--- Day changed Thu Mar 02 2017
00:10 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:30 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
00:32 < wumpus> at some point, github is going to do something really stupid and we'll see an exodus of projects, just like what happened to sourceforge, and we'll have to move our main development hub somewhere else. But this seems largely based on misinterpretation and very avid attempts at "reading between the lines", at least it seems to me...
00:38 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d19d45a1e6a4...b00ba6251f71
00:38 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5b528d7 Marko Bencun: qt: clean up initialize/shutdown signals...
00:38 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b00ba62 Jonas Schnelli: Merge #9834: qt: clean up initialize/shutdown signals...
00:38 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #9834: qt: clean up initialize/shutdown signals (master...exitcode) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9834
00:40 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #9902: Lightweight abstraction of boost::filesystem (master...2017_03_fs) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9902
00:44 < jonasschnelli> ryanofsky: I have a question about your comment: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9681#discussion_r102847930
00:44 < jonasschnelli> Tell me if you are available...
00:46 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:53 -!- owowo [~ovovo@31.7.59.226] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:53 -!- owowo [~ovovo@31.7.59.226] has quit [Changing host]     
00:53 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:06 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
01:07 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b00ba6251f71...0496e15aef1c
01:07 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6665977 Gregory Sanders: remove 'label' filter for rpc command help
01:08 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0496e15 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9894: remove 'label' filter for rpc command help...
01:08 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9894: remove 'label' filter for rpc command help (master...filterrpc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9894
01:09 < luke-jr> wumpus: GitHub's ToS were never particularly good
01:09 < wumpus> luke-jr: indeed
01:10 -!- owowo [~ovovo@31.7.59.226] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:10 -!- owowo [~ovovo@31.7.59.226] has quit [Changing host]     
01:10 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:17 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:20 -!- Victor_sueca is now known as Victorsueca     
01:28 -!- JackH [~laptop@217.149.140.177] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
01:29 -!- MarcoFalke_ [8af602fa@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.250] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:30 < MarcoFalke_> jonasschnelli: Can you update/upload your public subkey on a keyserver.
01:40 -!- JackH [~laptop@2a02:a210:681:980:953e:d391:fecc:4d2f] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:44 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-54-251.cablep.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
01:47 < jonasschnelli> MarcoFalke_: I did... 30mins ago... mit/debian keyservers at least.
01:48 < jonasschnelli> Can someone check if i haven't screwed up my first new subkey commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b00ba6251f71fa1edaabdf809514e1bc3c67862e
01:48 < jonasschnelli> I think the key is here available: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x29D4BCB6416F53EC
01:48 < jonasschnelli> 03C7922D
01:50 < wumpus> yes, I can request the key
01:50 < wumpus> sub      0E/0x713A6E6216EA1E7F 2017-03-01 [expires: 2027-02-27]
01:51 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
01:54 < wumpus> gpg2 is more informative: sub   nistp256/0x713A6E6216EA1E7F 2017-03-01 [S] [expires: 2027-02-27]
01:56 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
01:59 < wumpus> for 9834: * |   gpg: Signature made Thu 02 Mar 2017 09:37:40 AM CET
01:59 < wumpus> |\ \  gpg:                using RSA key 0x1EB776BB03C7922D
01:59 < wumpus> | | | gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
01:59 < wumpus> that seems a different key? I cannot find that one anywhere
02:00 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: hmm.. 0x1EB776BB03C7922D is available at https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x29D4BCB6416F53EC IMO
02:01 < jonasschnelli> I delkey every other key (like 0x713A6E6216EA1E7F), but they seem to still exist on the keyserver 
02:01 < jonasschnelli> (*every other key == the NIST-P key)
02:02 < wumpus> gpg2 --recv-key 0x1EB776BB03C7922D gives me "gpg: keyserver receive failed: No data"
02:02 < MarcoFalke_> wumpus try curl and pipe that into gpg
02:03 < MarcoFalke_> I had issues with refreshing keys when they already existed
02:03 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: maybe use a specific keyserver --keyserver pgp.mit.edu
02:03 < wumpus> ah, network issues, I somehow cannot acces pgp.mit.edu at all
02:12 < wumpus> piping https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x29D4BCB6416F53EC into gpg --import worked
02:21 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: I think #9143 is ready for merge... babysteps towards multiple database backend (deprecate BDB)
02:21 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9143 | Refactor ZapWalletTxes to avoid layer violations by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9143 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
02:24 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
02:25 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:28 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: thanks, will take a look
02:29 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:32 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0496e15aef1c...65d90f585a83
02:32 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0165a56 Jonas Schnelli: Refactor ZapWalletTxes to avoid layer vialotions
02:33 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 65d90f5 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9143: Refactor ZapWalletTxes to avoid layer violations...
02:33 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9143: Refactor ZapWalletTxes to avoid layer violations (master...2016/11/wallet_db_refactoring_1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9143
02:34 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:35 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
02:40 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:40 -!- To7 [~theo@cpe-158-222-192-214.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Quit: Whatever]     
02:42 < luke-jr> does #8775 need anything else?
