1 2016-03-17 07:51:08	0|wumpus|Luke-Jr: can you take a look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7656 (base58 encoding speed up), seems relevant with your libbase58
  2 2016-03-17 07:55:47	0|GitHub87|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #6850: Improve AddToWallet performance when rescanning (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6850
  3 2016-03-17 08:06:04	0|go1111111|is anyone working on the blockchain verification flag, as Greg describes at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011853.html ? I have some interest in working on it (slowly, as it'd be my first non-test PR)
  4 2016-03-17 09:00:11	0|paveljanik|Qt5.6 will be fun - no *.pc files there, no Qt5Core.pc etc.
  5 2016-03-17 09:07:54	0|jonasschnelli|paveljanik: but finally HiDPI support for Linux/Win
  6 2016-03-17 09:14:18	0|paveljanik|I'll try to workaround it somehow
  7 2016-03-17 09:44:31	0|paveljanik|jonasschnelli, it will be fun 8) https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-50073
  8 2016-03-17 09:45:01	0|jonasschnelli|Indeed!
  9 2016-03-17 10:27:55	0|GitHub73|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #7702: [qa] Add tests verifychain, lockunspent, getbalance, listsinceblock (06master...06Mf1603-qaCleanup2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7702
 10 2016-03-17 11:55:31	0|GitHub167|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #7703: tor: Change auth order to only use HASHEDPASSWORD if -torpassword (06master...062016_03_auth_order) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7703
 11 2016-03-17 11:56:12	0|testnet010|hello all I was hoping someone could help me
 12 2016-03-17 11:56:27	0|testnet010|I am trying to mine bitcoins on testnet solo using cgminer
 13 2016-03-17 11:57:27	0|testnet010|I am getting the following error:  Failed to resolve (?wrong URL) testnet.solo.ckpool.org:3333
 14 2016-03-17 12:08:31	0|sipa|ask in #cgminer
 15 2016-03-17 12:34:18	0|GitHub20|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 7 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/14d6324a248d...01f42676236b
 16 2016-03-17 12:34:19	0|GitHub20|13bitcoin/06master 145de2baa 15Suhas Daftuar: Rename CTxMemPool::remove -> removeRecursive...
 17 2016-03-17 12:34:19	0|GitHub20|13bitcoin/06master 147659438 15Suhas Daftuar: CTxMemPool::removeForBlock now uses RemoveStaged
 18 2016-03-17 12:34:20	0|GitHub20|13bitcoin/06master 1476a7632 15Suhas Daftuar: Remove work limit in UpdateForDescendants()...
 19 2016-03-17 12:34:28	0|GitHub26|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7594: Mempool: Add tracking of ancestor packages (06master...06ancestor-tracking) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7594
 20 2016-03-17 12:37:39	0|GitHub103|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon closed pull request #7665: Contrib: Introduce script to tag compiled binaries for convenience (py) (06master...060.12.99-contrib-tag) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7665
 21 2016-03-17 12:38:48	0|GitHub60|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #6816: BIP9: versionbits (06master...06versionbits) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6816
 22 2016-03-17 13:48:36	0|plopi|hi, can I use bitcoind in a nodejs server (for a game) without downloading the entire blockchain? thanks
 23 2016-03-17 14:05:30	0|wumpus|you'll need to download the entire blockchain, you don't have to store it though if you use pruning
 24 2016-03-17 14:42:58	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Is there any way to play with bitcoin core in an interpreter like environment?
 25 2016-03-17 14:43:37	0|kanzure|if you mean testing, then use regtest mode and bitcoin-cli
 26 2016-03-17 14:45:51	0|Chris_Stewart_5|No more like seeing how things are serialized, i.e. a python like interpreter. I don't want to spend 5 minutes waiting for bitcoind to compile just to see how certain things are serialized
 27 2016-03-17 14:46:09	0|Chris_Stewart_5|but I'm guessing that is just a limitation of c++
 28 2016-03-17 14:48:08	0|wumpus|python-bitcoinlib is your friend
 29 2016-03-17 15:08:43	0|morcos|wumpus: sipa: there may be two problems here with the new conflict / abandontransaction code.
