--- Day changed Mon Oct 05 2020 00:03 < nobody123> gwillen: Should I raise a PR and rework it, or is this behaviour intended, because you said "anymore" 00:07 < sipa> nobody123: rework what? if there are no transactions there can't be fee estimation 00:11 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 00:24 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 00:32 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 00:33 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 00:54 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 00:55 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:35 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:38 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 01:40 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:41 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:42 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.170] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:44 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 01:49 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 01:54 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher 02:12 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 02:24 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:30 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 02:38 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:48 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 02:56 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-irdcinsacsmbwsbs] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 02:57 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:03 < michaelfolkson> I think nobody123 means open a PR to the bitcoin.org site to update the tutorial 03:04 < harding> nobody123: note that tutorial is really out of date by this point and has other issues too: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/Bitcoin.org/issues/2538 03:09 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [] 03:09 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:10 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 03:10 < michaelfolkson> The problem nobody123 is highlighting is that on regtest you have to explicitly set a fee. If you don't set a fee you will get the error message nobody123 highlights 03:11 < michaelfolkson> But yeah it sounds like there is a lot of work to do on that bitcoin.org tutorial 03:12 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:14 < michaelfolkson> It is difficult to change on bitcoin-cli because mainnet, testnet, regtest need to all treated similarly right? Fee estimation makes sense for mainnet but fails for regtest. Ideally the default for regtest would be to set a default zero fee 03:15 < michaelfolkson> Or a nominal fee 03:17 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:18 -!- Francesco70Pagac [~Francesco@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:23 -!- Francesco70Pagac [~Francesco@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 03:23 -!- jonatack [~jon@213.152.161.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 03:27 < aj> having -fallbackfee=0.0001 by default for -regtest seems reasonable, =0.0002 is hardcoded in the test framework already, and only overridden in wallet_fallbackfee 03:27 < aj> s/0.0001// whatever 03:37 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 03:38 < michaelfolkson> "Now it is 0 by default for all chains." 03:38 < michaelfolkson> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16524 03:39 < michaelfolkson> I agree on a nominal non-zero fallback fee for regtest but I think this error on regtest is because fee estimation fails rather than there not being a non-zero fallback fee set 03:40 < michaelfolkson> Oh no I'm wrong. There is an error message because fee estimation fails *and* fallbackfee is disabled 03:41 < michaelfolkson> So fallbackfee needs to be enabled on regtest to avoid that error message 03:41 < michaelfolkson> (ideally by default) 03:50 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 03:51 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 03:57 < michaelfolkson> The rationale for disabling the fallback fee for mainnet is strong. You don't want the user to send transactions with low fees if they haven't set them beforehand 03:58 < michaelfolkson> But regtest inherit the defaults from mainnet. And disabling the fallback fee as a default for regtest doesn't have a good rationale 03:59 < michaelfolkson> I think it is a documentation/comment problem rather than a code problem. I don't think you can solve it with code (correct me if wrong) 03:59 < pinheadmz> michaelfolkson I think the issue is mempool policy on regtest 03:59 < pinheadmz> it used to be different from mainnet, not its the same 03:59 < pinheadmz> the difference was a lower minimum relay fee requirement 04:00 < pinheadmz> s/not/now 04:04 < michaelfolkson> That makes less sense to me but I'll look into it :) 04:05 < pinheadmz> i had the same issue recently 04:05 < pinheadmz> i think its like this: "we" wanted regtest to be more like mainnet 04:05 < pinheadmz> the problem is though that regtest never has enough tx activity for the fee estimator to properly return a value 04:05 < pinheadmz> so afallback fee is required on regtest 04:06 < michaelfolkson> But ideally you'd have a low default fallback fee enabled on regtest and an even lower minimum relay fee requirement. And you shouldn't have a problem 04:07 < michaelfolkson> Ohh are you saying there is a minimum relay fee set which is nonzero but the fallback fee is set to zero so the transaction can't get relayed? 