02:42 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8775 | RPC refactoring: Access wallet using new GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest by luke-jr · Pull Request #8775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
02:56 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:00 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
03:07 < wumpus> luke-jr: adding it to my list...
03:11 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
03:14 < wumpus> indeed seems important to get that merged now after the 0.14 fork
03:14 < wumpus> but I need to go over it in detail
03:15 < luke-jr> #7533 would be nice to get over-with (needs rebasing often), but is lacking review (8775 has a decent amount already)
03:15 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7533 | RPC: sendrawtransaction: Allow the user to ignore/override specific rejections by luke-jr · Pull Request #7533 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
03:37 -!- LeMiner2 [LeMiner@5ED1AFBF.cm-7-2c.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:40 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
03:40 -!- LeMiner2 is now known as LeMiner     
03:47 -!- Victor_sueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:48 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
03:49 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:50 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
03:50 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:50 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:51 -!- Victor_sueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
03:55 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
03:55 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:58 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:04 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
04:17 -!- To7 [~theo@cpe-158-222-192-214.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:37 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:40 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:43 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
04:44 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:46 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
04:49 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
04:50 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ian-kelling opened pull request #9903: Docs: add details to -rpcclienttimeout doc (master...docs-client-timeout) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9903
05:04 -!- e4xit_ [~textual@cpc1-cmbg20-2-0-cust188.5-4.cable.virginm.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
05:04 -!- e4xit [~textual@cpc1-cmbg20-2-0-cust188.5-4.cable.virginm.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:09 -!- BashCo_ [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:12 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
05:13 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
05:17 -!- rabidus [~rabidus@uhiainen.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]     
05:17 -!- rabidus [~rabidus@uhiainen.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:18 -!- cryptapus_afk is now known as cryptapus     
05:18 -!- cryptapus [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has quit [Quit: conversation terminated!]     
05:18 -!- rafalcpp [~racalcppp@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
05:20 -!- instagibbs [~instagibb@pool-100-15-117-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
05:23 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uyedmamyzfdnbvau] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:27 -!- ovovo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:39 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:43 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
05:46 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
05:47 -!- neha [~narula@tbilisi.csail.mit.edu] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:47 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
05:49 -!- ovovo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
05:49 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:54 -!- cryptapus [~cryptapus@unaffiliated/cryptapus] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:55 -!- cryptapus is now known as cryptapus_afk     
05:55 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #9904: test: Fail if InitBlockIndex fails (master...2017_03_test_check_blkindex_result) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9904
05:55 -!- n1ce_ [~n1ce@114.14.117.91.dynamic.reverse-mundo-r.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:57 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:57 -!- n1ce [~n1ce@unaffiliated/n1ce] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
06:02 -!- jnewbery [~Thunderbi@static-100-38-11-146.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:06 -!- rafalcpp [~racalcppp@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:14 -!- isle2983 [~isle2983@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/isle2983] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:21 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
06:32 < ryanofsky> jonasschnelli: something about shared_ptr?
06:32 < jonasschnelli> ryanofsky: I think i could solve it...
06:33 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:33 < jonasschnelli> ryanofsky: it was about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9681
06:34 < jonasschnelli> ryanofsky: So I did this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c81a8a7ddef6f3c1e4cb0816aa12ae16b91cbf02
06:37 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a124:7e8f:406f:f683] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
06:39 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:40 < BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: yes, it appears pgp.mit.edu is broken (not syncing to other servers), again....this happens often
06:40 < BlueMatt> anyway, I pushed your key to the sks pool, so it should be good in a bit
06:42 < jonasschnelli> Okay. Pushed to sks pool
06:44 -!- riemann [~riemann@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:13 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@ip92-176-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:14 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
07:15 -!- nOgAnOo [uid146237@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ciwccehviwefuqrs] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:15 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:16 -!- rafalcpp [~racalcppp@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:18 -!- rafalcpp [~racalcppp@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:26 -!- str4d [~str4d@107-204-212-44.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:26 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:27 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@ip92-176-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
07:27 -!- CubicEar_ [~cubiceart@ip92-176-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:34 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uyedmamyzfdnbvau] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
07:35 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:36 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:37 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
07:37 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:37 -!- lclc [~lclc@unaffiliated/lclc] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:38 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
07:48 -!- molz_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:52 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
07:59 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:06 -!- CubicEar_ is now known as CubicEarth     
08:19 -!- BashCo_ [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
08:21 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
08:43 -!- riemann [~riemann@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
08:45 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-25-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:58 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:03 < cfields> wumpus: nice work on fs! reading now.
09:34 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:59 -!- Pasha [~Cory@unaffiliated/cory] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:07 -!- nOgAnOo [uid146237@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ciwccehviwefuqrs] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
10:12 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
10:13 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:20 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@ip92-176-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
10:21 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@ip92-176-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:29 -!- MarcoFalke [~marco@2001:4ca0:0:f226:a063:75b:7f88:d780] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:32 -!- juscamarena [~justin@47.148.176.74] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:34 -!- juscamarena [~justin@47.148.176.74] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:37 -!- Pasha is now known as Cory     
10:51 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
10:51 -!- Giszmo1 [~leo@ip-151-233.219.201.nextelmovil.cl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:53 -!- goregrin1 is now known as goregrind     
11:00 < achow101> meeting?
