--- Day changed Thu Mar 16 2017
00:03 -!- Ylbam [uid99779@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-crxbwkqmjqvphqxo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:04 -!- kexkey [~kexkey@108.59.0.35] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
00:06 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
00:13 < Lightsword> what do I have to do to mine directly to a witness address on testnet? I tried setting it to 2NF1bac2Q8CJem1sy95pcZ82kfaMaPBuRhm but the generation transaction address in the block was n3HKtNgumrvBFB2c4RWXLTttAhTPxWPSQo
00:21 -!- RoyceX [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
00:28 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] NicolasDorier opened pull request #10007: [QT] Remove SendToSelf, and break down its payouts (master...watchonlylabel2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10007
00:45 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
00:50 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
00:55 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
01:03 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:07 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:08 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #10008: [trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning (master...fix-typo-in-default-fee-warning) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10008
01:08 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
01:11 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] tjps opened pull request #10009: [trivial] Fixing -Wshadow warnings (master...tjps_shadowing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10009
01:20 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:25 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
01:25 < sipa> Lightsword: testnet uses different address prefixes, including for p2sh
01:29 -!- voyager_ [~voyager@ip70-185-195-78.ok.ok.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
01:29 -!- voyager_ [~voyager@ip70-185-195-78.ok.ok.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
01:34 < sipa> Lightsword: addwitnessaddress should work, though, on a testnet node
01:34 < Lightsword> sipa, oh well guess this is why https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool/src/6700c0fae04e2d0fa347dfacd98acf15bd297f51/src/stratifier.c?at=master&fileviewer=file-view-default#stratifier.c-8540:8543 what are all the testnet prefixs or the correct way to do that?
01:35 < Lightsword> I’m pretty sure that comment is incorrect
01:35 < Lightsword> since ckpool can generate to mainnet P2SH
01:50 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:00 -!- riemann [~riemann@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:18 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
02:36 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ce01e6226ce5...d42729a8fbb6
02:36 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a3ca43b practicalswift: [trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning
02:36 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d42729a Jonas Schnelli: Merge #10008: [trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning...
02:36 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonasschnelli closed pull request #10008: [trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning (master...fix-typo-in-default-fee-warning) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10008
02:51 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
03:03 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.85] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
03:09 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:10 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d42729a8fbb6...ad44438aae31
03:10 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1eff6c6 Lawrence Nahum: fix gitian doc example typo
03:10 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ad44438 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10002: fix gitian doc example script typo...
03:10 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10002: fix gitian doc example script typo (master...gitian_typos) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10002
03:13 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ad44438aae31...8bcf9342b850
03:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master b26ea0a Mike van Rossum: specify blockchain size & default behaviour (over pruning)
03:13 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 8bcf934 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9995: [doc] clarify blockchain size and pruning...
03:14 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9995: [doc] clarify blockchain size and pruning (master...update-doc-2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9995
03:14 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
03:19 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.93] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:22 < MarcoFalke> wumpus: re #9969. bitcoin-qt/gui is sometimes referred to as "wallet"
03:22 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9969 | 0.14.0 Runtime Error/Out of memory · Issue #9969 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
03:22 < MarcoFalke> I don't think they meant the wallet specifically
03:24 < wumpus> ah, okay
03:28 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@203.red-83-43-123.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:28 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@203.red-83-43-123.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Changing host]     
03:28 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:31 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:35 -!- Gerardo2 [~Gerardo@static.22.144.99.88.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
03:35 < luke-jr> NicolasDorier: is your PR description outdated then? O.o
03:36 < NicolasDorier> no     
03:36 -!- Dax2 [~Dax@static.22.144.99.88.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
03:36 < NicolasDorier> what I do is
03:36 < NicolasDorier> in the case where
03:36 < NicolasDorier> All input and all output are from me
03:36 < NicolasDorier> show 1 lines for the debit. Which Label is taken from the first input
03:36 < luke-jr> each output should get one "send" and one "receive" with the same label based on the output address
03:36 < luke-jr> inputs don't have labels
03:37 < NicolasDorier> I take the ScriptPubKey of the first input and use that as the label for the debit
03:37 < NicolasDorier> then 1 line per output
03:38 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
03:38 < luke-jr> NicolasDorier: don't do that.
03:38 < NicolasDorier> the idea is that when you read the transaction log, you can follow where the coin leave and where it go. This is very useful for every 2nd layer protocols because bitcoin core can show that is happening
03:38 < NicolasDorier> ok so let's take an example with Lightning
03:39 < NicolasDorier> Imagine that you fund a channel
03:39 < NicolasDorier> then later you close the channel
03:39 < NicolasDorier> what you want to see in the log is
03:39 < luke-jr> the GUI isn't 2nd layers or Lightning.
03:40 < NicolasDorier> (na) [+1.0]
03:40 < NicolasDorier> Channel [-1.0]
03:40 < NicolasDorier> Channel [+1.0]
03:40 < NicolasDorier> (na) [-1.0]
03:40 < NicolasDorier> oops
03:40 < NicolasDorier> I mean
03:40 < NicolasDorier> no that is correct sorry
03:41 < NicolasDorier> SendToSelf are only relevant for above layer protocols
03:41 -!- Dax2 [~Dax@static.22.144.99.88.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
03:41 < NicolasDorier> and this is a way to make the SendToSelf actually usefull to anything
03:41 < NicolasDorier> on the UI
03:42 < luke-jr> wallets used to watch L2 stuff simply shouldn't be used directly by end users
03:43 < NicolasDorier> this is what joinmarket is doing
03:43 < NicolasDorier> and there is good reason imho
03:43 < wumpus> well we can try to accomodate for it, but not if it breaks other valid use cases
03:43 < NicolasDorier> coin tracking is hard.
03:43 < NicolasDorier> coin selection is hard
03:43 < NicolasDorier> I do not want to code this stuff myself
03:43 < NicolasDorier> I will mess it up
03:44 < wumpus> I think we should try to help projects like joinmarket and lightning where possible
03:45 < NicolasDorier> I am trying to use SendToSelf which is not relevant to other valid use case than upper layer stuff (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10007)
03:45 < wumpus> if a simple change in how pay to self entries are shown is useful, well , I don't see why not. Normally they don't appear anyway.
03:46 < luke-jr> coin tracking is not something the GUI should try to do
03:46 < luke-jr> wumpus: it's a complete layer violation
03:46 < NicolasDorier> shit power is running out. Will try to be there for dev meeting today to talk about it. (it is at 4am in japan so kind of hard)
03:46 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8bcf9342b850...c49355c7170a
03:46 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master fb6f90a Patrick Strateman: Initialize nRelockTime
03:46 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c49355c MarcoFalke: Merge #9993: Initialize nRelockTime...
03:46 < luke-jr> it's "from address" nonsense all over again
03:46 < NicolasDorier> luke-jr: I do not see "from address"
03:47 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9993: Initialize nRelockTime (master...2017-03-14-cwallet-nrelocktime-init) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9993
03:47 < luke-jr> NicolasDorier: it's exactly what you're describing doing
03:47 < NicolasDorier> I do not show from addresses
03:47 < NicolasDorier> I show labels in transactions windows
03:47 < luke-jr> labels are associated with addresses
03:47 < NicolasDorier> shit no power, come back a bit later
03:47 -!- randy-waterhouse [~kiwigb@opentransactions/dev/randy-waterhouse] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
03:48 < MarcoFalke> ryanofsky: Mind to rebase #9701 in the next couple of days?
03:49 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9701 | Make bumpfee tests less fragile by ryanofsky · Pull Request #9701 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
03:49 < wumpus> what is the goal? if the goal is isolation between different 'pools' of coins then I agree labels are not the right way to go
03:50 < wumpus> that's what multiwallet would be for
03:50 < wumpus> which I indended to work on this week but shit happened
03:59 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c49355c7170a...598ef9c44b3e
03:59 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c9bd0f6 John Newbery: Fix RPC failure testing (2 of 2)...
