1 2016-03-16 02:40:53 0|GitHub1|[13bitcoin] 15EthanHeilman opened pull request #7696: Fix de-serialization bug where AddrMan is left corrupted (06master...06bug) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7696 2 2016-03-16 02:51:16 0|achow101|will there be a full write up of the details of the segwit changes so that wallet developers can work on its implementation? 3 2016-03-16 02:51:33 0|achow101|preferably before the release of the client with segwit? 4 2016-03-16 14:27:26 0|GitHub25|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #7697: Tests: make prioritise_transaction.py more robust (06master...06fix-prioritise-transaction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7697 5 2016-03-16 15:06:09 0|Chris_Stewart_5|Hi guys, I know this isn't the correct channel, but I figured some one in this channel might be able to answer my question - i've already tried #bitcoin-dev 6 2016-03-16 15:06:28 0|Chris_Stewart_5|I'm looking at this test case from script_valid.json that is suppose to pass in core 7 2016-03-16 15:06:30 0|Chris_Stewart_5|["0x4a 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000", "0 CHECKSIG NOT", "", "Overly long signature is correctly encoded"] 8 2016-03-16 15:06:53 0|Chris_Stewart_5|however the signature 0x00...000 isn't a valid DER signature - so why is this test case suppose to pass? 9 2016-03-16 15:08:12 0|Chris_Stewart_5|interestingly enough, that same test case is also included in script_invalid.json as well 10 2016-03-16 15:09:15 0|sipa|that test doesn't specify DERSIG as validation flag 11 2016-03-16 15:09:43 0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: So this is a historical test case pre BIP-66? 12 2016-03-16 15:09:44 0|sipa|or STRICTENC or LOW_S 13 2016-03-16 15:09:45 0|wumpus|intersting 14 2016-03-16 15:09:55 0|wumpus|I think he got confused by ["Increase test coverage for DERSIG"] 15 2016-03-16 15:10:02 0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: in a way... 16 2016-03-16 15:10:11 0|wumpus|after which none of the test cases supply the DERSIG flag :-) 17 2016-03-16 15:10:12 0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: the consensus rules are still well defined for historical cases 18 2016-03-16 15:10:38 0|wumpus|(some do, later on, but not under that heading) 19 2016-03-16 15:10:54 0|sipa|wumpus: compare that section to the corresponding section in script_invalid; the tests verify the difference in validity by setting/unsetting that flag 20 2016-03-16 15:11:16 0|wumpus|sipa: I believe you that it's correct, it just looks funny 21 2016-03-16 15:11:24 0|sipa|that's the typical way these tests are constructed: find the minimal set of flag difference that cause validity to change, and put one side in valid and one side in invalid 22 2016-03-16 15:11:32 0|sipa|probably deserves a comment! 23 2016-03-16 15:11:37 0|wumpus|right 24 2016-03-16 15:15:33 0|Chris_Stewart_5|thanks guys, If I am understanding this correctly, we would have to deploy another soft fork to make this signature valid again for bitcoin core nodes? Are the flags in the test case used ONLY for these test cases or is there similar flags used in bitcoin core's interpreter? 25 2016-03-16 15:16:11 0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: it would require a hard fork to make them valid again 26 2016-03-16 15:16:45 0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: that specific test tests the script evaluation engine, which does not know anything about consensus rules or transactions or blocks even 27 2016-03-16 15:16:57 0|sipa|so it specifies the flags for evaluation with each test 28 2016-03-16 15:17:24 0|sipa|other, higher-level tests exist that actually check whether the consensus logic evaluates things correctly 29 2016-03-16 15:17:42 0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: Is that right though? Obviously OP_CHECKSIG has to know about txs because they are needed for hashing to compare against the sigs? 30 2016-03-16 15:17:58 0|Chris_Stewart_5|or OP_CHECKMULTISIG 31 2016-03-16 15:18:28 0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: nope, it's