11:00 < sipa> meeting!
11:01 < Chris_Stewart_5> gniteem
11:01 < wumpus> #meetingstart
11:01 < wumpus> #startmeeting
11:01 < lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Mar  2 19:01:32 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
11:01 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
11:02 < wumpus> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt 
11:02 < wumpus> instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 instagibbs
11:02 < sdaftuar> hi     
11:02 < kanzure> hi.     
11:02 < BlueMatt> topics?
11:02  * BlueMatt would like to discuss the lack of unicorns 'round here
11:03 < sdaftuar> topic suggestion: any open items for 0.14?
11:03 < wumpus> BlueMatt: +1
11:03 < wumpus> any new issues with rc3?
11:04 < gmaxwell> I have an issue.
11:04 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
11:04 < gmaxwell> It isn't released yet. :P
11:04 < sipa> ha.     
11:05 < wumpus> hehe
11:05 < BlueMatt> yup     
11:05 < BlueMatt> rc3 was posted yesterday, so release is next tuesday if nothing else comes up, I believe?
11:06 < sipa> seems reasonable
11:06 < gmaxwell> I saw some positive comments on Bitcoin talk.
11:06 < BlueMatt> dont we normally do a week after rc?
11:06 < wumpus> yup, that's how it useually goes yes, BlueMatt
11:08 < MarcoFalke> #action plan to release next tuesday if nothing else comes up
11:08 < morcos> i'd like to briefly discuss the timing of merging #9602..  b/c assuming we are going to do it, it would be nice to get it out of the way so its not a rebase/review nightmare.  i also have a ton of fee estimation changes built on top
11:08 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9602 | Remove coin age priority and free transactions - implementation by morcos · Pull Request #9602 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
11:08 < BlueMatt> morcos: will finish review soon, but so far lgtm
11:09 < BlueMatt> would agree it should merge fast
11:09 < wumpus> #topic discuss the timing of merging #9602
11:09 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9602 | Remove coin age priority and free transactions - implementation by morcos · Pull Request #9602 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
11:09 < sdaftuar> +1 for merging sooner rather than later
11:10 < wumpus> well if it is ready for merge it should be merged
11:10 < sdaftuar> i'm also working on some mining tweaks that i'd rather just build on top of 9602
11:10 < BlueMatt> wumpus: I believe it needs review and morcos is asking for fast-review because its a pita to rebase constantly
11:11 < morcos> wumpus: oh ok, i just wanted to coordinate so people were reviewing at the same time frame... thats when the rebases get annoying, when ppl have reviewed different versions.  and now it seems people have started reviewing
11:11 < morcos> so anyone else that is interested, sooner is better than later
11:11 < gmaxwell> Sounds fine to me, a related subject is that there are a number of other features (like multiwallet) that just missed 0.14 which we should try to get in early rather than later.
11:12 < wumpus> yes     
11:12 < BlueMatt> yes, I imagine luke's dont-use-pwalletMin thing is a pita to rebase as well
11:13 < BlueMatt> that would be #8775
11:13 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8775 | RPC refactoring: Access wallet using new GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest by luke-jr · Pull Request #8775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
11:13 < gmaxwell> it's also an issue that if these things drag on until late in the cycle they'll miss again.
11:14 < wumpus> right, so all review multiwallet pulls
11:14 < wumpus> #8775 should probably go in first
11:14 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8775 | RPC refactoring: Access wallet using new GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest by luke-jr · Pull Request #8775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
11:15 < MarcoFalke> They don't conflict according to git merge, so no strict order required
11:15 < gmaxwell> It might be useful, not in this meeting, but for people to think about what they'd like the big features of 0.15 to be and make sure we make progress early enough on those things so that they can actually be there. :) I feel like there were things that at least I personally wanted in 0.14 but didn't give them enough attention until too late.
11:16 < morcos> 1 major feature thats in the back of my mind, but a bit complicated so might require some discussion as to whether we want it and when is automated fee-bumping
11:16 < wumpus> well at least there should be time for features again in 0.15. 0.14 time was mostly spent on segwit
11:16 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:16 < sipa> famous last words :)
11:16 < sipa> but i agree
11:17 < gmaxwell> morcos: I would replace 'automated fee bumping' with 'precomputed fee bumping'  E.g. when you sign, presign all the bumps, locktimed... so they don't interfear with the wallet encryption.. and could even be handed off to someone if you go offline.
11:17 < wumpus> well I don't know of any large upcoming softfork projects monopolizing everyone at least?
11:17 < gmaxwell> wumpus: everything like that is on hold for segwit! 
11:18 < wumpus> so hopefully for 0.16 again then :)
11:18 < wumpus> anyhow, it means for 0.15 we can focus on software features instead of network/consensus features
11:18 < morcos> gmaxwell: do we not have any suggested SF's that aren't built off segwit in the queue?  lets take advantage of BIP 9!
11:19 < sipa> raise min difficulty, optional utxo commitments, ...
11:19 < gmaxwell> on that subject, we should reconsider some things around how segwit works: that we won't mine once segwit is active without the flag set,  and we don't set the versionbit without the flag... Both of these are foolish IMO.  