03:59 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 598ef9c MarcoFalke: Merge #9842: Fix RPC failure testing (continuation of #9707)...
03:59 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke closed pull request #9842: Fix RPC failure testing (continuation of #9707) (master...rpctestassert2) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9842
04:03 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/598ef9c44b3e...8b789d814199
04:03 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master c459d50 Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Probe MSG_DONTWAIT in the same way as MSG_NOSIGNAL...
04:03 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 25da1ee Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: cleanup: define MSG_DONTWAIT/MSG_NO_SIGNAL locally...
04:03 < bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a4d1c9f Wladimir J. van der Laan: compat: use `unsigned int` instead of `u_int`...
04:03 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9921: build: Probe MSG_DONTWAIT in the same way as MSG_NOSIGNAL (master...2017_03_cloudabi_netcompat) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9921
04:03 < luke-jr> wumpus: I guess his goal is to display L2 semantics in the GUI without the GUI knowing L2 stuff. Not sure.
04:16 < MarcoFalke> maybe a good time to clear the release notes on the 0.14 branch
04:17 < NicolasDorier> wumpus: The goal is to make it possible to follow the coins from L2 transfers from the Bitcoin qt interface
04:17 < NicolasDorier> for lightning
04:17 < NicolasDorier> for example
04:17 < NicolasDorier> if the channel get open then closed
04:17 < NicolasDorier> you would like to see
04:17 < wumpus> NicolasDorier: aren't we missing the metadata for that?
04:17 < wumpus> MarcoFalke: yes, good idea
04:17 < NicolasDorier> "Channel X" +1 BTC
04:17 < NicolasDorier> "Channel X" -1 BTC
04:18 < NicolasDorier> labels being submitted by the Layer 2 process
04:18 < wumpus> ok, sounds fair enough to me
04:18 < NicolasDorier> in the PR I gave an example with tumble bit where the coins flow internally through 3 different transactions
04:19 < NicolasDorier> and I would like users to see something like
04:19 < NicolasDorier> Tumbler  [1.0]
04:19 < NicolasDorier> Offer       [-1.0]
04:19 < NicolasDorier> Offer       [1.0]
04:19 < NicolasDorier> Escrow    [-1.0]
04:19 < NicolasDorier> Escrow    [1.0]
04:19 < NicolasDorier> (n/a)        [-1.0] 
04:19 < NicolasDorier> so you can see your money go to the escrow, to the offer, then ultimately to the tumbler
04:20 < wumpus> I guess tumbler, offer and escrow are separate pools of coins which shouldn't mix? how is this enforced?
04:20 < NicolasDorier> not pools of coins
04:20 < wumpus> when they're all in one wallet
04:20 < NicolasDorier> there is no pool of coins that should not mix
04:21 < wumpus> what if the user does a spend from bitcoin core?
04:21 < NicolasDorier> he can. The way tumbler bit work now is to drain the bitcoin core wallet until empty to the tumbler 
04:21 < wumpus> the coin selection algorithm can pick from all of those utxos, despite being allocated to something (as "send to self") by L2 software
04:22 < NicolasDorier> for coin separation I want the multi wallet
04:22 < wumpus> right.
04:22 < NicolasDorier> but right now yes, the user share the same pool of coins
04:22 < NicolasDorier> the idea is that he receive money to the bitcoin core and tumblebit passively send it through the tumbler
04:23 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.93] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
04:23 < NicolasDorier> if he does not want all the coins drained then he need separate wallet
04:23 < NicolasDorier> But basically I am labelling the escrow, offer, and tumbler addresses. So that the user can see that the money does not get lost
04:25 < wumpus> yes it makes sense to have some way of displaying that in the wallet GUI
04:25 < wumpus> doesn't it need more metadata than just send-to-self though?
04:26 < wumpus> I guess it needs some way to mark transactions, for example through RPC?
04:27 < NicolasDorier> you do not mark transactions
04:27 < NicolasDorier> you mark addresses
04:27 < NicolasDorier> wumpus: the layer 2 instruct which address to watchonly
04:27 < NicolasDorier> with their label
04:28 < NicolasDorier> despite the UI show label as one per transaction, in reality it is one per addresse
04:28 < wumpus> ok, metadata for the address then
04:28 < NicolasDorier> on my side I do not need more metadata to show correctly
04:28 < NicolasDorier> the PR I have done show quite well the flow of money through the different stages
04:28 < wumpus> but it may interfere with other uses of send-to-self which should not be shown like this
04:29 < NicolasDorier> a proposition that luke-jr would be fine with I think is if I do not add one entry for debits so instead of
04:30 < NicolasDorier> Tumbler  [1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> 8:19 PM Offer       [-1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> 8:19 PM Offer       [1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> 8:19 PM Escrow    [-1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> 8:19 PM Escrow    [1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> 8:19 PM (n/a)        [-1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> it would be
04:30 < wumpus> in that case you'd need some special flag in the address metadata, instead of treating all of them the same
04:30 < wumpus> okay
04:30 < NicolasDorier> Tumbler  [1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> 8:19 PM Offer       [1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> 8:19 PM Escrow    [1.0]
04:30 < NicolasDorier> but I think it is not very clear
04:30 < NicolasDorier> but indeed
04:31 < NicolasDorier> for the debit entries, I just use the address of the first input
04:31 < NicolasDorier> which might not work for all cases
04:31 < luke-jr> NicolasDorier: the send+receive should always use the same label, with the current wallet structure
04:32 < NicolasDorier> not sure what you nmean here
04:32 < wumpus> luke-jr: but if it is *to self* that's kind of hard to define
04:32 < luke-jr> wumpus: if the goal is to eliminate "send to self", it leaves just a send and a receive both with the same address
04:34 < NicolasDorier> luke-jr: so how would you show ?