abstracted through BaseSignatureChecker 32 2016-03-16 15:18:53 0|sipa|and then there is an implementation for that for CTransaction, but it can be used to verify signatures on other things than transactions 33 2016-03-16 15:19:06 0|Chris_Stewart_5|interesting, I"ve been trying to model something similar in Scala, i'll have to take a closer look 34 2016-03-16 15:19:37 0|Chris_Stewart_5|I think i was just running into this problem of who knows about what (does the interpreter needs to know about txs etc..) 35 2016-03-16 15:20:26 0|sipa|there were some plans of introducing a new message signing feature based on this, so that you can do multisigs on a message, for example 36 2016-03-16 16:32:28 0|GitHub191|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 5 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a6a860796a44...3d0dfdbf9f26 37 2016-03-16 16:32:29 0|GitHub191|13bitcoin/06master 14fa3a81a 15MarcoFalke: [tests] Extend util_ParseMoney test case 38 2016-03-16 16:32:29 0|GitHub191|13bitcoin/06master 14fad7dc8 15MarcoFalke: [qa] wallet: speed up tests 39 2016-03-16 16:32:30 0|GitHub191|13bitcoin/06master 14fa8cd46 15MarcoFalke: [qa] Move create_tx() to util.py 40 2016-03-16 16:32:39 0|GitHub140|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7684: [qa] Extend tests (06master...06Mf1603-qaCleanup1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7684 41 2016-03-16 17:46:07 0|btcdrak|has anyone complained to Github about the sort order of commits on PRs? 42 2016-03-16 17:47:35 0|sipa|btcdrak: they're sorted by date 43 2016-03-16 17:47:39 0|sipa|https://help.github.com/articles/why-are-my-commits-in-the-wrong-order/ 44 2016-03-16 18:02:29 0|MarcoFalke|wumpus around? 45 2016-03-16 18:14:30 0|btcdrak|hunt the wumpus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGVOw8gXl6Y 46 2016-03-16 18:24:12 0|paveljanik|btcdrak, red ferrari started and wnt away. Ah, this was ad ;-)) 47 2016-03-16 19:05:08 0|GitHub116|13bitcoin/06master 14ec14339 15Suhas Daftuar: Tests: make prioritise_transaction.py more robust 48 2016-03-16 19:05:08 0|GitHub116|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3d0dfdbf9f26...622fe6c32f41 49 2016-03-16 19:05:09 0|GitHub116|13bitcoin/06master 14622fe6c 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7697: Tests: make prioritise_transaction.py more robust... 50 2016-03-16 19:05:17 0|GitHub103|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7697: Tests: make prioritise_transaction.py more robust (06master...06fix-prioritise-transaction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7697 51 2016-03-16 19:06:29 0|CodeShark|btcdrak: the original text version in BASIC: https://youtu.be/9BsliGry-OA 52 2016-03-16 19:21:05 0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: yes (but not for long) 53 2016-03-16 19:21:15 0|MarcoFalke|wumpus, I was wondering what you think about the patches toGetFee() 54 2016-03-16 19:21:38 0|wumpus|haven't really looked at that yet 55 2016-03-16 19:21:52 0|wumpus|most of the fee logic honestly confuses me 56 2016-03-16 19:22:09 0|MarcoFalke|Jup the current logic even has a bug 57 2016-03-16 19:22:27 0|MarcoFalke|GetFee() is not monotonic in the size 58 2016-03-16 19:22:36 0|MarcoFalke|Would be trivial to fix 59 2016-03-16 19:22:43 0|wumpus|I''m not surprised - I think we should first document what we want, then try to achieve that in the code 60 2016-03-16 19:23:14 0|MarcoFalke|So I'd prefer to keep the integer logic (truncate) 61 2016-03-16 19:23:17 0|wumpus|currently it's impossible to say if behavior is desirable or not 62 2016-03-16 19:23:27 0|MarcoFalke|morcos and jtimon suggested to make it always ceil 63 2016-03-16 19:23:46 0|wumpus|well at the very least please don't use doubles for monetary values 64 2016-03-16 19:24:08 0|wumpus|I don't have an opinion on ceil versus floor, that'd at most make a satoshi difference I guess? 