04:08 < pinheadmz> well i think by default there is no fallback fee. so the error you get when sending a tx is "fee estimation failed AND there is no fallback fee" 04:08 < pinheadmz> (on regtest) 04:09 < pinheadmz> you could also generate 100s of tx per block on regtest and actually juice up the fee estimator 04:10 < michaelfolkson> I think this PR disabled fallback fee by default *and* set the fallback fee to zero on all chains (mainnet, regtest etc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16524 04:10 < pinheadmz> "Fee estimation failed. Fallbackfee is disabled. Wait a few blocks or enable -fallbackfee." 04:10 < pinheadmz> just did a quick test 04:10 < pinheadmz> ok cool interesting 04:11 < pinheadmz> so fallback is 0 (disabled) for all chains by default now 04:11 < michaelfolkson> I think so, unless there was a follow up PR I'm missing 04:11 < pinheadmz> and note that all tests had to no "manually 04:11 < pinheadmz> " set the fallback fee 04:11 < pinheadmz> s/no/now 04:17 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.171.243.133] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:22 -!- jonatack [~jon@37.171.243.133] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 04:28 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:41 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 04:41 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 04:48 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 05:27 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:31 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 05:32 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:43 < michaelfolkson> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99342/sending-regtest-bitcoin-fails-with-an-error-message-how-do-i-resolve-this-error/ 05:53 < pinheadmz> michaelfolkson upvoted! man you are cleaning up on SE the past few weeks! 05:55 -!- jonatack [~jon@2a01:e0a:53c:a200:bb54:3be5:c3d0:9ce5] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 05:58 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 06:40 -!- ares_ [~ares@gateway/tor-sasl/virtu] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:43 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 06:44 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 07:19 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:33 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 07:42 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:58 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:01 -!- gloriazhao [uid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cnjirtwbjkhfivlw] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:04 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:09 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 08:15 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:40 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 08:42 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds] 09:14 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…] 09:21 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:23 -!- vindard [~vindard@190.83.165.233] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 09:26 -!- vindard [~vindard@190.83.165.233] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 09:42 < michaelfolkson> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20087 10:02 < jonatack> review club people: this is the week to finish reviewing the taproot implementation before 0.21 feature freeze, if you're inclined to do so https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19953 10:03 < jonatack> thanks to jnewbery, there have been several taproot sessions you can refer to: https://bitcoincore.reviews/meetings-components/#consensus 10:21 < michaelfolkson> I just assumed it wasn't going to make it into 0.21.... Don't the activation method/parameters need to be finalized for it to make it into a Core release? 10:21 < michaelfolkson> (Not that I personally want that stuff to prevent it from getting into a Core release...) 10:23 < sipa> michaelfolkson: no 10:24 < sipa> activation can come in 0.21.1 or whatever 10:24 < sipa> in fact, we'd want it to be in master without activation, so that it can be tested on regtest and signet, and later possibly testnet 10:24 < Murch> Currently reviewing the PR that is up for this weeks meeting. When the conditions in an `if` statement no longer fit in one line, is there a preferred style for a multiline conditional? Is there a coding style for Bitcoin Core somewhere? 