04:34 < NicolasDorier> coming back soon
04:34 < luke-jr> NicolasDorier: for each output, 1 send, and 1 receive, both with the same label/address
04:42 -!- harrymm [~wayne@104.222.140.73] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:47 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
04:52 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.4.2]     
04:55 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:04 < NicolasDorier> luke-jr: I think it is ugly and does not really help user to understand where his money go
05:20 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web419.webfaction.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
05:21 -!- d9b4bef9 [~d9b4bef9@web419.webfaction.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:40 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@201.191.198.142] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:54 -!- mol [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
05:54 -!- moli_ [~molly@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
06:00 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@201.191.198.142] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
06:00 -!- temp [~temp@112.20.99.117] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:09 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:11 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Client Quit]     
06:11 -!- temp [~temp@112.20.99.117] has left #bitcoin-core-dev ["Leaving"]     
06:37 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@201.191.198.142] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
06:41 -!- herzmeister[m] [herzmeiste@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-eyhmlmjedvtrxgem] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:07 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:07 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:15 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@201.191.198.142] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
07:33 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@201.191.198.142] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:36 -!- Cheeseo [~x@unaffiliated/cheeseo] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
07:48 < jonasschnelli> Would be great if we could merge #9294
07:48 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
07:48 < jonasschnelli> I think the performance can be optimized later
07:51 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@201.191.198.142] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
08:19 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:25 -!- JackH [~laptop@217.149.140.177] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:29 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
08:30 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:32 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-189-203-188-151.totalplay.com.mx] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:43 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-189-203-188-151.totalplay.com.mx] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
08:45 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Changing host]     
08:45 -!- arubi [~ese168@taskhive/btc-bash/dev] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:46 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.4.2]     
08:50 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-25-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
08:58 -!- riemann [~riemann@84-10-11-234.static.chello.pl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
09:01 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
09:05 -!- trotski2000 [sid206086@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-irumhxejtzsqbyxp] has quit [Changing host]     
09:05 -!- trotski2000 [sid206086@unaffiliated/trotski2000] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:05 -!- trotski2000 [sid206086@unaffiliated/trotski2000] has quit [Changing host]     
09:05 -!- trotski2000 [sid206086@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-irumhxejtzsqbyxp] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:24 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:26 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:32 -!- nemgun [~nemgun@105.99.2.51] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:38 -!- jtimon [~quassel@70.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:38 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] prusnak opened pull request #10010: util: rename variable to avoid shadowing (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10010
09:40 -!- voyager_ [~voyager@ip70-185-195-78.ok.ok.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
09:40 -!- voyager_ [~voyager@ip70-185-195-78.ok.ok.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:41 -!- JackH [~laptop@217.149.140.177] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
09:41 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #10011: build: Fix typo s/HAVE_DONTWAIT/HAVE_MSG_DONTWAIT (master...2017_03_typo_dontwait) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10011
09:49 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] raze182 opened pull request #10012: [UI] Update splash screen (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10012
09:50 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10012: [UI] Update splash screen (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10012
09:53 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #10013: Fix shutdown hang with >= 8 -addnodes set (0.14 backport) (0.14...2017-03-exit-with-addnode-13) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10013
09:55 -!- jnewbery [~Thunderbi@static-100-38-11-146.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
09:56 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:01 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
10:08 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
10:09 -!- BashCo_ [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:11 -!- BashCo_ [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:12 -!- goregrin1 is now known as goregrind     
10:12 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
10:12 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:14 < cfields> wumpus: grr, sorry for missing that in review
10:25 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
10:29 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
10:29 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:30 < wumpus> cfields: hah yes we should have caught that one
10:31 < wumpus> bah we're swamped in Wshadow pulls, exactly what we feared has happened, about every PR is followed by one that 'fixes' its shadow warnings
10:32 -!- JackH [~laptop@2a02:a210:681:980:22e4:8cda:ea6:b5c5] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:33 < wumpus> until a sneaky bug gets introduced in an oversight while renaming variables
10:35 -!- BashCo [~BashCo@unaffiliated/bashco] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:37 < ryanofsky> probably been discussed before, but could this problem be avoided by enabling -Werror in travis?
10:37 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10009: [trivial] Fixed -Wshadow warnings (master...tjps_shadowing) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10009
10:38 < wumpus> no, it can not
10:38 < wumpus> the problem is that different compilers have different perceptions of shadowing
10:39 < wumpus> there is always someone with a compiler that shows more shadowing warnings than you
10:39 < wumpus> clang shows fairly few, gcc 5 shows more, some gcc 4.x versoins go all out crazy
10:41 < ryanofsky> oh, ok. still seems like it could be useful as mitigation, but maybe there are other reasons not to do it
10:41 < wumpus> the reason not to do it would be that it causes a lot of extra overhead and irritation
10:42 < wumpus> you say it is useful as mitigation, but are you helping review -Wshadow pulls? making sure they don't introduce bugs?
10:43 < wumpus> anything that introduces so much ancillary diff noise is a risk in itself, what if something gets renamed wrongly. It was a bad idea to enable it by default.
10:43 < ryanofsky> i have not, but would be happy to review and add some acks
10:44 < wumpus> we hardly have enough reviewers for the pulls that actually add features or fix serious bugs
10:44 < ryanofsky> oh i agree it's a dumb warning. sorry, i don't know whatever discussion happened previously around this issue
10:45 < cfields> wumpus: i agree. It seemed like something that would eventually settle down and we could stick -Werror on it, but it's turned out to be very different in practice :(. It's not worth the pain it's causing
10:45 < ryanofsky> was just suggesting the travis change as a way of shifting the burden of dealing with the warning from maintainers to contributors
10:45 < cfields> ryanofsky: the discussion was triggered by a bug a long time ago that this would've caught, but the signal/noise is just too bad for it to be helpful
10:46 < gmaxwell> What happened to the suggestion I made of tuning -Wshadow with the arguments?
10:46 < gmaxwell> not successful and restricting it to things that compilers are consistent about?
10:47 < wumpus> ryanofsky: the problem is that you'd have to run it against N different compiers in travis then, which would be good in itself, but another problem is that the turnaround cycle of travis is pretty slow - so you get one bucketload of warnings, fix it, travis complains about another. But sure, it'd certainly be much better to catch them before they're merged.
10:47 < cfields> gmaxwell: from what i saw, the options available end up hiding the only useful warning
10:49 < cfields> ryanofsky: for context, this started the discussion: #8102
10:49 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8102 | Bugfix: use global ::fRelayTxes instead of CNode in version send by sipa · Pull Request #8102 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
10:50 < cfields> oh, i started the fire :(
10:51 < wumpus> cfields: we didn't know better at the time
10:52 < wumpus> I mean for C it would be clearly defined. It's just with C++ and all its nested scopes and global namespace symbols that compilers start to diverge on it
10:52 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
10:52 < gmaxwell> cfields: ah, I thought one of them warned only about shadowing in the same function. Which sounded basically like the primary place where shadowing is possible in C, and still sometimes finds some bugs.
10:53 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] starinacool opened pull request #10014: 0.14 with 2Mb block size (0.14...0.14) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014
10:53 < gmaxwell> libsecp256k1 is -Wshadow never been an issue. 
10:53 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #10014: 0.14 with 2Mb block size (0.14...0.14) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014
10:53 < ryanofsky> cfields, thanks for context
10:55 < wumpus> secp256k1 also is smaller, and has a lot fewer dependencies, that helps with having not too much cruft in namespaces that can overlap. Though C/C++ probably makes the biggest difference.
10:56 < gmaxwell> (of course, I've similarly not had problems in other C librarys... I really think it's just C vs C++ that is an issue here.)
10:56 < cfields> gmaxwell: i suppose that doesn't hurt. Though, I was more interested in catching accidental global shadowing. Those are really rough to catch in review.
10:56 < cfields> (ofc those are the ones that cause all the trouble here)
10:56 < gmaxwell> It's still surprising to me that the C++ compilers can't be reliable in this, how the hell do they resolve the symbols if they can't find them. :P
10:58 < wumpus> hehe I'm sure they can find them, it's just that they have different concepts of what is reported as a shadowing warning. May be something of a compiler vendor opinion as well, you can both blame clang for underreporting and gcc for overreporting.
10:58 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:02 < wumpus> (FYI bitcoin core master compiles without WShadow warnings with clang 4.0 pre-something apart from one in db.cpp)
11:11 < gmaxwell> I also worry about this constant fix stream causing us to introduce real bugs. :(  and also undermining the utility of the warning.
11:12 < cfields> jnewbery: ping
11:12 < jnewbery> cfields: pong
11:13 < cfields> jnewbery: got a sec to talk about the test movement?
11:13 < jnewbery> sure
11:15 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:26 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/chrisstewart5/x-62865615] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
11:26 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:30 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
11:42 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@5ED1AFBF.cm-7-2c.dynamic.ziggo.nl] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
11:43 -!- paveljanik [~paveljani@unaffiliated/paveljanik] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:47 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
11:47 -!- vogelito [~Adium@fixed-187-190-21-75.totalplay.com.mx] has quit [Client Quit]     
12:00 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10015: Wallet should reject long chains by default (master...walletrejectlongchains) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10015
12:01 < Chris_Stewart_5> meeting? Or are my time zones off? 
12:01 < achow101> meeting
12:01 < wumpus> #meetingstart
12:01 < wumpus> #startmeeting
12:01 < lightningbot> Meeting started Thu Mar 16 19:01:26 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
12:01 < lightningbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
12:02 < jnewbery> suggested topic: running rpc tests as part of `make check`
12:02 < gmaxwell> #bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
12:02 < cfields> hi     
12:02 < jonasschnelli> hi     
12:02 < instagibbs> hello
12:02 < sipa> oi     
12:02 < wumpus> proposed topics?