11:20 < sipa> oh, by flag you mean whether the GBT client indicates support?
11:20 < gmaxwell> by 'don't set the versionbit without the flag-- if the GBT client doesn't signal segwit support we don't set the BIP 9 bit. Which is stupid, since we'll happily enforce the rules.
11:20 < sdaftuar> we do that so that segwit can't activate without the miners actually mining segwit transactions
11:20 < BlueMatt> sdaftuar: I'm not too worried about that
11:21 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: yea but I think that is an error. So what if they don't? Then there is just less capacity for segwit txn initially until they upgrade, and they'll lose out on fees.
11:21 < BlueMatt> I prefer for miners to be able to mine and just lose out on fee revenue than stop mining
11:21 < wumpus> #action review and merge #8775 and #9602 as soon as possible, they are prone to turning into rebase/merge nightmares
11:21 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8775 | RPC refactoring: Access wallet using new GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest by luke-jr · Pull Request #8775 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
11:21 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9602 | Remove coin age priority and free transactions - implementation by morcos · Pull Request #9602 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
11:21 < sdaftuar> gmaxwell: my concern (before we got to the point we're at now) was that segwit could have activated with 0 miners mining
11:22 < sdaftuar> and then mempools could be attacekd with transactions that wouldn't confirm
11:22 < morcos> gmaxwell: agreed, as long as we know that SOME miners are mining them..  which seems we're at that poin tnow
11:22 < sdaftuar> perhaps now we can relax it
11:22 < gmaxwell> sdaftuar: Yes, I agree. That would be silly. But we're not there now. :)
11:22 < gmaxwell> I didn't protest at the time because of that. (well actually on the stops mining thing, I thought we fixed that)
11:22 < sipa> suggested topic: CNB calling TBV or not, and CNB caching
11:23 < gmaxwell> (My misunderstanding was that I thought we stopped mining without the gbt-flag entirely once the code had support for it.. and I saw that wasn't the case)
11:24 < gmaxwell> We need to get TBV out of the critical path. I do not really agree with lightswords view on it though-- I think it's important that we have some process that tests that blocks were handing out to mine. It does not need to be in the critical path.
11:24 < wumpus> #topic CNB calling TBV or not, and CNB caching
11:24 < sipa> i believe that what the code does for an actual miners doesn't matter
11:24 < morcos> gmaxwell: sipa: i think the downside of leaving it in the critical path is an extra 150ms of mining with an empty block
11:25 < sipa> yes, that's obvious
11:25 < sipa> and there are various solutions
11:25 < gmaxwell> morcos: or worse.
11:25 < sipa> an easy one (just get rid of the test)
11:25 < sipa> or a hard one (background validation, caching, ...)
11:25 -!- jannes [~jannes@178.132.211.90] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
11:25 < gmaxwell> The challenge with backgrounding it is that test holds cs_main for a long time.
11:25 < morcos> hmm, i guess i was wrong
11:25 < gmaxwell> I have suggested making the validation it does interruptable.
11:26 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I have suggested that many times :)
11:26 < morcos> if you want to build on a prior header, you can't have TBV in the critical path, b/c you might not be even able to do it if you dont' have prior block
11:26 < gmaxwell> E.g. an atomic checked between each transaction which can abort a test validation. This would also be useful for the block proposal validations.
11:27 < gmaxwell> then an incoming block will set the atomic and then block on acquiring cs_main.
11:27 < sipa> morcos: well building on a prior header is easy... i'm sure we can build an empty block that's valid
11:27 < gmaxwell> the background thread would just go to sleep and try again later. Block proposals would just sleep for a bit then try again (while the RPC caller waited)
11:27 < morcos> yes but we have to have a way of skipping TBV on that block don't we? or some really hacking version that calls TBV on a fake chain active
11:28 < sipa> an alternative is just having a background process that every so often runs CNB and caches the result
11:28 < sipa> and then validates it after storing in the cache
11:28 < gmaxwell> Well my thought would be we'd just have a background loop, running even if you don't mine, that TBVs once a minute or so.. and it can get interrupted. and if its interrupted it just gives up until the next minute.
11:29 < morcos> it only needs to be out of the criticial path when there is a new tip... when its just updating the block, it doesn't matter if you wait for it
11:29 < sipa> then GBT can check whether the cached block still builds on top of the best header, and if not, return an empty block
11:29 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@ip92-176-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
11:29 < gmaxwell> okay if doing what sipa suggests a minute is a bit slow!
11:29 < sipa> and a new tip would obviously wake the background thread
11:29 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@ip92-176-15-186.ct.co.cr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:29 < gmaxwell> but sounds like we were thinking of similar-ish things.
11:30 < sipa> however, we wouldn't want such a background CNB for normal nodes
11:30 < gmaxwell> I dunno, at a low enough frequency it would be fine and would create a lot more in-field testing.
11:30 < morcos> the good thing about going down that road is you can be smarter about waking the CNB thread to wait until you have new high fee txs that are at least n seconds old or what have you
11:30 < sdaftuar> morcos: are you going to PR something that calls CNB to keep pcoinsTip warm?