10:24 < sipa> before the community decides to enable it 10:24 < michaelfolkson> Ah ok. Cool 10:25 < sipa> Murch: there is: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md 10:25 < sipa> though i don't remember it saying anything about long lines 10:25 < jonatack> michaelfolkson: see discussion at last thursday's meeting http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2020/bitcoin-core-dev.2020-10-01-19.00.log.html#l-41 10:25 < michaelfolkson> Great, thanks jonatack 10:26 < jonatack> Murch: see src/init.cpp for line length guidance :D 10:26 < Murch> sipa: Thanks, will take a look 10:26 < sipa> Murch: some part of the C++ code style guide is codified in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/.clang-format, though that's (even) less enforced than the english style guide 10:27 < sipa> personally, when i split a long conditional, i do it after an && or || (is possible), and indent the rest 4 spaces 10:27 < Murch> jonatack: lol 10:27 < sipa> in short, don't worry too much about it 10:27 < sipa> if you as a reviewer think a line is hard to follow, regardless of length, that's something to point out 10:28 < Murch> sipa: So `&&` or `||` at the end of the line, not the front. And just as much as you can fit. Got it. 10:30 < sipa> Murch: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/a60ad12fb9bac2e4a8fe9018754444d48ba817ea#diff-eb634ebe03730115919b01125bf81ea6R274-R275 eg 10:31 < sipa> but that's kind of my personal choice, i wouldn't comment on people using a different approach, if it's readable 10:32 < michaelfolkson> I highly doubt this will happen (and personally hope it doesn't) but if either activation parameters can't get agreed upon or if community rejects Taproot soft fork itself then a future release would just take all the Taproot code out right? 10:32 < Murch> sipa: Not hard to follow, the PR just went from a single line if statement to one where the conditions were more than one line, and my personal preference would have been to format differently, so I was wondering whether there were guidelines ^^ 10:33 < michaelfolkson> So people need to be careful in opening PRs on top of the Taproot stuff until it is activated 10:33 < michaelfolkson> Because it could get taken out of a future release 10:35 < sipa> michaelfolkson: i agree it's a possibility we need to be prepared for, but i don't think it's particularly cumbersome 10:36 < sipa> there are a few small refactors inside the PR because they're not generally useful enough to be PR'ed on their own... but if worst comes to worst, they can just be kept while the rest is reverted/removed 10:44 < michaelfolkson> Does a PR for signing and wallet support need to be opened pre activation or post activation? 10:47 < sipa> michaelfolkson: i think that we rarely "have to" anything... it'll happen whensomeone wants to work on it, and reviewers like it 10:48 < sipa> i don't think there is a strong reason why the wallet would need to support taproot ever - it'd eventually be a shitty wallet if it didn't, but it doesn't affect anything else 10:49 < michaelfolkson> But the activation is saying "We want our nodes to be able to validate Taproot transactions" and then a Taproot transaction would make its way into the chain (potentially despite there being no wallet or signing support in Core) 10:50 < sipa> like... the current bitcoin core wallet doesn't support signing CLTV/CSV either (which may change with miniscript), but they've been active in consensus for almost 5 years 10:52 < sipa> michaelfolkson: segwit support in the wallet in bitcoin core came only in 0.16 as well, which was released half a year after segwit activated 10:53 < sipa> i'm not saying that's necessarily ideal, but things happen when they happen 10:53 < michaelfolkson> So what were people using to create those SegWit transactions? Just constructing them manually? 10:53 < sipa> or other wallets? 10:54 < michaelfolkson> Maybe there are some secret (not Core) wallet announcements coming that I'm not aware of :) 10:54 < sipa> ? 10:55 < michaelfolkson> Third party announcements from wallets that will allow you to create Taproot transactions before Core does 10:55 < sipa> maybe, or maybe not 10:55 < sipa> does it matter? 10:56 < sipa> it's not like everyone suddenly has some moral imperative to start using taproot transactions once it activated 10:56 < sipa> things get adopted when they get adopted 10:56 < michaelfolkson> No I'm just thinking what I will use to construct Taproot transactions and whether I'll need to do it manually :) 10:56 < sipa> you could use the python functional test code ;) 10:57 < sipa> (^ that's a joke, it's not intended for production) 10:57 < sipa> but i mean it's not like there isn't code out there - and it would be a useful thing to prioritize (if people agree) to help out with adding support for it to popular libraries/wallets... core, and others 10:58 < michaelfolkson> I'm sure the Python functional test code is better than what I'd come up with. I will only do small amounts (if I use mainnet over signet at all) 11:11 < michaelfolkson> Feature freeze is October 15th. So got 10 days https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18947 11:12 < michaelfolkson> It needs to be merged in by October 15th if it is going to be in 0.21? 11:13 < sipa> it'll be backported to 0.21 otherwise 11:13 < michaelfolkson> Sorry what does backported mean in this context? 11:14 < sipa> it won't be in 0.21.0, but it'll be in 0.21.x 11:14 < michaelfolkson> Ok 11:38 < Murch> michaelfolkson: As far as I am aware there is at least one library that has already implemented Taproot support and I know of some orgs that are highly interested in adopting it quickly. 