12:03 < jtimon> mhmm
12:03 < morcos> i haven't been reading channel last few days but was there discussion on 10015 (just above)
12:03 < wumpus> #10015
12:03 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10015 | Wallet should reject long chains by default by jnewbery · Pull Request #10015 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:03 < morcos> i felt like we discussed that ad nauseum the first time around
12:03  * instagibbs wimpers
12:03 < instagibbs> yes     
12:03 < sipa> i don't remmeber the reason for it not being default
12:03 < wumpus> yes I remember we already had long discussions about that
12:04 < jnewbery> #9262
12:04 < instagibbs> The idea being that now that we actually rebroadcast normally, and return txid, it wasn't required in general.
12:04 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9262 | Prefer coins that have fewer ancestors, sanity check txn before ATMP by instagibbs · Pull Request #9262 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:04 < morcos> sipa: the reasoning is its a very reasonable use case that you'd just want the tx to go out as soon as some of its parents get confirmed..  
12:04 < morcos> it seems somewhat likely that it would be tricky to have anything smarter than that happen manually anyway
12:04 < sipa> but the resulting behaviour seems very unexpected to users
12:05 < gmaxwell> I don't see the reason for rejecting. Seems like a useless loss of functionality in most cases.
12:05 < morcos> but the solution to that could be better informing them of the new behaviour
12:05 < jnewbery> I can understand the use case, but user experience is terrible (hence already two issues opened by different users)
12:05 < gmaxwell> What does it matter to you if your transaction 20 steps deep hasn't actually been announced yet? it will be announced when it can.
12:05 < sipa> many reports of people who see their balance going down
12:05 < sipa> and get scared
12:05 < gmaxwell> Their balance is going down.
12:05 < morcos> hmm...
12:06 < sipa> gmaxwell: it is, but don't you think it's better to reject by default, so they know why it is going down?
12:06 < morcos> gmaxwell: i assume he means they have a 10 BTC input, they spend 0.1 BTC and their balance goes down by 10
12:06 < sipa> so they can re-enable it when they understand the effect
12:06 < morcos> b/c the change isn't in mempool so it doesn't count towards balance
12:06 < gmaxwell> morcos: okay now that is a bad effect, I didn't reaize it was doing that.
12:07 < gmaxwell> realize*
12:07 < jnewbery> see #10004 for good description of what the user sees
12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10004 | After max chain of unconfirmed change transactions, last tx is missing from memory until rescan · Issue #10004 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:07 < gmaxwell> jnewbery: or  #9752 for the alternative
12:07 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9752 | Max unconfirmed chainlength · Issue #9752 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:07 < morcos> i briefly recall discussing that but i agree its bad so don't know why we just left it that way.. maybe b/c its not easy to do anything smarter?
12:07 < gmaxwell> The balance being goofy is an issue, but I think that should be considered a seperate issue.
12:08 < gmaxwell> I agree it shouldn't be left with the balance doing inexplicable things.
12:08 < sipa> gmaxwell: you think we should include txn crediting the wallet that are not in the mempool?
12:08 < sipa> gmaxwell: that would bring back all malleability craziness
12:08 < gmaxwell> sipa: if it's the users own output? I think so. 
12:08 < gmaxwell> (and it's not conflicted.)
12:08 < morcos> perhaps there needs to be a new category of pending txs
12:08 < sipa> the conflict can be outside of the mempool
12:09 < sipa> s/mempool/wallet/
12:09 < morcos> The pending balance can include both the debit and the credit
12:10 < morcos> But could get complicated
12:10 < jonasschnelli> I tend to like this approach.
12:10 < sipa> which approach?
12:10 < jonasschnelli> pending txs cat
12:11 < sipa> morcos: it's very hard to not double count things in the pending balance if they're spending from malleated versions of the same transaction
12:11 < gmaxwell> I am dubious that your own mempool is actually that strong a protection here.
12:12 < jnewbery> my view: simplest experience is best. Default should be to reject too-long-chain transaction from wallet and mempool. If the user wants to have long chains in wallet, that's fine but:
12:12 < jnewbery> - it should be behind an explicit option
12:12 < jnewbery> - user should understand that it could have unexpected impacts on things like getbalance() 
12:13 < gmaxwell> Transactions simply failing to create due to inexplicable internal things that the user does not understand and cannot easily understand is not a good expirence at all.
12:13 < morcos> well look, this thing is an option, so its kind of ridiculous to spend this much time discussing the default.  The solution no matter whether we change the default or not is more announcing of the effects in either case
12:13 < gmaxwell> We were already getting complaints about inexplicable failures before.
12:13 < gmaxwell> Many people do not have adequate error handling to deal with a sendtoaddress failing when the balance was sufficient.
12:13 < morcos> But too long a chain, try again later is explicable
12:14 < sipa> gmaxwell: i think seeing your balance going down inexplicably is worse than inexplicably failing to create a transaction (at least there can be an explanation message)
12:14 < gmaxwell> I agree the balance is screwed up. But _that_ is the issue, not the rest.
12:14 < jnewbery> take this discussion offline? I'm happy to receive feedback in #10015
12:14 < instagibbs> Either way we can buff up the error messages to be far less scary, especially in this case.
12:14 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10015 | Wallet should reject long chains by default by jnewbery · Pull Request #10015 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:15 < gmaxwell> sipa: how about we remove all ability to sends funds entirely, then there never will be balance confusion?
12:15 < sipa> gmaxwell: come on
12:15 < morcos> well i wasn't implying we shouldn't discuss here, its kind of hard to have this discussion on a PR
12:15 -!- JackH [~laptop@2a02:a210:681:980:22e4:8cda:ea6:b5c5] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
12:16 < morcos> gmaxwell: the balance issue is not easy to solve
12:16 < sipa> sure, if balance was redefined completely we may be able to avoid that issue, but i don't even know where to start
12:16 < morcos> i just see both choices as non-optimal and i think we should pick one and try to make it as clear to users as possible
12:16 < gmaxwell> This is a sign that our current definition is just broken. It should not be so tightly coupled to the mempool.
12:16 < morcos> i thought that previously we had picked, and maybe failed at the making it clear
12:17 < jonasschnelli> I'd say lets pick what serves more user... and the default = true seems to be the better choice...but I don't have numbers to proof that.
12:17 < bsm1175322> One could create a RBF replacement transaction instead of a chain...
12:17 < gmaxwell> (like how is the software even supposted to be usable to people that don't have a mempool? -- this is a supported configuration!)
12:17 < sipa> gmaxwell: even if it is not tightly coupled with the mempool, we need a means of estimating whether it could confirm
12:17 < morcos> yep, our time would be better spent extending bumpfee to work on chains
12:18 < gmaxwell> or finding a way to eliminate the chain limit.
12:18 < jnewbery> morcos: if the default is false (accept long chains) then it's very difficult to communicate to the user what the problem is. If we reject long chains then at least we can send a helpful error to the user
12:18 < sipa> gmaxwell: i'm not convinced the chain limit itself is the only problem here
12:18 < morcos> i suppose i do agree with gmaxwell thought that i always just took our balance calculation as gospel, but maybe it is kind of silly
12:19 < gmaxwell> sipa: clearly not, because apparently we'll report a balance way off if you don't have a mempool! :)
12:19 < jtimon> suggested topic: what's the current state on finally removing accounts?
12:19 < luke-jr> bsm1175322: +1
12:19 < gmaxwell> (er it's clearly not the only problem!)
12:20 < sipa> gmaxwell: if you don't rely on the mempool, it's not that hard i think to make the wallet double count
12:20 < wumpus> right, the wallet can't detect conflicting transactions itself
12:20 < sipa> that would be great to fix, but i don't know how
12:21 < gmaxwell> good thing there aren't any wallets in the bitcoin system without mempools.