 30 2016-03-17 15:09:32	0|morcos|we haven't finished trackign it all down, but our guess is that when your wallet tx is conflicted via parents that were double spent, that there is no way rescans can identify that your wallet tx should now be conflicted
 31 2016-03-17 15:10:30	0|morcos|that is, if the parents weren't wallet txs, and the parents are now gone, b/c they were double spent, the chain is broken and there is no way to trace the double spend down to your wallet tx
 32 2016-03-17 15:11:11	0|instagibbs|Chris_Stewart_5, perhaps not as well-tested, but online: https://blockchainprogramming.azurewebsites.net/checkscript
 33 2016-03-17 15:11:40	0|morcos|separately i believe that abandontransaction doesn't work for not counting new funds you've received, it only works for no longer counting spends.
 34 2016-03-17 15:12:20	0|morcos|i need to look back and see why it was made that way, it sounds vaguely familiar to me that i might have known that
 35 2016-03-17 15:15:42	0|wumpus|I think abandontransaction should work for any transaction that is not confirmed and not in the mempool
 36 2016-03-17 15:16:31	0|wumpus|looks like there's a lot of edge cases otherwise, in the checks to see if it's actually a double spend or conflict
 37 2016-03-17 15:17:32	0|morcos|wumpus: it's possible.  the purpose of it was so that you didn't keep tying up your inputs.  remember, many people didn't even want it for 0.12.  so i think you might be right, but it takes more careful thinking about the issue of what it means to abandon another transaction.  for instance you don't know if the guy who sent it to you is getting it mined another way.
 38 2016-03-17 15:18:35	0|morcos|the fundamental problem is we've now got these txs that are severed from any connection to the blockchain by missing parents, so we can't detect them as conflicted.  surely the right answer isn't to manually abandon each one
 39 2016-03-17 15:19:01	0|morcos|but honestly, i'm not sure how to fix it.  it seems a pretty big problem.
 40 2016-03-17 15:19:30	0|wumpus|"for instance you don't know if the guy who sent it to you is getting it mined another way" right, you can be sure
 41 2016-03-17 15:19:52	0|wumpus|can't*
 42 2016-03-17 15:20:39	0|wumpus|but it may not be realistic to protect against that in the command
 43 2016-03-17 15:21:27	0|wumpus|the user needs to be aware not to use it in such cases
 44 2016-03-17 15:21:59	0|morcos|sdaftuar is suggesting that maybe the right answer is to never count in your balance unconfirmed txs that aren't in your mempool
 45 2016-03-17 15:22:21	0|GitHub142|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/01f42676236b...f034bced269c
 46 2016-03-17 15:22:22	0|GitHub142|13bitcoin/06master 14fa48bb3 15MarcoFalke: [qt] Remove 0-fee from send dialog
 47 2016-03-17 15:22:22	0|GitHub142|13bitcoin/06master 14fae8467 15MarcoFalke: [qt] Remove unneeded "fSendFreeTransactions" check
 48 2016-03-17 15:22:23	0|GitHub142|13bitcoin/06master 14f034bce 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7686: [qt] Remove 0-fee from send dialog...