11:38 < Murch> I assume that it'll first roll out for those that have the biggest incentive to use it 11:40 < Murch> E.g. Taproot means 45% fee savings for 2-of-3 multisig coming from P2WSH constructions 11:41 < Murch> If you're spending north of $100k on fees per month that should kinda make it attractive 11:43 < michaelfolkson> They'll be using threshold MuSig schemes straight away?! 11:43 < michaelfolkson> There's not 45% fee savings without threshold MuSig? 11:43 < sipa> you can make the most likely combination a 2-of-2 MuSig as key path 11:43 < sipa> that doesn't need thresholds 11:44 < sipa> and depending on how common the usage of that combination is, may already give you almost all of the savings 11:44 < michaelfolkson> Ok. I didn't even think they would be using multisig MuSig at this early stage 11:45 < michaelfolkson> That's great 11:45 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 11:45 < sipa> not that there aren't practical complexities around the usage of just MuSig itself, but it's at least in theory a solved problem 11:49 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 11:51 < michaelfolkson> Making a 2-of-3 into a 2-of-2 key path and a 2-of-3 script path is neat. I hadn't thought of it like that before 11:52 < michaelfolkson> Seems inefficient but is more efficient if you use the key path 11:54 < michaelfolkson> (and MuSig for the 2-of-2 obviously) 11:54 < sipa> why does it seem inefficient? 11:54 < sipa> the key path is free 11:55 < michaelfolkson> Encoding 2-of-2 and a 2-of-3 rather than just a 2-of-3 is intuitively redundant. But yeah with the key path makes sense 11:55 < sipa> or i should say, "included in the price", as every taproot output has the ability to be spent through the key path, whether you need it or not 11:55 < sipa> so better use it 12:04 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:05 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 12:18 -!- Talkless [~Talkless@mail.dargis.net] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 12:23 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 12:24 -!- pinheadm_ [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 12:59 -!- nobody123 [~nobody123@dslb-094-216-002-184.094.216.pools.vodafone-ip.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 13:04 -!- pinheadm_ [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: pinheadm_] 13:04 -!- pinheadmz [~pinheadmz@pool-100-33-69-78.nycmny.fios.verizon.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:05 < Murch> I wrote a bit about it on medium recently 13:05 < Murch> lemme find a link for you 13:07 < Murch> https://medium.com/@murchandamus/2-of-3-multisig-inputs-using-pay-to-taproot-d5faf2312ba3 13:10 -!- kristapsk_ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:10 -!- kristapsk___ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:19 -!- nobody12_ [~nobody123@193.27.14.126] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:19 < nobody12_> Hello 13:19 -!- nobody12_ is now known as norisg 13:19 -!- jkczyz_ [sid419941@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-anszanoxiedqhnvw] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:19 -!- ethzero__ [sid396973@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gqpdcrnsceylcson] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:20 -!- drbrule_ [sid395654@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qzclcwgouytxdizk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:20 < norisg> and if not why do we not allow 0 fees, lets say a miner wants to include it when blockspace is availabe 13:22 < sipa> norisg: mempool DoS protection; there ought to be a price for getting a transaction relayed across the network 13:23 -!- b10c_ [~b10c@2a01:4f8:192:612a:216:3eff:fef3:dc6a] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:23 < norisg> sipa ok thanks thats reasonable 13:25 -!- jkczyz [sid419941@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hcvvptwtteadyimp] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:25 -!- moneyball [sid299869@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-knmkcntuccvblapy] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:25 -!- drbrule [sid395654@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-upjwrhbxkttxvnlr] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:25 -!- ethzero_ [sid396973@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zcotfovitpsbufzp] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:25 -!- b10c [~b10c@2a01:4f8:192:612a:216:3eff:fef3:dc6a] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:25 -!- hebasto [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-envyhlmvwzvxjiaq] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:25 -!- midnight [~midnight@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:25 -!- nothingmuch [~nothingmu@unaffiliated/nothingmuch] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds] 13:25 -!- ethzero__ is now known as ethzero_ 13:25 -!- drbrule_ is now known as drbrule 13:25 -!- jkczyz_ is now known as jkczyz 13:26 -!- somethinglittle [~nothingmu@unaffiliated/nothingmuch] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:27 -!- moneyball__ [sid299869@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:27 -!- hebasto_ [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:27 -!- moneyball__ [sid299869@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session] has quit [Changing host] 13:27 -!- moneyball__ [sid299869@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-epbknxfxacmkodvz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:27 -!