12:21 < wumpus> so if it sends a transaction, and someone malleates it and it would receive the malleated version back, it'd count that double
12:21 < morcos> sipa: but a better balance calculation would be to evaluate net changes on a per tx basis
12:21 < sipa> gmaxwell: wallets that don't spend unconfirmed change don't have this problem
12:21 < morcos> and not consider the debits and credits separately
12:21 < wumpus> it would work if it wouldn't count unconfirmed transactions
12:21 < sipa> morcos: oh, you mean like the account system? *ducks*
12:21 < wumpus> exactly, we have an option for that already
12:22 < gmaxwell> sipa: no such wallet exists in the wild. (beyond bitcoin core users who have changed their settings and a few industrial users)
12:23 < morcos> sipa: sigh.. no i mean properly..  there is no reason to assume a sent tx not in your mempool should debit your input but not credit your change output.  thats just broken.
12:23 < morcos> at worst it should do both
12:23 < morcos> only gets complicated if its a mixed debit tx
12:23 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
12:23 < gmaxwell> well it's showing a worse case balance, which is a thing you can rationally choose to do... but it's confusing to users esp with no other information available elsewhere.
12:24 < sipa> gmaxwell: i don't know how to give an accurate unconfirmed balance without a mempool
12:24 < morcos> actually, maybe gmaxwell is right.. maybe we can just fix that in our existing system?
12:24 < morcos> gmaxwell: how is that worst case, how is that balance even achievable?
12:24 < gmaxwell> Unfortunately, malleablity is still a thing.
12:25 < gmaxwell> morcos: It's not achievable. But the estimation pattern of including non-mempool debits but not credits is a worst case estimator generally.
12:25 < morcos> yes, but you can't end up with the debit and not the credit.. you can end up with the debit and you're momentarily confused how to spend the credit, but it's still your credit
12:25 < sipa> without malleability maybe this problem becomes easier
12:25 < gmaxwell> sometimes you have a non-mempool debit which will still go through.
12:25 -!- Guest53633 [~schmidty@c-50-129-228-2.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:25 < luke-jr> sipa: are you including the wallet's storage of txs as "mempool"?
12:25 < sipa> luke-jr: no
12:26 -!- Guest53633 [~schmidty@c-50-129-228-2.hsd1.il.comcast.net] has quit [Changing host]     
12:26 -!- Guest53633 [~schmidty@unaffiliated/schmidty] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:26 < gmaxwell> I think any change estimation issue goes away if you assume non-malleablity and no concurrent use of the same keys.
12:26 -!- Guest53633 is now known as schmidty     
12:26 < gmaxwell> er balance estimation.
12:27 < sipa> luke-jr: i mean a mempool which is kept consistent with the block chain - i guess you can simulate that inside the wallet, but it risks missing things that depend on unconfirmed transactions which don't involve you
12:27 < gmaxwell> I find it hard to believe that the current behavior won't cause wildly wrong balances in other cases.  In particular, what happens to your balance when you pay something that falls out of the mempool due to low fees? same deal.
12:27 < gmaxwell> Chaning the behavior for long chains will do nothing for that, just covers up the fundimentally bad behavior.
12:28 < sipa> right, the expected behaviour there is that you use abandontx to correct the balance
12:28 < gmaxwell> maybe it's not reasonably possible to fix completely in the presence of malleablity. The best thing with malleablity still around might be presenting a pending balance.
12:28 < jtimon> sipa: but there will still be malleability for old txs, no? I don't undesrtand the discussion well enough...
12:29 < sipa> gmaxwell: maybe people just don't hit the "falls out of mempool" case, and only hit chain length limits
12:29 < gmaxwell> sipa: well you can use abandon in this case too. (though thats a pretty bad expirence, spend a cent, then hours later 100 btc vanishes from your balance? )
12:29 < jonasschnelli> jtimon: The main user issue is described here: #9752
12:29 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9752 | Max unconfirmed chainlength · Issue #9752 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:29 < sipa> maybe we should have some form of automatic abandoning...
12:29 < morcos> sipa: noooooooooooo
12:29 < gmaxwell> sipa: we previously had reports about txn falling out of the mempool. 
12:29 < sipa> or at least automatically stop counting as debit at some point
12:29 < gmaxwell> sipa: AutoFraud(tm)
12:30 < jonasschnelli> I agree with sipa, especially the non sendto* (or Qt) ones. 
12:30 < wumpus> fee bump is a better alternative to abandoning
12:30 < gmaxwell> wumpus++
12:31 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: yes. but adding new outputs would be a requirement then.
12:31 < sipa> but if you stop counting as debit, while still excluding from unspent outputs, you risk even worse unexpected behaviour
12:31 < BlueMatt> yes, better to not auto-abandon and do what other wallets are doing now - if you try to send with too low a fee, nag the user really loudly to make it rbf-able
12:31 < morcos> i'd be happy to discuss another time whether we can make some slight improvements to our balance estimation..  i guess i think it wouldn't be that hard... next time i have time i'll look closer
12:31 < gmaxwell> BlueMatt: yes, what electrum does is reasonable there.
12:31 < wumpus> abandoning is dangerous, there is no guarantee that everyone forgot the transaction, so the user may send the tx again with different outputs and then it goes through twice oops
12:32 < jonasschnelli> The reminds me of the problem that BIP125 doesn't explicit mention a recommended nSequence nr. Electrum was using 0, Core intmax-2. (privacy)
12:32 < sipa> right, i take back my suggestion to auto-abandom
12:32 < BlueMatt> auto-bump, otoh.....
12:32 < sipa> yeah...
12:33 < wumpus> sipa: from a viewpoint of the user it's what they want, for the transaction to 'just disappear', bitcoin just makes that very difficult
12:33 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:33 < morcos> yeah auto bump should be 0.15 priority
12:33 < gmaxwell> precomputed bumps with locktimes were always an idea I liked... doesn't really do great with spending unconfirmed change.
12:33 < jonasschnelli> morcos: with plenty of pre-signed transactions?
12:33 -!- LeMiner [LeMiner@unaffiliated/leminer] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
12:34 < morcos> spending unconfirmed change is doable i think...  complicated, but you just stop bumping the first and start bumping the 2nd with CPFP calculations
12:34 < BlueMatt> esp given miners can freely malleate it out from under you
12:34 < gmaxwell> without malleablity basically none of these change handling issues would exist, I think.
12:35 < gmaxwell> as you'd never have a case where you might double count your own funds.
12:35 < wumpus> unfortunately we're stuck with malleability
12:35 < morcos> not if we use flextrans
12:35 < morcos> (sorry)
12:35 < sipa> right, no from-self transaction in your wallet could credit you without you having signed for it
12:35 < gmaxwell> hah     
12:35 < jonasschnelli> heh     
12:35 < wumpus> flextrans, lol
12:36 < BlueMatt> trolol
12:36 < gmaxwell> morcos: I made the remove all sending ability quip above!
12:36 < gmaxwell> well we really haven't pushed to get malleablity fixed as a group... just put the fix out there.
12:37  * sipa casually mentions segwit
12:37 < morcos> ok... we're going off the rails. now.. maybe next topic.. and we revisit this in a week after thinking through both avenues
12:37 < sipa> ok     
12:37 < BlueMatt> ack     
12:37 < gmaxwell> Sounds great.
12:37 < jnewbery> yep     
12:37 < jonasschnelli> While we are touching the wallet... can we make progress on #9294?
12:37 < wumpus> #topic status of removal of account system
12:37 < gmaxwell> Sorry for being a PITA. :)
12:37 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:37 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: okay.
12:37 < wumpus> can be really short there: no advances since last time we've discussed that
12:38 < BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: that sounds like a should-review-this-week
12:38 < wumpus> I should really pick up https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7729
12:38 < BlueMatt> wumpus: yes, this should definitely happen for 0.15, imo
12:38 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: do we have a project setup to track things that change the wallet format in incompatible ways?
12:38 < wumpus> as we need a label API first before even thinking about deprecating accounts
12:38 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: not yet.
