests for Checkqueue (master...speedup-checkqueue-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10099 15:36 < promag> Is ryanofsky around? 15:36 < ryanofsky> hi 15:36 < promag> see my comment in 11492 15:36 < promag> do you think I should squash? 15:36 < promag> ty 15:37 -!- Guyver2 [AdiIRC@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)] 15:38 -!- timothy [~tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 15:39 < ryanofsky> slight preference for keeping two commits, and updating message on second commit so it is more clearly a bugfix not just a refactoring 15:39 < promag> ok, thanks 15:43 -!- timothy [~tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has quit [Client Quit] 15:52 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 15:58 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-73-68-232-79.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:02 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:05 -!- mess110 [~kiki@78.97.218.2] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 16:07 -!- DrOlmer [~DrOlmer@unaffiliated/drolmer] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 16:18 -!- timothy [~tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:20 -!- DrOlmer [~DrOlmer@unaffiliated/drolmer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:24 -!- timothy [~tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 16:34 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Excess Flood] 16:35 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:36 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:41 -!- gbr_ [d5f50ca6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.213.245.12.166] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:56 -!- timothy [~tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 16:56 -!- timothy [~tredaelli@redhat/timothy] has quit [Client Quit] 17:19 -!- jb55 [~jb55@208.98.200.100] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 17:27 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:28 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ygyxjwfwqfmrddko] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 17:30 -!- gbr_ [d5f50ca6@gateway/web/freenode/ip.213.245.12.166] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 17:36 -!- jb55 [~jb55@208.98.200.100] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 17:45 -!- jb55 [~jb55@208.98.200.100] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 17:56 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:00 -!- btcdrak [uid239175@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vtobnjipglvtrjni] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 18:00 < btcdrak> Twitter have verified the @bitcoincoreorg twitter account, which now displays the verified checkmark https://twitter.com/bitcoincoreorg/status/918638354069164032 18:01 < btcdrak> Twitter reached out shortly after taking down the impersonator account down. They apparently have done their research and were well aware of the situation. 18:02 < esotericnonsense> \o/ 18:08 < sipa> btcdrak: cool, thanks! 18:17 < meshcollider> btcdrak: good news :) 18:18 < grubles> nice 18:54 < Emcy> nice 19:07 -!- bigtim [6021a9b7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.96.33.169.183] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:25 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-73-68-232-79.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 19:30 -!- roadcrap [~roadcrypt@unaffiliated/roadcrap] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 19:34 -!- roadcrap [~roadcrypt@unaffiliated/roadcrap] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:14 -!- wxss [~chatzilla@62-4-22-47.rev.poneytelecom.eu] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:18 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 20:18 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:22 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:27 -!- promag [~promag@bl22-247-244.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 20:28 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 20:33 -!- bigtim [6021a9b7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.96.33.169.183] has quit [Quit: Page closed] 20:50 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~chris@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 21:08 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-204-28-214-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:32 -!- gmaxwell [gmaxwell@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has quit [Killed (Sigyn (Spam is off topic on freenode.))] 21:41 -!- goatpig [56f75683@gateway/web/freenode/ip.86.247.86.131] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 21:47 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@c-73-68-232-79.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has quit [] 22:09 -!- dabura667_ [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:09 -!- dabura667 [~dabura667@p98110-ipngnfx01marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 22:27 -!- jb55 [~jb55@70-36-49-138.dyn.novuscom.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:27 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zetwxoogfbwpjmvr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 22:40 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] cherouvim opened pull request #11493: ultra trivial typo fix in docs (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/11493 22:53 -!- Cogito_Ergo_Sum [~Myself@80.107.149.120] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:14 -!- maaku [~mark@173.234.25.100] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:15 < maaku> style question: when making something like an STL container, should I still adhere to the bitcoin style guide (e.g. CamelCase methods)? 23:18 < sipa> at least for two examples of those (limitedmap and prevector), we follow STL naming conventions, but that's mostly because these are actually drop-in replacements 23:22 -!- meshcollider [uid246294@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ysyovlnuzuwyhdbl] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 23:35 -!- psyduck [728f59e7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.114.143.89.231] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:36 -!- psyduck is now known as Guest76632 23:36 < Guest76632> hi 23:37 < Guest76632> How can I make a request to update the list of exchanges on bitcoin.org? 23:37 -!- sturles [~sturles@unaffiliated/sturles] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 23:37 < sipa> https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues 23:38 -!- sturles [~sturles@ulrik.uio.no] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:38 -!- sturles [~sturles@ulrik.uio.no] has quit [Changing host] 23:38 -!- sturles [~sturles@unaffiliated/sturles] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:39 -!- Guest76632 [728f59e7@gateway/web/freenode/ip.114.143.89.231] has quit [Client Quit] 23:45 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:49 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:50 -!- gmaxwell [gmaxwell@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev 23:56 -!- fanquake [~fanquake@unaffiliated/fanquake] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]