 49 2016-03-17 15:22:24	0|sipa|^ i was about to suggest that
 50 2016-03-17 15:22:31	0|GitHub102|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7686: [qt] Remove 0-fee from send dialog (06master...06Mf1603-qt-0-fee) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7686
 51 2016-03-17 15:23:08	0|morcos|so for outputs received, it works the same as it did before the change to conflicts.   for inputs spent, it works as it does in 0.12.  they are still spent unless you abandon them
 52 2016-03-17 15:23:37	0|morcos|that seems relatively reasonable to me
 53 2016-03-17 15:23:57	0|wumpus|I think that makes sense
 54 2016-03-17 15:27:13	0|morcos|wumpus: here was the list of unfinished business from abandontransaction
 55 2016-03-17 15:27:17	0|morcos|Fix any issues with how abandoned txs should sort
 56 2016-03-17 15:27:17	0|morcos|Return abandoned status in GUI
 57 2016-03-17 15:27:17	0|morcos|Return abandoned status in listtransactions
 58 2016-03-17 15:27:20	0|morcos|Add a way to abandon transactions from GUI
 59 2016-03-17 15:28:06	0|morcos|In fixing the conflict detection, should we go ahead and add the status in listtransactions?  (how many of these changes do you want to make for a point release)
 60 2016-03-17 15:28:52	0|morcos|Also I was hoping to discuss schedule of the impending soft fork today, are we ok waiting until that to release this change...
 61 2016-03-17 15:29:58	0|morcos|And so I'm not going to make any other changes to the functionality abandontransaction, ie. it shouldnt' do anything other than it already does (no longer marking inputs as spent)
 62 2016-03-17 15:30:01	0|wumpus|well for 0.13 we want all of them, I'd say backport the non-GUI ones to 0.12
 63 2016-03-17 15:30:21	0|morcos|is the sorting a GUI only thing?
 64 2016-03-17 15:30:29	0|morcos|i'm  not sure i'm the right guy to make those change
 65 2016-03-17 15:30:31	0|morcos|s
 66 2016-03-17 15:30:43	0|morcos|i mean i can hack around in the GUI if you want...
 67 2016-03-17 15:31:08	0|wumpus|the bare minimum for 0.12.1 is that people such as Cocodude can troubleshoot their issue and get rid of those transactions succesfully
 68 2016-03-17 15:31:25	0|morcos|sipa: are you going to do that?
 69 2016-03-17 15:31:44	0|morcos|i can add the abandoned status to listtransactions
 70 2016-03-17 15:31:53	0|wumpus|and a flag to be able to check whether a transactions was abandoned would be great, to be able to verify abandontransaction did its work
 71 2016-03-17 15:31:59	0|sipa|morcos: i can, but i was hoping to get some work on segwit done
 72 2016-03-17 15:32:14	0|morcos|ha ha...   pulling out the trump card?
 73 2016-03-17 15:32:35	0|sipa|?
 74 2016-03-17 15:32:46	0|morcos|i can't argue against that
 75 2016-03-17 15:33:10	0|sipa|ah, i forgot that trump means something else than a politiciam
 76 2016-03-17 15:33:22	0|sdaftuar|hah
 77 2016-03-17 15:33:48	0|morcos|ok i'll make the changes to not count as received money if its 0 confirms and not in mempool, and i'll add the abandon status to listtransactions
 78 2016-03-17 15:33:59	0|sipa|great
 79 2016-03-17 15:35:07	0|morcos|i'll also add this to the rpc test, that was a tricky one
 80 2016-03-17 15:49:18	0|jonasschnelli|morcos: I can add the abandon function in the GUI
 81 2016-03-17 15:49:49	0|jonasschnelli|A right-click-context menu to abandon should be relatively trivial I guess.
 82 2016-03-17 15:50:04	0|jonasschnelli|The RBF stuff is way more complex. :)
 83 2016-03-17 15:50:21	0|wumpus|awesome
 84 2016-03-17 15:50:45	0|wumpus|I think we should open an issue to track the remaining abandontransaction work
 85 2016-03-17 15:50:55	0|wumpus|I'll open it
 86 2016-03-17 15:51:03	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: okay. Thanks.
 87 2016-03-17 15:51:21	0|jonasschnelli|What else is left next to the GUI and the today identified bug?
 88 2016-03-17 15:52:00	0|BitcoinErrorLog|what's up with this coinbase? http://blockr.io/block/info/403061
 89 2016-03-17 15:54:52	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: just copied the list from #7312 and added #7690 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7704
 90 2016-03-17 15:55:16	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: perfect!