12:38 < wumpus> BlueMatt: I agree, though multiwallet has higher priority for me
12:39 < gmaxwell> multiwallet++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++divide by zero error
12:39 < wumpus> I intended to pick up multiwallet this week, but eh shit happened
12:39 < BlueMatt> ok, so lets list reviews to prioritize this week?
12:39 < sipa> my focus will be leveldb mempool reduction
12:39 < BlueMatt> jonasschnelli: mentioned 9294, I'm still super blocked on 9725
12:40 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
12:40 < wumpus> #8694
12:40 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8694 | Basic multiwallet support by luke-jr · Pull Request #8694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:40 < sipa> #9294 #9725
12:40 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:40 < jonasschnelli> 9294 would need direction if the performance drawback is acceptable. IMO yes.
12:40 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9725 | CValidationInterface Cleanups by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9725 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:40 < BlueMatt> yea, was just looking for that one wumpus 
12:40 < wumpus> that's the next step toward multiwallet, though luke-jr and I have some disagreement about specifics about implementation
12:40 < stevenroose> My btcd testnet node recently got a softfork deployment on versionbit 28. Is that this dummy deployment from bitcoind?
12:40 < stevenroose> v     
12:40 < gmaxwell> sipa: you mean the "make defaults work on odroid c2 again" problem?
12:40 < stevenroose> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L190
12:40 < jonasschnelli> I'd like to continue with HD restore... but 9294 seems to be required first
12:40 < wumpus> but that it needs to happen is clear
12:41 < jtimon> wumpus: oh, right, we need 7729 first
12:41 < sipa> gmaxwell: no, i mean fix the silly continuous allocation of leveldb memory
12:41 < gmaxwell> stevenroose: that is likely doofsus still signling 'bip 109' on testnet. (even though nothing implements it anymore)
12:41 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: yes the HD chain split *defnitely* needs to be in 0.15
12:41 < gmaxwell> sipa: so memory reduction not mempool reduction.
12:41 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: it's sad it missed 0.14
12:42 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: merging sooner should allow more perofmance improvemnts before 0.15.
12:42 < sipa> gmaxwell: lol. yes
12:42 < jonasschnelli> *performance improvements 
12:42 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: you can still implement lookahead scanning without the split. 
12:42 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: agree, will take a look at it
12:42 < stevenroose> gmaxwell, yeah I read about bip109 as well when I googled the versionbit. So that means that 95% of testnett blocks the last few weeks were mined by people trolling about bip109?
12:42 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: Yes. But I don't want to go to the rebase-hell. :)
12:42 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: at some point we should merge something so that it can be improved
12:43 < wumpus> right, it's frustrating to keep non-trivial things up to date with all the code churn
12:43 < luke-jr> wumpus: I don't necessarily disagree with your points, just that they're factoring unrelated to multiwallet itself IMO
12:43 < achow101> stevenroose: not now or here. ask in #bitcoin-dev, there's a meeting going on here right now
12:43 < jtimon> I wouldn't mind some re-reviews on #8855 (previously #6907), it's simple
12:43 < gmaxwell> stevenroose: no, it got 'activated' eons ago. then the miner signaling it mined BIP109 invalid blocks (because their implementation was broken) and forked classic off (until classic ripped out 109)
12:43 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8855 | Use a proper factory for creating chainparams by jtimon · Pull Request #8855 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:43 < jonasschnelli> But multiwallet will be also my prio for 0.15. I start reviewing more soon.
12:43 < gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6907 | Chainparams: Use a regular factory for creating chainparams by jtimon · Pull Request #6907 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
12:43 < jonasschnelli> The whole Qt part is unsolved IMO.
12:44 < jonasschnelli> The general concept of switching/opening/closing/creating wallets
12:44 < stevenroose> achow101, my apologies
12:44 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: no, I have a branch for that
12:44 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: I'd be happy to have it in JSONRPC already
12:44 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: it's 2 PRs away
12:44 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: no need to block anything on GUI support
12:44 < jonasschnelli> luke-jr: great!
12:44 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: Sure...
12:44 < jonasschnelli> But in general the low level stuff should conceptually fits the UI goals
12:44 < wumpus> even small steps forward are worthwhile in this regard
12:44 < wumpus> jonasschnelli: sure
12:45 < jonasschnelli> Yes. Multiwallet was hold back long enought... I'm happy with every simple babystep
12:45 < luke-jr> jonasschnelli: Knots has actually included multiwallet since 0.13, FWIW
12:45 < jonasschnelli> luke-jr: Never used Knots. I probably should try it at least.
12:46 < wumpus> ok, other topics?
12:47 < jnewbery> running python rpc tests from `make check`?
12:47 < kanzure> was someone asking about nulldummy versionbit?
12:47 < luke-jr> isn't nulldummy deployed with segwit?
12:47 < sipa> yes     
12:48 < achow101> I've been getting some reports about people's nodes running out of memory. perhaps we need to publish a "minimum spec" so people know what to expect if they don't meet that
12:48 < cfields> jnewbery: +1. we were discussing this a few min ago. That makes "make check" dependent on python3 though (apparently). Not sure if wumpus is ok with that
12:48 < wumpus> cfields: I don't mind
12:49 < wumpus> cfields: the only thing I worry about is the slowness of the RPC tests
12:49 < jonasschnelli> What's the benefits of adding the rpc's to `make check`?
12:49 < wumpus> 'make check' should ideally do fairly quick checks, some of the RPC tests classify as that, but the whole suite takes maybe too long
12:49 < gmaxwell> make check is currently not quick at all.
12:50 < gmaxwell> I think on my system it actually takes similar time to the whole rpc checks.
12:50 < wumpus> gmaxwell: secp256k1 is part of that :p
12:50 < gmaxwell> let me revise.
12:50 < cfields> wumpus: same. But lately I've been coming around to gmaxwell's point that they're a bulk of our tests, so it's kinda a disservice for people to assume that "make check" and all is good
12:50 < gmaxwell> the unit tests themselves take almost as long as the rpc tests.
12:50 < gmaxwell> and are _far_ less useful.
12:50 < jonasschnelli> Indeed. Adding another 20min rpc test will result in nobody running make check anymore
12:50 < wumpus> it does the extensive tests for secp256k1, which take quite a while
12:50 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: Does anyone but us run make check now? :P
12:50 < wumpus> gmaxwell: that's certainly not true here
12:50 < cfields> wumpus: also, this would parallelize the tests. So the boost tests and rpc would run at the same time
12:50 < jtimon> jnewbery: I would prefer a diferent target, you could still do make check tests, or only make check or only make tests
12:50 < luke-jr> I'd rather `make check` be comprehensive than quick tbh. the default RPC test suite seems like an okay compromise.
12:50 < wumpus> yes, I run make check a lot
12:51 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I hope so... but i doubt.
12:51 < wumpus> cfields: ok that's pretty cool
12:51 < gmaxwell> wumpus: the secp256k1 tests are adjustable and can basically take as little or as much time as you like, we could make it arbitarily fast.
12:51 < jnewbery> I could select a subset of fast rpc tests if you think the standard list is too slow
12:51 < jonasschnelli> I guess not even the gitian system runs make check
12:51 < gmaxwell> wumpus: though I'd like to move some more of the secp256k1 tests to runtime, it isn't like distributors actually make check. :(
12:51 < wumpus> gmaxwell: I dont think running the secp256k1 tests thoroughly is a bad idea at all
12:51 < wumpus> gmaxwell: helps catch compiler bugs and such
12:51 < jonasschnelli> though a bit more complex because of the platforms.
12:51 < jtimon> wumpus: maybe the tests to run with make should be all but excluding prunning.py?
12:52 < gmaxwell> yes, I think they're important, though we could move some of that to simple startup time. The most critical checks are very fast.