11:31 < sipa> and it would keep the sigcache warm with what we expect to be mined
11:31 < morcos> running TBV on slow hardware over and over is probably bad
11:31 < gmaxwell> One thing I suggested previously is that calling GBT pump the refresh of the cache... so it runs more often if you're calling GBT than otherwise.
11:31 < sipa> gmaxwell: seems reasonable
11:31 < morcos> sdaftuar: i don't remember....   but i think the version i had, only ran it once after a flush
11:31 < sipa> this not only takes TBV out of the critical path, but also CNB
11:31 < gmaxwell> morcos: once a minute? it wouldn't be horrible. Once every 10 minutes? 20 minutes?  I think there is a number where its harmless and we would avoid having code that runs only on a very small number of nodes thus gets inadequate operaiton to expose bugs.
11:32 < morcos> honestly i think a more important direction to go would be to start by replacing GBT with a better framework
11:32 < morcos> and then making that work optimally
11:32 < sipa> morcos: i think this may be orthogonal work
11:32 < gmaxwell> I think this is more or less orthorgonal to GBT. In that anything else will still need to create a block template. :)
11:32 < sipa> it'd just be a wrapper around CNB
11:33 < morcos> i agree its mostly orthogonal.. but one still probably has to occupy our attention first
11:33 < sipa> well GBT replacement needs a lot of external discussion
11:33 < gmaxwell> Well there are design considerations in the 'better thing' that hinge really on how fast CNB is ... and the spectrum of options we want to hand out when we can't give an answer fast.
11:35 < morcos> gmaxwell: hmm.. yes... perhaps what i mean is we should design the better thing so it informs what we want out of CNB/TBV.  and document the design so we dont' forget..  even if we don't do it yet
11:36 < gmaxwell> I think right now I don't have a lot of appetite for major inititavies that we can't just do within the project. But if someone wants to undertake a big coordination effort, that shouldn't slow them down. 
11:36 < gmaxwell> Okay, well an expirement is not something we need permission for... :)
11:36 < morcos> ok no argument here
11:37 < morcos> i guess this all hinges on making the TBV code (and maybe even CNB) interruptible
11:37 -!- bsm1175322 [~mcelrath@135.84.167.210] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]     
11:37 < sipa> i think that's relatively easy
11:37 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:38 < morcos> yeah thinking about it, they both are pretty trivial
11:39 < gmaxwell> Tightly related to this question is the question of bypassing validation for things in our template. As you may be aware some people have been using in-mempoolness as a proxy for validity. This seems rather sketchy to me, though it should be a pretty substantial latency improvement.  The assumption that makes ditching TBV okay also makes doing that okay, I believe.  And there is an open alternat
11:39 < gmaxwell> ive which is potentially more safe, if a transaction is in our template cache for this height, which we've already verified, then its validation could be skipped.
11:40 < morcos> i'm basically opposed to that
11:40 < sipa> relying on the template-validation-cache to be correct seems less risky than relying on the mempool itself to be correct
11:41 < gmaxwell> And if it results in users not using this software but software written by people who don't even know enough to oppose that? 
11:41 < sipa> but it does make TBV consensus critical
11:41 < morcos> i do think we could do these things while waiting for validation
11:41 < gmaxwell> In any case, just a thought.
11:41 < luke-jr> TBV is already consensus-critical, more or less
11:41 < luke-jr> the code for it anyhow
11:41 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
11:41 < gmaxwell> (that using a tested template is safer than the mempool)
11:41 < sipa> luke-jr: well it uses most of ConnectBlock, which definitely is consensus critical
11:42 < morcos> e.g.  get a new block from the network... -> assume valid -> mark all txs in mempool as potentially used -> CNB from remaining -> have not yet validated new tip or TBV new template, and if we find a block, so be it...
11:42 < sipa> luke-jr: that overlap is what makes it less risky
11:42 < gmaxwell> morcos: that is also interesting.
11:42 < gmaxwell> so fast for mining but nothing else.
11:42 < morcos> gmaxwell: i guess its not QUITE that easy
11:43 < gmaxwell> morcos: but in that case you would extend an invalid block, bad.
11:43 < morcos> gmaxwell: yes but only for a couple hundred ms...  you still immediately validate and switch work if there was a problem
11:44 < gmaxwell> (very bad to have miners extending invalid blocks, even for relatively brief intervals, massively amplifies risk for lite clients-- especially since devices may stay on old work for tens of seconds) 
11:44 < sipa> plan: 1) make TBV interruptible 2) add background thread that caches CNB results 3) make GBT return an empty block if the cache does not build on your tip
11:44 < gmaxwell> (and I got flamed to death when I suggested a singaling mechenism for lite clients to ignore confirmations constructed that way)
11:44 < gmaxwell> sipa: that plan sounds good.
11:44 < morcos> well we can't make our plans based on what you get flamed for can we?  :)
11:44 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: I'm more a fan of not relying on validation being fast - mine empty blocks for the 100ms it takes to get a blocktemplate, and relay blocks during validation
11:44 < BlueMatt> problem solved :)
11:45 < sipa> agree
11:45 < sipa> where did you get flamed?
11:45 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: you still need to validate a block before extending it. To not do so is toxic to lite clients which strongly trust that you have.