 91 2016-03-17 15:55:57	0|sipa|BitcoinErrorLog: what is weird about it?
 92 2016-03-17 15:55:57	0|wumpus|BitcoinErrorLog: what's wrong with it?
 93 2016-03-17 15:58:14	0|BitcoinErrorLog|ton of zeroes in the scriptsig, unusual sequence, i'm not sure, just getting others pointing it out
 94 2016-03-17 15:58:46	0|BitcoinErrorLog|25.59141121 BTC output
 95 2016-03-17 15:59:34	0|morcos|wumpus: just to be clear, i'm not changing abandontransactoin for the last item in your list.
 96 2016-03-17 15:59:58	0|wumpus|morcos: ok
 97 2016-03-17 16:00:11	0|morcos|i'm changing the calculation of the available balance logic to treat depth==0 and !InMempool() coins as not available
 98 2016-03-17 16:00:29	0|morcos|are teh only two places I need to do that AvailableCoins and GetAvailableCredit ?
 99 2016-03-17 16:00:33	0|sipa|morcos: also for listunspent/coin selection?
100 2016-03-17 16:00:55	0|morcos|sipa: those use availablecoins right?
101 2016-03-17 16:00:57	0|sipa|seems so, if you change AvailableCoins
102 2016-03-17 16:01:02	0|wumpus|ok, makes sense, but in that case that leaves the transaction in the list and unabandon-able?
103 2016-03-17 16:01:25	0|wumpus|it just won't count for the balance, which is good of course
104 2016-03-17 16:02:26	0|paveljanik|BitcoinErrorLog, 25+fees.
105 2016-03-17 16:02:42	0|wumpus|or maybe in IsTrusted?
106 2016-03-17 16:02:56	0|morcos|wumpus: well for instance if you have a tx that has 1 input from you and 1 output to you
107 2016-03-17 16:03:19	0|morcos|if it is no longer in your mempool, then the output will automatically stop counting in your unconfirmed balance
108 2016-03-17 16:03:26	0|wumpus|IIRC in many places, like in the UI, IsTrusted is used for "counts towards balance"
109 2016-03-17 16:03:33	0|morcos|but you'd have to abandon transaction to get it to stop tying up the input
110 2016-03-17 16:04:00	0|morcos|wumpus: i don't think thats correct.  IsTrusted is for the spendable balance.
111 2016-03-17 16:04:03	0|jonasschnelli|Should we graphical "mark" abandoned transaction in the GUI? Orange icon or so?
112 2016-03-17 16:04:15	0|wumpus|oh,right
113 2016-03-17 16:04:40	0|wumpus|yes I'm confused, istrusted is about spendable, this isn't even spendable balance
114 2016-03-17 16:04:55	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: SGTM
115 2016-03-17 16:04:59	0|BitcoinErrorLog|paveljanik: so nothing weird about the rest? that's what i get for reading anything kristov atlas says...
116 2016-03-17 16:07:16	0|GitHub199|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #7705: [amount] Add tests and make GetFee() monotonic (06master...06Mf1603-amountFix) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7705
117 2016-03-17 16:07:25	0|paveljanik|BitcoinErrorLog, do you have anything specific?
118 2016-03-17 16:08:41	0|BitcoinErrorLog|no, sry
119 2016-03-17 16:08:53	0|MarcoFalke|So is travis declared dead today?
120 2016-03-17 16:10:08	0|BitcoinErrorLog|paveljanik: atlas was raising an alarm about it, but has since deleted the tweet, i had shared the link with others who thought maybe something was weird, but think maybe just feedback loop of derp
121 2016-03-17 16:10:27	0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: is it stuck?