12:52 < wumpus> e.g. broken signing is very, very bad
12:52 < gmaxwell> I worry a lot about compiler bugs, our current make check is woefully inadequate (except the libsecp256k1 part, granted. :P )
12:52 < jtimon> cfields: but the unittests themelseves don't run in parallel like the rpc/py tests, right?
12:53 < gmaxwell> wumpus: (similar to how I nagged you to make those rng tests runtime and you did...)
12:53 < jonasschnelli> jtimon: not that i know
12:53 < gmaxwell> (thank you)
12:53 < wumpus> jtimon: parallelism at multiple levels doesn't make much sense, there's only so many cores to go around
12:53 < jtimon> also, make check tests -j10 should pass -j10 down to the rpc-tester, right?
12:53 < cfields> jtimon: correct, we'd never survive that
12:53 < gmaxwell> wumpus: we could probably define a subset of rpc tests that are fast and more useful than the unit tests. 
12:53 < cfields> jtimon: ooh yes, that'd be really nice
12:54 < wumpus> gmaxwell: yup. don't know if you saw the clang fsafe-stack issue that messes up deterministic signing
12:54 < jtimon> wumpus: well, current make check could be faster, I compile very fast, but then it gests stuck at 1 core running the tests
12:54 < jtimon> half the time I wait more for the unittests than to compile
12:54 < gmaxwell> wumpus: I didn't. 
12:54 < wumpus> jtimon: but cfields proposes running (some of) the qa tests at the same time
12:54 < wumpus> gmaxwell: let me dig it up
12:54 < gmaxwell> Has anyone recently 'profiled' the tests to see where time is being spent?
12:55 < gmaxwell> I bet we have cases where 20% of the time is checking if addition works or something. :P
12:55 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: unit or rpc?
12:55 < jnewbery> gmaxwell: unit tests or rpc tests
12:55 < wumpus> gmaxwell: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/issues/445
12:55 < gmaxwell> jnewbery: both.
12:55 < jnewbery> I've profiled rpc tests. A lot of time is spent in stopnode()
12:55 < gmaxwell> wumpus: holy fuck!
12:55 < wumpus> both frameworks measure the time spent in every test, so profiling at that level is easy
12:55 < jtimon> wumpus: well, I suggest a different target, but if they don't depend on each other, I guess they would run "at the same time"
12:56 < gmaxwell> wumpus: good for tests. (but as I said, we should make some of those runtime too)
12:56 < wumpus> I don't remember by heart which ones, though
12:56 < morcos> i believe the rpc tests could also be made faster if tx relay had a different poisson distribution for regtest or something... i seem to remember that being an issue
12:56 < cfields> wumpus: whoa. Isn't that default for clang now? Or proposed, at least?
12:56 < gmaxwell> regardless of the specific example, compiler bugs are a real thing.
12:57 < wumpus> cfields: I think it's going to be more widely enabled, yes, though AFAIK not yet. I only caught it because cloudabi already has it as default
12:57 < cfields> jnewbery: i'd be interested in your findings there
12:57 < gmaxwell> (though seeing them in rather boring C code is depressing)
12:57 < gmaxwell> wumpus: in any case thats the best news all day! I've complained many times that our tests must suck because we've not found any miscompliation bugs.
12:57 < wumpus> (test_bitcoin -log_level=test_suite shows which unit tsts take so long. most are really fast! )
12:58 < gmaxwell> wumpus: finally some evidence that our tests are potentially okay. :P
12:58 < wumpus> gmaxwell: heh
12:58 < jnewbery> ok, sounds like there's no fundamental objection to at least doing some rpc tests in make check. I'll open a PR and we can continue discussion there.
12:58 < wumpus> gmaxwell: and yes doing some quick secp256k1 tests at runtime would make a lot of sense
12:59 < wumpus> gmaxwell: basic sanity is fairly easy to check
12:59 < gmaxwell> jnewbery: yes, and we should look at time measurements and rebalance the tests to be more useful.
12:59 < jnewbery> also, once 9956 is merged we can stop calling them rpc tests!
12:59 < gmaxwell> wumpus: I have a branch somewhere that adds some runtime selftests, but I think I got a bit carried away and put it aside. :P
12:59 < jonasschnelli> jnewbery: Yes. I'd like to see that merged.
12:59 < wumpus> jnewbery: no, no fundamental objection. Just about speed but that doesn't depend on the language/framework
12:59 < wumpus> jnewbery: +1
13:00 < jtimon> jnewbery: I still heard no reason against adding a new target instead of reusing check
13:00 < wumpus> some of the qa tests are really fast, some of the unit tests really slow, indeed should rebalance testing bang for buck
13:00 < gmaxwell> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/217  (but I'd probably toss that and take a somewhat different approach now)
13:00 < wumpus> it's time
13:00 < wumpus> #endmeeting
13:00 < lightningbot> Meeting ended Thu Mar 16 20:00:27 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
13:00 < lightningbot> Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-16-19.01.html
13:00 < lightningbot> Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-16-19.01.txt
13:00 < lightningbot> Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-16-19.01.log.html
13:00 < gmaxwell> thanks all!
13:00 < jonasschnelli> wumpus: If you run with wallet, you have a basic EC sanity check over VerifyPubKey().
13:01 < jonasschnelli> But we should probably extend it and add call it from non-wallet init parts
13:01 < jnewbery> jtimon: I like the idea of `make tests` for the full suite, but I think `make check` should include some rpc tests
13:01 < jtimon> jnewbery: oh, I had missed 9956, thanks for pointing it out
13:01 < gmaxwell> jonasschnelli: a special test function could get a much more comprehensive test in not much time.
13:01 < cfields> jnewbery: do you happen to still have any of those profiles showing slow stopnode() ?
13:02 < jtimon> jnewbery: mhmm, why not make tests includes some python tests (maybe most of them) but make check none of them?
13:02 < jonasschnelli> gmaxwell: I really wonder now why we haven't added a simple runtime EC sanity test...
13:02 < jnewbery> jtimon: I've got some nits from cfields to address on 9956. Very happy for other people to review after that
13:03 < jnewbery> cfields: I believe I have them lying around somewhere. Let me dig them out
13:03 < jonasschnelli> I mean coffee machines do "runtime tests" and a faulty EC subsystem can cause far more troubles
13:03 < cfields> jnewbery: thanks. I would assume that it's just waiting for the threads to stop. But I'm curious to see what they're spinning on
13:04 < jtimon> so no answer? everybody seems to prefer reusing make check with some tests, but nobody seem to be able to explain why...
13:05 < jnewbery> cfields: I think it just takes a long time (a few seconds) to stop a node. They're synchronous calls and stopnodes() will stop nodes in series rather than parallel. Some tests also do multiple stop-starts. It adds up.
13:05 < jonasschnelli> The crazy think with the SafeStack issue in LLVM4.0 is that they are not willing to fix it for 4.0. It will be fixed for 4.0.1.
13:06 < jnewbery> jtimon: patience :) I have no particular objection to either. What do you think the different use-cases are for `make check` and `make tests`? (ie under what circumstances should users *not* want to run a few quick python tests)
13:06 < cfields> jnewbery: oh wait, you mean profiling on the python side?
13:07 < jtimon> jnewbery: mostly giving the user more control on how much time he wants to spend running tests
13:07 < jnewbery> yes. Oh, sorry you want profiling of the node's doing as it stops? I don't have that.
13:07 < cfields> jnewbery: sorry, CConnman::Stop() used to be StopNode(). I thought that's what you were referencing.
13:07 < jtimon> maybe it is the unittests they don't want to run for whatever reason
13:08 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 0.4.2]     
13:08 < instagibbs> jtimon, some people don't know the rpc tests exist, or think that rpc tests run when you call it
13:08 < jnewbery> `make check` currently runs the unit tests. You'd change that so it doesn't run unit tests either? What would there be left for it to do?