11:45 < gmaxwell> bitcoin-dev
11:45 < morcos> sipa: ha ha ha, that was a funny
11:46 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: oh? every time I've discussed it with anyone in person they're like "yea, do that, sounds good" :)
11:46 < gmaxwell> I wrote a spec for signaling that you've not validated the prior block. So that lite clients could just ignore those blocks as confirmations.
11:46 < sipa> morcos: it was an honest question - i can remember gmaxwell bringing it up in here a few times, i didn't know there was more to it
11:47 < gmaxwell> I wrote a BIP, draft-maxwell-flagverify
11:47 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: and I think we should implement that when we go to return empty blocks :)
11:47 < BlueMatt> I'm happy to go implement it in lite clients, too
11:47 -!- bsm1175322 [~mcelrath@135.84.167.210] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:49 < gmaxwell> I also think the rise in fees is such that it's increasingly less interesting to produce empty blocks.
11:50 < BlueMatt> true, but 12.5 BTC is sitll > 0 BTC :P
11:50 < luke-jr> should GBT return partial blocks, as the background thread fills it?
11:50 < gmaxwell> lightsword isn't here now it seems but previously he has pointed out that returning an empty template is often bad because the downstream software stack doesn't know to try again immediately and so will mine on it for a long time.
11:50 < BlueMatt> there is just more pressure to limit the time you're spending mining empty blocks :)
11:50 < BlueMatt> Lightsword: yes he is
11:51 < luke-jr> gmaxwell: what Eloipool does to solve that, is return a longpollid which is triggered as soon as the full template is available
11:51 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yes but that isn't the tradeoff. Assuming you mine on the template for --say-- 30 seconds, it's 13.4 BTC expected (13.5 - 100ms of mining) vs 12.5.  or whatnot.
11:51 -!- MarcoFalke_ [8af602fa@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.138.246.2.250] has quit [K-Lined]     
11:52 < sipa> well, we could optionally also make GBT return a partial block and/or block until the full block is available (but not yet TBVed)
11:52 < gmaxwell> e.g. current fees pay for 100ms of delay easily.
11:52 < BlueMatt> gmaxwell: oh? I believe most pools can push a "hard update" or whatever its called
11:52 < BlueMatt> that will force the asic to switch
11:52 < sipa> moving the actual construction to the background won't hurt
11:52 < BlueMatt> there is a flag in stratum for it
11:53 < BlueMatt> (to flush workqueue in asic)
11:53 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: for some hardware retargeting causes misbehavior/loss of performance.
11:53 < gmaxwell> In any case, it isn't so simple.
11:53 < BlueMatt> fair
11:54 < BlueMatt> I assume most modern hardware supports it, though
11:54 < BlueMatt> given that most pools do this
11:54 < BlueMatt> incl pools run by the hardware mfgrs
11:54 < gmaxwell> Do not assume that.
11:54 < BlueMatt> ok, fair
11:54 < sipa> we're running out of time
11:54 < sipa> any other topics?
11:54 < gmaxwell> quick, empty messages
11:54 < sipa>       
11:54 < luke-jr>       
11:55 < wumpus>       
11:55 < gmaxwell>       
11:55 < luke-jr> inb4 trolls use this as proof we obey gmaxwell
11:55 < gwillen>       
11:56 < BlueMatt> lulwut
11:56 < wumpus> #topic
11:56 < sipa> it's "lolwut", BlueMatt.
11:56 < BlueMatt> lulzwutz
11:56 < wumpus> cleared the topic, too, now we can cleanly exit the meeting
11:56 < gmaxwell> We should appoint a subcommittee to investigate the spelling of lolwut/lulwut.
11:56 < wumpus> #endmeeting
11:56 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Mar  2 19:56:59 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
11:56 < lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-02-19.01.html
11:56 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-02-19.01.txt
11:56 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-02-19.01.log.html
11:59 < Chris_Stewart_5> What do the acronyms CNB and TBV stand for? 
11:59 < sipa> CreateNewBlock, TestBlockValidity
11:59 < Chris_Stewart_5> Thanks.
12:01 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:03 -!- Giszmo1 [~leo@ip-151-233.219.201.nextelmovil.cl] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
12:04 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:06 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
12:09 < Lightsword> gmaxwell, morcos, sipa, one other approach is to use a more strictly performance optimized version of CNB for the first block template that doesn’t do all the fee maximizing calculations and just takes the top of the mempool
12:09 < gmaxwell> Lightsword: the fee stuff I think takes pratically no time at all.
12:09 < gmaxwell> because it's all built from efficient indexes.
12:11 < gmaxwell> An empty template can be faster because it can be constructed without the prior block having removed its transactions from the mempool... because it needs ~no hashing to construct, etc.
12:11 < gmaxwell> back in the days of priority constructing a template was objectively slow. Now it's just traversing a precomputed index pretty much.
12:12 < Lightsword> gmaxwell, do we loop over the index more than once?
12:12 < sipa> no     
12:13 < sipa> but it's a big data structure, traversing indexes that are spread out over memory can take time
12:13 < sdaftuar> fyi i've been benchmarking today 
12:13 < sdaftuar> it's a bit slower now than it was last time i benchmarked, so i'm going to investigate
12:14 < gmaxwell> Interesting.  previously and my expectation was that it was just a couple milliseconds, and that we spend more time seralizing the data to json.