65 2016-03-16 19:24:19 0|MarcoFalke|sure 66 2016-03-16 19:24:39 0|MarcoFalke|but ceil at least needs a double for the time of calculation 67 2016-03-16 19:24:41 0|wumpus|so go with whatever results in the simplest code 68 2016-03-16 19:25:14 0|wumpus|you don't ever *need* doubles 69 2016-03-16 19:25:20 0|jtimon|I think avoiding the optional param as suggested by morcos certainly simplifies things 70 2016-03-16 19:25:24 0|morcos|MarcoFalke: Why do we NEED to change something? 71 2016-03-16 19:25:46 0|MarcoFalke|we need at least make getFee() monotonic 72 2016-03-16 19:25:56 0|morcos|ehh 73 2016-03-16 19:25:59 0|wumpus|morcos: yes, that's what first needs to be decided 74 2016-03-16 19:26:38 0|morcos|MarcoFalke: btw, i'm totally fine with just truncating all the time too, but you were against truncating to 0 75 2016-03-16 19:26:45 0|morcos|what i dont' want is more complexity 76 2016-03-16 19:26:48 0|wumpus|if we don't need to change something that'd be preferable, so we can catch up to document the current behavior 77 2016-03-16 19:26:51 0|jtimon|to be honest I'm still not sure what this is all about, even after reading the 2 PRs 78 2016-03-16 19:27:18 0|MarcoFalke|ok, I will submit a minimal code change patch this evening 79 2016-03-16 19:27:22 0|wumpus|if we could describe things in human understandable terms that'd help devs too 80 2016-03-16 19:27:37 0|wumpus|as said, I've been maintaining this code for years and the fee code freaks me out 81 2016-03-16 19:28:16 0|jtimon|what about always truncating but instead of ever returning 0, just return 1 satoshi? 82 2016-03-16 19:28:18 0|wumpus|at least if there's a large change in behavior we should document it in the release notes next time :) 83 2016-03-16 19:28:34 0|MarcoFalke|jtimon, that's what I am going to do 84 2016-03-16 19:28:39 0|morcos|wumpus: i know you say you don't like doubles, but the mining code and the fee estimation code which are the things that use fee rates, both use them as doubles 85 2016-03-16 19:28:41 0|MarcoFalke|will result in least code and diff 86 2016-03-16 19:28:49 0|wumpus|morcos: that's awful 87 2016-03-16 19:29:33 0|jtimon|MarcoFalke: oh, nice, what's the problem with returning 0 in the first place anywa? 88 2016-03-16 19:30:07 0|MarcoFalke|we still use it in the wallet to "detect" what the user selected 89 2016-03-16 19:30:21 0|MarcoFalke|paytxfee or confirmtarget 90 2016-03-16 19:30:33 0|jtimon|and now the user can't select 0 fee? 91 2016-03-16 19:30:35 0|wumpus|doubles don't have exactly the same behavior on all platforms, which make it dangerous to use them for monetary values, we've had some strange reports of behavior while using doubles in the RPC layer 92 2016-03-16 19:30:51 0|morcos|wumpus: i mean i said that kind of for effect, its not really awful the way its used, and i'm fine keeping CFeeRate to not use doubles, but its worth keeping in mind that we're losing precision by converting it to some weird integer 93 2016-03-16 19:30:52 0|wumpus|now we've got rid of them there 94 2016-03-16 19:31:19 0|jtimon|just use int satoshis everywhere 95 2016-03-16 19:31:33 0|morcos|but its satoshis per size 96 2016-03-16 19:31:39 0|wumpus|morcos: if you lose precision with integer arithmetic at least in a predictable, deterministic, platform independent way :) 97 2016-03-16 19:32:00 0|wumpus|but it should be possible not to lost precision, if you use the right amount of fixed point precision 98 2016-03-16 19:32:14 0|MarcoFalke|Using doubles for bitcoin should be fine right now, as a double can hold all possible values with exact precision IIRC. 99 2016-03-16 19:32:25 0|MarcoFalke|But we should avoid it for consistency 100 2016-03-16 19:32:27 0|morcos|wumpus: well for instance in the mining (actually mempool sorting) code its calculation using integers but they are converted to doubles to ignore overflow risk 101 2016-03-16 19:32:29 0|wumpus|'should be fine' but please don't 102 2016-03-16 19:33:02 0|wumpus|they said the same about using doubles in RPC, and there's been some strange rounding errors 103 2016-03-16 19:33:03 0|MarcoFalke|Jup, people will look at the code and think this is best practise 104 2016-03-16 19:33:15 0|morcos|anywya, we're not talking about using doubles for an amount, i think everyone would 100% agree, that no bitcoin amount should ever be represented as a double (bitcoins.satoshis) 105 2016-03-16 19:33:25 0|jtimon|I guess CFeeRate's ```/ 1000``` simplifies some parts of the code, but I still dislike the whole concept (and much more that this code is included in current libconsensus) 106 2016-03-16 19:33:37 0|sdaftuar|CFeeRate is in libconsensus? 