- hebasto_ [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/session] has quit [Changing host] 13:27 -!- hebasto_ [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xkrsmngescjntfdi] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:28 -!- midnight [~midnight@unaffiliated/midnightmagic] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 13:31 < Murch> norisg: You can directly submit to a mining pool via their API, if they accept lower fee rates. 13:35 < norisg> Murch ok thats cool, so there is a possibility to pay 0 fees :) 13:37 < norisg> I haven't looked into the code but is does regtest use the 100 percent the same sourcefiles as mainnet only that different conditions are passed through ? 13:38 < sipa> norisg: yes, all parameters are in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp 13:38 < sipa> regtest is just a network with a few changed parameters 13:38 < sipa> so are testnet and (since recently) signet 13:39 -!- troygiorshev [~troygiors@d67-193-140-136.home3.cgocable.net] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 13:45 -!- somethinglittle is now known as nothingmuch 13:46 < norisg> sipa ok I checked signet and there it says it requires signature for blockvalidation, I my understanding every transaction which is included in a block needs a signature 13:46 < sipa> norisg: no, it's a signature on the block, not the transactions; see BIP 325 14:27 -!- tralfaz [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:29 -!- davterra [~davterra@gateway/tor-sasl/tralfaz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 14:50 -!- Milford60Tromp [~Milford60@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 14:55 -!- Milford60Tromp [~Milford60@static.57.1.216.95.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:10 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 15:12 -!- vasild [~vd@gateway/tor-sasl/vasild] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:16 -!- hugohn [sid304114@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wigsyrnczlzuvegj] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 15:17 -!- jamesob [sid180710@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pmxtvqdyysmhmxas] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 15:17 -!- jamesob [sid180710@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qmddwxzkygwjtpel] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:19 -!- hugohn [sid304114@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fledwqxrihcjmlry] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:27 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 15:37 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:41 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:47 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 15:52 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] 16:05 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 16:08 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 17:23 -!- norisg [~nobody123@193.27.14.126] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 17:25 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 17:29 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 17:49 -!- da39a3ee5e6b4b0d [~textual@n11211935170.netvigator.com] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:38 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: jaybny] 18:40 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:40 -!- kristapsk___ [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 18:42 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 18:53 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: jaybny] 19:35 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:50 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 19:54 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds] 20:04 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: jaybny] 20:05 -!- jaybny [~jaybny@c-73-162-160-252.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 21:46 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds] 21:54 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:30 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 22:47 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 22:58 -!- S3RK [~s3rk@47.246.66.115] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:05 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: Zenton, digi_james, kallewoof, dergoegge, gloriazhao, wallet42__ 23:05 -!- gloriazhao [uid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tiwtubynovndgvvr] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:05 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Zenton 23:05 -!- digi_james [sid281632@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zhvokaiycnpsbyyh] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:05 -!- wallet42__ [sid154231@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ddsrglszoalcxslt] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:10 -!- dergoegge [sid453889@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jzdktyxxskljzfdk] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:10 -!- kallewoof [~quassel@240d:1a:759:6000:a7b1:451a:8874:e1ac] has joined #bitcoin-core-pr-reviews 23:12 -!- kristapsk [~KK@gateway/tor-sasl/kristapsk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]