122 2016-03-17 16:10:31	0|MarcoFalke|Oh, travis is just missing some commit
123 2016-03-17 16:10:39	0|MarcoFalke|need to try twice
124 2016-03-17 16:10:48	0|MarcoFalke|and force push
125 2016-03-17 16:11:17	0|morcos|hmm, unfortunately the balance stuff is already broken in other ways
126 2016-03-17 16:11:48	0|morcos|well, maybe not , i guess it depends on what you expect to happen with non-Final txs
127 2016-03-17 16:13:00	0|wumpus|sent non-final transactions should probably deduct from the balance, but received ones shouldn't count until they're final?
128 2016-03-17 16:13:21	0|wumpus|I think that's what I'd expect
129 2016-03-17 16:13:55	0|paveljanik|hmm, its coinbare is shown as opt-in RBF at blocktrail 8)
130 2016-03-17 16:14:19	0|morcos|wumpus: ugh its broken.  i think the intention is for received non-final things to count in your unconfirmed balance
131 2016-03-17 16:14:19	0|sipa|paveljanik: haha
132 2016-03-17 16:14:24	0|morcos|ok that makes sense
133 2016-03-17 16:14:28	0|paveljanik|https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/f27c9c5d13b62674e367a52f931da9bfa3dc747ea7e51fecdf89f33debc11d89
134 2016-03-17 16:14:40	0|morcos|but if its non-final, it counts in your balance REGARDLESS of whether its conflicted or not
135 2016-03-17 16:15:40	0|morcos|i think i have to fix that too, so i'll just try to clean it up, but it'll take several of us thinking about whether it is now doing the right thing.
136 2016-03-17 16:16:21	0|wumpus|one issue at a time morcos :)
137 2016-03-17 16:16:52	0|morcos|wumpus: well but how can i fix it if its broken in a different way on the same line
138 2016-03-17 16:17:12	0|morcos|i mean i agree its going to be less trivial to review, but that line is just garbage as written and its the line i need to change.
139 2016-03-17 16:17:28	0|morcos|in GetUnconfirmedBalance
140 2016-03-17 16:17:47	0|wumpus|right, agreed, a lot of that balance code is a mess
141 2016-03-17 16:18:07	0|wumpus|paveljanik: hah
142 2016-03-17 16:18:23	0|morcos|anywya, got to run to meeting, will do a bit later
143 2016-03-17 16:18:33	0|wumpus|later
144 2016-03-17 16:38:53	0|jonasschnelli|morcos: what's the easiest way of creating a wtx that is not confirmed and not in the mempool (to allow abandoning)?
145 2016-03-17 16:39:41	0|jonasschnelli|a flush mempool command would be nice for regtest
146 2016-03-17 16:42:08	0|jonasschnelli|-walletbroadcast=0 might be useful for a such test-case
147 2016-03-17 16:42:58	0|sdaftuar|jonasschnelli: i don't know about easiest, but one way that comes to mind for a regtest test would be to create a tx that sends funds to an anyone-can spend output
148 2016-03-17 16:43:22	0|sdaftuar|then create a transaction that spends that anyone-can-spend output and sends to one of your wallet addresses
149 2016-03-17 16:43:26	0|sdaftuar|then restart the node
150 2016-03-17 16:43:28	0|jonasschnelli|sdaftuar: Yes. Should work. -walletbroadcast=0 (create tx, abandon) works also fine.
151 2016-03-17 16:43:36	0|wumpus|doesn't one of the RPC tests create one?
152 2016-03-17 16:43:57	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: Yes. But takes to long for some repetitive GUI debugging. :)
153 2016-03-17 16:44:11	0|sdaftuar|oh yeah, abandonconflict.py must do this
154 2016-03-17 16:44:54	0|sdaftuar|ah, in that test the node is just restarted with a higher min relay fee to prevent mempool acceptance
155 2016-03-17 16:45:00	0|sdaftuar|that is easier!
156 2016-03-17 16:47:35	0|sipa|does anyone know when the network alert sysyem was last used?
157 2016-03-17 16:49:24	0|wumpus|sipa: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alert_system has all alerts ever