107 2016-03-16 19:34:24 0|MarcoFalke|jtimon, you mean IsDust()? 108 2016-03-16 19:34:43 0|wumpus|I'd really prefer to stick to the point that doubles and floating point arithmetic dosn't belong in financial software 109 2016-03-16 19:34:57 0|jtimon|yes, from the beginning, I've been trying to move it out ever since without luck, but if someone else wants to rewrite any of my attempts I'm more than happy to review 110 2016-03-16 19:36:21 0|wumpus|I'm sure it is not used by any actual consensus code and could be moved out of libconsensus in due time 111 2016-03-16 19:36:58 0|jtimon|MarcoFalke: IsDust and dustThereshold too, that's the reason why it cannot simply be moved out (amount.h would remain without .cpp or all its code can be simply moved back to primitives/transaction.h but then policy/feerate.o needs to depend on the whole consensus/transaction.o instead of only amount.h) 112 2016-03-16 19:37:21 0|jtimon|wumpus: it can be moved out of consensus at any time 113 2016-03-16 19:37:26 0|wumpus|jtimon: right 114 2016-03-16 19:38:09 0|jtimon|for the first version that was small enough to just leave it for later, but we're leaving it for later ever since 115 2016-03-16 19:38:38 0|jtimon|s/we're/we've been 116 2016-03-16 19:39:56 0|wumpus|anyhow, re; fee, I think we should first have a plan what we really want, what is the current behavior, what is the intended behavior, before we just start changing code again and surpise users 117 2016-03-16 19:40:08 0|morcos|wumpus: to summarize what i think the CFeeRate current problem is , we definited it as satoshis/kB which doesn't have enough precision as an integer to not be a bit annoying (both close to 0 and too many ties in mempool sorting). not super annoying, but it was a bit of a silly definition 118 2016-03-16 19:41:46 0|wumpus|morcos: yes I fully agree the current implementation of CFeeRate is somewhat silly 119 2016-03-16 19:42:06 0|jtimon|I guess the advantage of using KB instead of just bytes it's to contemplate fees below 1 satoshi per byte, which I have no idea if currently makes sense 120 2016-03-16 19:42:44 0|morcos|yes, jtimon from a human communication format satoshis/B makes more sense, but for precision, you really want satoshis/MB 121 2016-03-16 19:43:02 0|jtimon|so any more generic replacement to contemplate lower fees would do it, I think 122 2016-03-16 19:43:14 0|wumpus|well the internal representation doesn't have to depend on human communication format at all 123 2016-03-16 19:43:20 0|wumpus|it cen be presented in whatever way makes sense to the user 124 2016-03-16 19:43:36 0|morcos|well CFeeRate is almost only for human communication format 125 2016-03-16 19:43:52 0|morcos|most things internally store fees and size separately 126 2016-03-16 19:43:57 0|morcos|and do the calculations as necessary 127 2016-03-16 19:44:08 0|jtimon|alright, so we need more precission and 1000 happens to be too small of a divider some times. what about an optional bytes param that defaults to 1000 ? 128 2016-03-16 19:44:12 0|wumpus|human communication depends on the formatting function only 129 2016-03-16 19:44:13 0|morcos|or like the estimation code use doubles b/c they're doing all kinds of crazy exponential decays and stuff 130 2016-03-16 19:44:57 0|wumpus|jtimon: you mean make it a rational? 