13:09 -!- voyager_ [~voyager@ip70-185-195-78.ok.ok.cox.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
13:09 < jnewbery> cfields: sorry name collision
13:09 -!- voyager_ [~voyager@ip70-185-195-78.ok.ok.cox.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:12 -!- JackH [~laptop@217.149.140.177] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:16 -!- shesek [~shesek@bzq-84-110-53-149.red.bezeqint.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
13:16 < jtimon> instagibbs: and those people run make check?
13:16 < instagibbs> jtimon, this happened just last week, so yes
13:17 < instagibbs> from someone I expected knew this
13:17 < jtimon> jnewbery: no, I mean those people could run "make tests" and run only the python tests, or "make check" only the unitttests or "make check tests" to run both
13:17 < instagibbs> (n = 1 and all that)
13:19 < jtimon> instagibbs: I think this can be fixed with docuentation about the new test target and the current check one instead of change check to match their expectations (which I assume was that all python tests were run with check, something nobody seems to be proposing)
13:19 < jtimon> I just don't see the advantage in giving the user less control, sorry
13:20 < jnewbery> jtimon: I think the shorter form `make check` (ie the one that most people will type) should run a cross section of all types of test (ie all unit plus some python). I'm not opposed to having other forms that run just the unit tests or just the python tests.
13:21 < jtimon> make check is not shorter than make test, but whatever, why not think of another name for the new functionality and leave the option that only run unittests (if we're going to have one) with its current name?
13:21 < instagibbs> jtimon, I don't really care a lot, just saying this problem does actually seem to exist
13:21 < jtimon> anyway, I guess this is not so important to disccuss it so much
13:22 < jnewbery> I also don't care too much on what we call it :)
13:22 < jnewbery> but I'll make sure there's a way to just run unit tests
13:22 < jtimon> instagibbs: just stating my preferred solution
13:22 -!- Sosumi [~Leon@bl10-113-190.dsl.telepac.pt] has quit [Quit: Bye]     
13:23 < jtimon> jnewbery: cool
13:30 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
13:33 -!- jtimon [~quassel@70.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
13:56 -!- nemgun [~nemgun@105.99.2.51] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
14:09 -!- marcoagner [~marcoagne@179.177.242.185] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:13 -!- dcousens [~anon@c110-22-219-15.sunsh4.vic.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
14:14 -!- droark [~droark@c-24-22-123-27.hsd1.or.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:27 -!- jtimon [~quassel@70.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:33 < bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #10017: [POC] combine_logs.py - aggregates log files from multiple bitcoinds during functional tests. (master...log_aggregator) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10017
14:36 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@12.130.117.36] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:37 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
14:53 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
14:55 -!- kadoban [~mud@unaffiliated/kadoban] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:01 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
15:05 -!- Chris_Stewart_5 [~Chris_Ste@unaffiliated/chris-stewart-5/x-3612383] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:08 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@12.130.117.36] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:14 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:16 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@12.130.117.36] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
15:25 -!- Guyver2 [~Guyver2@guyver2.xs4all.nl] has quit [Quit: :)]     
15:45 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
15:50 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@12.130.117.36] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
15:57 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:00 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:01 -!- wasi [~wasi@gateway/tor-sasl/wasi] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:01 -!- wasi [~wasi@gateway/tor-sasl/wasi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:03 -!- laurentmt [~Thunderbi@176.158.157.202] has quit [Quit: laurentmt]     
16:05 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
16:08 -!- afk11_ [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
16:08 -!- afk11_ [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:08 -!- wasi [~wasi@gateway/tor-sasl/wasi] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
16:10 -!- wasi [~wasi@gateway/tor-sasl/wasi] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:18 -!- jannes [~jannes@095-097-246-234.static.chello.nl] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
16:19 -!- aalex [~aalex@64.187.177.58] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
16:19 -!- dcousens [~anon@c110-22-219-15.sunsh4.vic.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:37 -!- dcousens [~anon@c110-22-219-15.sunsh4.vic.optusnet.com.au] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
16:47 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:48 -!- dodomojo [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:91b5:5c54:26a:81d6] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
16:50 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
16:51 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
16:59 -!- dodomojo [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:91b5:5c54:26a:81d6] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
17:01 -!- afk11 [~afk11@176.61.69.103] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
17:04 -!- dodomojo [~goksinen@cpe-74-71-4-175.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:05 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:09 -!- afk11 [~afk11@176.61.69.103] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:10 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
17:10 -!- dcousens [~anon@1.136.96.125] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:12 -!- marcoagner [~marcoagne@179.177.242.185] has left #bitcoin-core-dev ["Leaving"]     
17:12 -!- marcoagner [~marcoagne@179.177.242.185] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:22 -!- abpa [~abpa@96-82-80-25-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has quit [Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com]     
17:22 -!- chjj [~chjj@unaffiliated/chjj] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
17:37 -!- dodomojo [~goksinen@cpe-74-71-4-175.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
17:45 -!- dcousens [~anon@1.136.96.125] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
17:54 -!- dodomojo [~goksinen@cpe-74-71-4-175.nyc.res.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:03 -!- dcousens [~anon@1.136.96.125] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:05 -!- justan0theruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:06 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]     
18:37 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:41 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
18:55 -!- Wilber [~RR@46.166.137.195] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:55 -!- dodomojo [~goksinen@cpe-74-71-4-175.nyc.res.rr.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
18:56 -!- dodomojo [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:5957:8026:4e3b:2443] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
18:59 -!- dodomojo_ [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:c135:bd35:fcd6:5ac2] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:03 -!- dodomojo [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:5957:8026:4e3b:2443] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
19:05 -!- JackH [~laptop@217.149.140.177] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
19:05 -!- voyager_ [~voyager@ip70-185-195-78.ok.ok.cox.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]     
19:19 -!- dcousens [~anon@1.136.96.125] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
19:20 -!- dcousens [~anon@c110-22-219-15.sunsh4.vic.optusnet.com.au] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:36 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
19:37 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit []     
19:38 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:39 < NicolasDorier> wumpus: your advise on solving my problem by running configure in another folder worked
19:47 -!- Victor_sueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:50 -!- Victorsueca [~Victorsue@unaffiliated/victorsueca] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]     
19:54 -!- cluelessperson [~cluelessp@unaffiliated/cluelessperson] has left #bitcoin-core-dev []     
19:55 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
19:59 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
20:07 < NicolasDorier> MarcoFalke: I think I noticed why my python tests were working before but not anymore. It seems that the cache built by rpc-tests.py is created in BUILDDIR/qa/cache
20:07 < NicolasDorier> is it ok to move them in /tmp/ ?
20:15 -!- Giszmo [~leo@pc-240-13-215-201.cm.vtr.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]     
20:18 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:22 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@2002:329f:7e15:0:886a:1a9c:52f3:6eec] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:26 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
20:32 -!- marcoagner [~marcoagne@179.177.242.185] has quit [Quit: Leaving]     
20:52 -!- jtimon [~quassel@70.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
20:53 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
20:58 -!- goksinen [~goksinen@rrcs-50-75-193-138.nyc.biz.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]     
21:04 -!- dodomojo_ [~goksinen@2604:2000:c591:8400:c135:bd35:fcd6:5ac2] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
21:13 -!- chris2000 [~chris2000@p5DCB5E14.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:16 -!- chris200_ [~chris2000@p5082A9A9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
21:22 -!- justanotheruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
21:24 -!- justan0theruser [~justanoth@unaffiliated/justanotheruser] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]     
21:38 < sipa> NicolasDorier: then we'd lose them across restarts
21:38 < sipa> NicolasDorier: though i think wumpus was talking about regenerating them for every run anyway
22:55 -!- vogelito [~Adium@174.141.184.245] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:32 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@2002:329f:7e15:0:886a:1a9c:52f3:6eec] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]     
23:42 -!- CubicEarth [~cubiceart@2002:329f:7e15:0:f802:5fad:5394:653d] has joined #bitcoin-core-dev     
23:56 -!- vogelito [~Adium@174.141.184.245] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]