--- Log opened Mon Nov 30 00:00:31 2020
01:24 -!- reallll is now known as belcher
06:02 < kcalvinalvin> meet.jit.si/utreexo if anyone cares to join
07:28 < dergoegge> btw. i checked out the BIP30 stuff in core and it seems as if they did turn of BIP30 checks after BIP34 activated: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/06d81ad516f1d136da9f03ca2ae823211c0f6988
07:29 < dergoegge> but then they found that there are blocks before the BIP34 activation height that have indicated heights that are greater than the BIP34 height
07:29 < dergoegge> which led to: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5b8b387752e8c493a8e87795ae6ddb78b45b1a5d
07:30 < dergoegge> its pretty well documented
07:31 < dergoegge> so i guess on testnet BIP30 checks will turn on again soon
08:02 < kcalvinalvin> adiabat ok so I'll go on with the server code for now (just wanna get it actually working)
08:03 < kcalvinalvin> I'll try moving the code over to btcd, if it works out nicely, I'll make a PR like so. If not, I guess I'll keep it as the way PR #230 is now
08:05 < kcalvinalvin> dergoegge yeah haha a literal essay about BIP34 in the comments :p
08:07 < kcalvinalvin> hmm that TODO was made in 2018? Oh man..
08:19 < adiabat> I don't really get the bug with bip34; why is 1983702 a special block height?
08:20 < adiabat> ohhh oh wait I get it
08:21 < adiabat> whatever random data was in the first 4 bytes from pre-bip34 coinbases
08:21 < adiabat> hmm should have put some magic prefix in the beginning of bip34
08:24 < adiabat> hah what a mess.  But yeah there isn't really a way to do bip30 with utreexo, so unless there's a consensus rule fix, utreexo can only work for 25 years
08:25 < adiabat> I guess the consensus rule fix would have to be backwards compatible with bip34, so would need to have something like... keep the 4 byte height, and then require some magic bytes after it
08:26 < adiabat> hm probably a simpler way to fix all this from the beginning would have been to require the coinbase to have the previous block hash in it
08:27 < adiabat> could even put it there instead of the header to save space.  but then makes header validation a bit more annoying.  So could just have it in both places
08:27 < adiabat> oh well.  Probably will be fixed before 2045.
09:57 < ja> adiabat: wouldn't it make sense to put the meeting time in the topic of the channel?
17:27 -!- reallll [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #utreexo
17:30 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
17:39 -!- ghost43_ [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:39 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #utreexo
--- Log closed Tue Dec 01 00:00:32 2020