131 2016-03-16 19:45:26 0|jtimon|I think that would open the door to some more simplifications for cases where you multiply by 1000 and divide by tx_size right after dividing by 1000 in the exnapsulated stuff 132 2016-03-16 19:45:30 0|wumpus|well it's better than a double :) 133 2016-03-16 19:46:25 0|jtimon|no, wait I've probably said something stupid, let me think more while looking at code 134 2016-03-16 19:46:59 0|morcos|well, its not causing me any issues right now, so i prefer no changes to anything that isn't an obvious improvement 135 2016-03-16 19:47:08 0|wumpus|morcos: absolutely 136 2016-03-16 19:47:24 0|wumpus|that's my whole point about the fee logic, really 137 2016-03-16 19:49:31 0|wumpus|first consider what is the current case, and what we want, so we can define what is an improvement 138 2016-03-16 19:50:36 0|morcos|the problem MarcoFalke is trying to solve (or at least part of it) isnt' a problem with CFeeRate, but with a shortcut in how we detect whether the user has selected to paytxfee 139 2016-03-16 19:51:14 0|morcos|it would make more sense to find out whether the paytxfee option has been set, and not whether it = 0 or rounds to 0 in terms of decidign whether to use dynamic fee estimation 140 2016-03-16 19:51:26 0|morcos|thats would be the ideal fix, but that would be a change of behavior potentially for users 141 2016-03-16 19:51:50 0|wumpus|I've been kind of caught by surprise by the fPayAtLeastCustomFee stuff, for example 142 2016-03-16 19:52:51 0|morcos|right now you can't select paytxfee=0 , that just seems silly, you should be able to set whatever fee you want, and if you select a fee, you don't use fee estimation, even if your fee rounds/truncates/ceilings/doubles/or trampolines to 0 143 2016-03-16 19:53:01 0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7633#issuecomment-195254622 I'd really like to avoid this another time 144 2016-03-16 19:53:45 0|wumpus|"how we detect whether the user has selected to paytxfee" let's just follow the straightforward route and add a boolean then 145 2016-03-16 19:53:58 0|wumpus|second guessing the user sucks 146 2016-03-16 19:55:24 0|wumpus|sure - we can change the API, it's not prohobitive to change the behavior at all, just be sure to mention it in the release notes :) 147 2016-03-16 19:56:20 0|MarcoFalke|I should have done the release notes as part of the pull probably. Still, no one yelled at me all the time before 0.12 was released. Even though my original pull was from September. 148 2016-03-16 19:56:29 0|wumpus|and we shoudl really write a document what the various fee options do, how they interact, what is the result in practice 149 2016-03-16 19:56:45 0|wumpus|it's soo flexible that no one understands really :) 150 2016-03-16 19:57:41 0|wumpus|I'm not blaming you at all MarcoFalke, it's a strange coincidence of circumstances 151 2016-03-16 19:57:43 0|MarcoFalke|you suggested to add a .md in /doc? I'd rather not do this taking considering that you need a pull every time someone wants to edit the file. 152 2016-03-16 19:57:55 0|wumpus|I don't care where 153 2016-03-16 19:58:21 0|MarcoFalke|bitcoin wiki it? 154 2016-03-16 19:58:26 0|MarcoFalke|or the website? 155 2016-03-16 19:58:37 0|MarcoFalke|Do we have infrastructure on the website for documentation yet? 156 2016-03-16 19:58:40 0|wumpus|fine with me, I usually put stuff in gists but that's hard to find I suppose 157 2016-03-16 19:58:48 0|wumpus|well on the website you need a pull for every change too 158 2016-03-16 19:59:34 0|MarcoFalke|but bitcoin/bitcoin commits are read by somewhat more people than the website commits 159 2016-03-16 19:59:41 0|wumpus|wikis have the problem that there's no change control at all 160 2016-03-16 19:59:49 0|wumpus|that's why we moved the BIPs to git 161 2016-03-16 20:00:36 0|wumpus|anyhow this isn't imporant, if you write it you get to decide where to put it 162 2016-03-16 20:02:36 0|wumpus|bitcoin.org has extensive infrastructure for documentation, don't think bitcoincore.org has 163 2016-03-16 20:03:31 0|morcos|what do you think about changing the names of those options. i mean i know thats annoying. but calling them paytxfeerate instead of paytxfee would make a whole lot more sense 164 2016-03-16 20:04:16 0|morcos|i don't know if its easy enough to do that in a compatible way, i guess we'd have to consolidate where the arguments are looked at 165 2016-03-16 20:04:39 0|wumpus|why not just document them better instead of change the name :) 166 2016-03-16 20:05:14 0|morcos|yeah i guess there are a ton of them 167 2016-03-16 20:05:52 0|wumpus|I mean for a clean