12:14 < Lightsword> how much overhead is GetMemPoolChildren? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/cbdb4732f10cb00ec46a35e5c7adb2c4cdf1d64d/src/miner.cpp#L596
12:14 < sdaftuar> yeah it used to be like 7-10ms of transaction selection, followed by ~35-45ms of TBV, or something like that
12:15 < sdaftuar> but on my runs today on data from December, it's been more like 30-40ms for each of those parts, maybe a bit more
12:15 < gmaxwell> That is interesting.
12:15 < sdaftuar> Lightsword: depends on the state of the mempool.  i think it's possible that if there are more chained transactinos now than the last time i analyzed, it could slow things down
12:15 < sipa> Lightsword: GetMemPoolChildren just returns a reference to a precomputed list of children
12:16 < sipa> i wonder if BOOST_FOREACH makes a copy of it, though
12:16 < sdaftuar> oops, i was thinking of CalculateMemPoolDescendants() or whatever :)
12:16 < Lightsword> sdaftaur, are there any other calls similar to that which could be potentially skipped on the first run through the mempool?
12:16 < sdaftuar> Lightsword: potentially, yeah we could consider dropping the re-sorting of descendants of selected transactions
12:16 < sdaftuar> i'll add that to my list of things to consider
12:17 < Lightsword> my thoughts are that the CNB first call after a block change we can skip descendant calculations entirely and only add transactions that have confirmed inputs
12:18 < gmaxwell> well you could also only take the highest feerate transactions that capture something like 90% of the available fee, and potentially return a short template that will be faster to seralize and send.
12:18 < gmaxwell> but you will still need to wait then for the prior block to remove transactions from the mempool... which is not blindingly fast.
12:19 < Lightsword> how long are you seeing full GBT serialization take?
12:20 < cfields> dammit, I managed to completely miss the meeting
12:20 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:20 < Lightsword> cfields, we decided you get to rewrite GBT :P
12:21 < cfields> heh     
12:22 < cfields> I blame wumpus :p. i was distracted by the fs abstraction and lost track of time.
12:24 < jeremyrubin> cfields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXc5ltzKq3Y
12:25 < cfields> haha
12:25 < wumpus> cfields: sorry :p
12:26 < cfields> wumpus: good problem to have :). Nice work.
12:26 < jonasschnelli> I pimped my build server (nightly, PR, release builds): https://bitcoinsrv.jonasschnelli.ch (if anyone cares)
12:27 < wumpus> cfields: Thanks! heh myself I got stuck on a very weird miscompile issue with clang: https://github.com/NuxiNL/cloudabi-ports/issues/30  (likely nothing we have to worry about for our builds, except that we shouldn't be enabling safestack for now)
12:27 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: cool
12:29 < jeremyrubin> wumpus: does they cloudabi stuff exist locally as a sandbox you then run bitcoin in or do you compile it in?
12:30 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: : that web interface is pretty neat
12:31 < cfields> wumpus: nice responsiveness from them
12:31 < wumpus> jeremyrubin: the normal way is to use "cross-compilation", which are available for various platforms. I don't think the compilers themselves run in it yet
12:31 < wumpus> cfields: yes absolutely!
12:32 < cfields> wumpus: i wonder if this effort would help with enabling sandboxing for macos as well
12:32 < cfields> similar restrictions, i would assume
12:32 < wumpus> cfields: I think so
12:32 < jeremyrubin> I guess I was asking because it would be easier to run untrusted binaries
12:32 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@ip92-176-15-186.ct.co.cr] has quit []     
12:33 < jeremyrubin> e.g., you run the launcher program that you know is secure on your machine, which passes the FD to the binary that's marked as unable to get any new capabilities 
12:34 < wumpus> jeremyrubin: yes, that's what you can use it for
12:34 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:35 < wumpus> jeremyrubin: the program cannot do anything that you haven't allowed to it, not look around the filesystem, not look at hardware identifiers, not connect to the network, etc
12:35 < cfields> jonasschnelli: very cool
12:37 -!- str4d [~str4d@107-204-212-44.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
12:39 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
12:41 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:46 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Bye]     
12:56 < jeremyrubin> wumpus: but only if you know you compiled it? If someone else compiled it, they could just not link against cloudabi
12:59 < jeremyrubin> random question:
13:00 < jeremyrubin> How important is it that CPubKey::Verify takes a hash?
13:00 < jeremyrubin> e.g., could it be any (padded to 32 byte) data safely?
13:00 < cfields> jeremyrubin: i assume it sets a libc dep, or even elf identifier
13:01 < cfields> jeremyrubin: for what purpose?
13:01 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
13:02 < jeremyrubin> cfields: looking at checksigfromstack implementation
13:03 < jeremyrubin> cfields: I don't think it should include a digest
13:06 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:08 < jeremyrubin> yeah I can't think of how it could be unsafe (except maybe unsafe for signers if they sign 0 or something)
13:09 < cfields> jeremyrubin: er, we surely don't want that calculation happening at the pubkey layer?