slate, in retrospect, it would be awesome to name them differently, and as in any program there are plenty of awkwarly named options... but yes there's a strong backward compatibiltiy versus sensibility for new users compromise 168 2016-03-16 20:06:06 0|GitHub37|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #7660: [amount] Extend GetFee() by optional flag ceil (06master...06Mf1603-amountCeil) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7660 169 2016-03-16 20:06:16 0|GitHub110|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #7661: [wallet] Round up to the next satoshi on odd fee rates (06master...06Mf1603-walletCeil) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7661 170 2016-03-16 20:07:11 0|wumpus|and it's possible to argue that the name of the options themselves is just arbitrary, it's just a name, as long as it's not completely deceptive what matters is how they're documented 171 2016-03-16 20:07:45 0|MarcoFalke|Would be great to have different option names map to the same option to be used as synonyms... Which brings us back to the rewrite of the arg parser... 172 2016-03-16 20:08:14 0|wumpus|well we do have some options that just throw an error if you provide them, and mention that they're either removed or have a new name 173 2016-03-16 20:08:41 0|wumpus|but there's got to be a good motivation to do that, it shouldn't look like just sending the user on a wild goose chase :) 174 2016-03-16 20:08:48 0|MarcoFalke|paytxfee is still widely used. Would be nasty to require everyone change their conf 175 2016-03-16 20:09:09 0|morcos|wumpus: btw, i made your change to 7187, should i go ahead and squash all the commits, not sure if you thought review was done 176 2016-03-16 20:09:34 0|MarcoFalke|wumpus any update on "wumpus: Would it be possible for us to arrange open source licenses of the Jetbrains IDEs for C++ and Python? They offer free licenses to projects like this" 177 2016-03-16 20:09:50 0|wumpus|e.g. there's an issue to rename '-rescan' becuase many people use it out of confusion... well, yes, but you can't really keep the new name secret to clueless users :) 178 2016-03-16 20:10:21 0|wumpus|morcos: I think review was good for that, we should merge it 179 2016-03-16 20:10:40 0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: yea will do that, haven't got around to it 180 2016-03-16 20:10:56 0|wumpus|morcos: (and squash, yes) 181 2016-03-16 20:13:14 0|MarcoFalke|morcos (and others) Make sure to have the commit id somewhere in the GitHub discussion before you squash. Otherwise it's less transparent and harder to re-review if the reviewer hasn't pulled your repo yet. 182 2016-03-16 20:13:25 0|wumpus|morcos: I think changing the semantics in potentially dangerous way would be a good reason to rename them, and error when the old name is used 183 2016-03-16 20:13:49 0|morcos|wumpus: like maxsigcachesize :) 184 2016-03-16 20:16:34 0|morcos|ok done 185 2016-03-16 20:16:37 0|wumpus|morcos: ehh that changed from entries to MiB didn't it 186 2016-03-16 20:16:56 0|wumpus|morcos: yes, luckily it's an option no one knows about :) 187 2016-03-16 20:17:01 0|morcos|yeah, i mean the damage is probably not that large, just an unlimited sigcache 188 2016-03-16 20:17:24 0|wumpus|but yes it'd have made sense to change the name 189 2016-03-16 20:20:27 0|GitHub33|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/622fe6c32f41...14d6324a248d 190 2016-03-16 20:20:28 0|GitHub33|13bitcoin/06master 1414d6324 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7187: Keep reorgs fast for SequenceLocks checks... 191 2016-03-16 20:20:28 0|GitHub33|13bitcoin/06master 14982670c 15Alex Morcos: Add LockPoints... 192 2016-03-16 20:20:32 0|GitHub162|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7187: Keep reorgs fast for SequenceLocks checks (06master...06fastReorgBIP68) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7187 193 2016-03-16 20:32:53 0|btcdrak|The mempool behaviours for BIP68/112 have been backported by cherry-pick to 0.11 and 0.12 in PRs #7543, #7695 and #7693. Can I ask a few eyes you verify they are correct.