13:10 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
13:34 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/65d90f585a83...f7ec7cfd38b5
13:34 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 7ed143c Russell Yanofsky: Add test for CWalletTx::GetImmatureCredit() returning stale values....
13:34 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f7ec7cf MarcoFalke: Merge #9359: Add test for CWalletTx::GetImmatureCredit() returning stale values....
13:34 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9359: Add test for CWalletTx::GetImmatureCredit() returning stale values. (master...pr/immature) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9359
13:35 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:54 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]     
13:57 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
14:08 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #9905: contrib: Move second sha512 check to the end (master...Mf1703-gh-merge) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9905
14:18 < arubi> does anyone know, was there ever a writeup \ -dev thread about witnessV1\sighashV2 from jl2012's mastV3 fork I see it enables a lot more ways to sign transactions.  I'd appreciate a manual :)
14:18 < arubi> s/from/? from
14:29 < arubi> talking about https://git.io/vynmA and https://git.io/vynmh (python, c++)
14:48 -!- JackH [~laptop@2a02:a210:681:980:953e:d391:fecc:4d2f] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
14:51 -!- Taek42 is now known as Taek     
14:56 -!- chjj [~chjj@96-82-67-198-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:02 -!- chjj [~chjj@96-82-67-198-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
15:02 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:03 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:06 -!- refused [~dumb@92.53.4.140] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:06 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Client Quit]     
15:06 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:07 -!- JackH [~laptop@217.149.140.177] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:18 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:21 -!- refused is now known as b3f0r3     
15:32 -!- b3f0r3 [~dumb@92.53.4.140] has quit []     
15:33 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:38 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:40 -!- MarcoFalke [~marco@2001:4ca0:0:f226:a063:75b:7f88:d780] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []     
15:48 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
15:49 -!- dgenr8 [~dgenr8@unaffiliated/dgenr8] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:50 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rlelipncasfahgjr] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:52 -!- bityogi [~textual@208-104-132-26.brvd.dsl.dyn.comporium.net] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]     
15:57 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
15:59 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:05 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:09 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
16:13 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:16 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:36 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:38 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.119] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:41 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
16:43 -!- str4d [~str4d@107-204-212-44.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:50 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:53 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.65] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:54 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:01 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-25-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]     
17:02 -!- kewde[m] [kewdematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-bngwhfjhlfyoobqr] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]     
17:03 -!- frabrunelle [frabrunell@safenetwork/frabrunelle] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]     
17:05 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.65] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
17:06 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher     
17:07 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] instagibbs opened pull request #9906: Disallow copy constructor CReserveKeys (master...noreservecopy) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9906
17:07 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:11 -!- kewde[m] [kewdematri@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-sutqxisefckbwwfy] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:12 -!- lesderid [~lesderid@anna.lesderid.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
17:12 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]     
17:16 -!- frabrunelle [frabrunell@safenetwork/frabrunelle] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:25 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.118] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:28 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:30 -!- lesderid [~lesderid@anna.lesderid.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:36 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.118] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
18:04 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
18:05 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.95] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:16 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.95] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
18:19 -!- owowo [~ovovo@unaffiliated/ovovo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:34 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rlelipncasfahgjr] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]     
18:35 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.129] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:44 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a461:484c:704:7cc6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:44 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@223.223.187.142] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
18:45 -!- xiangfu [~xiangfu@223.223.187.142] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:49 -!- wudayoda [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:a461:484c:704:7cc6] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
18:52 -!- azuchi [~azuchi@shuttle.haw.jp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:26 -!- dodomojo_ [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:64d4:8a0e:3279:6f7c] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:48 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheOnlyAymes opened pull request #9907: 0.14 (master...0.14) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9907
19:49 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheOnlyAymes closed pull request #9907: 0.14 (master...0.14) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9907
19:53 -!- dodomojo_ [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:64d4:8a0e:3279:6f7c] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
20:51 -!- str4d [~str4d@107-204-212-44.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
21:02 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
21:05 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:29 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@201.191.198.112] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:43 -!- ill [~ill@32.210.34.9] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
21:43 -!- ill [~ill@32.210.34.9] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
22:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f7ec7cfd38b5...58861ad91b49
22:17 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 6485466 Wladimir J. van der Laan: test: Report InitBlockIndex result...
22:17 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 58861ad Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9904: test: Fail if InitBlockIndex fails...
22:17 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9904: test: Fail if InitBlockIndex fails (master...2017_03_test_check_blkindex_result) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9904
22:25 -!- davec__ [~davec@cpe-24-243-249-218.hot.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
22:27 -!- davec [~davec@cpe-24-243-249-218.hot.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
22:56 -!- n1ce_ is now known as n1ce     
22:56 -!- n1ce [~n1ce@114.14.117.91.dynamic.reverse-mundo-r.com] has quit [Changing host]     
22:56 -!- n1ce [~n1ce@unaffiliated/n1ce] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
22:58 -!- juscamarena [~justin@47.148.176.74] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
23:00 -!- juscamarena [~justin@47.148.176.74] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:11 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Quit: bye]     
23:45 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
23:51 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
23:55 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@201.191.198.112] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]