1 2016-04-05 02:42:18	0|gmaxwell|sipa: jonasschnelli:  Here is the authentication protocol I was thinking of:
  2 2016-04-05 02:42:21	0|gmaxwell|https://people.xiph.org/~greg/auth0.txt
  3 2016-04-05 02:43:35	0|gmaxwell|And this is an extension to the former that allows for mutual autentication while keeping the client identity private: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/auth1.txt  This is useful because it would protect against a shared server tracking clients (e.g. observing what they broadcast), but still allow the client to authenticate for elevated service.
  4 2016-04-05 02:48:17	0|gmaxwell|An example application where this would be important, is if clients paid a server for a priority access account. (more bandwidth, protection against DOS limits).. it would be unfortunate if the existance of such a service compromised the users privacy by giving them a persistant identity that the server could track them with.  I don't think it's something we'd implement right away, but it shows
  5 2016-04-05 02:48:23	0|gmaxwell|how our channel authentication could be extended.
  6 2016-04-05 07:14:07	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: Nice! Will try to fully understand it now...
  7 2016-04-05 07:44:53	0|GitHub111|[13bitcoin] 15paveljanik opened pull request #7810: Refactor AlertNotifyOnce out of UpdateTip (06master...0620160405_AlertNotifyOnce) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7810
  8 2016-04-05 08:29:02	0|jonasschnelli|This looks ready: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7753
  9 2016-04-05 08:56:22	0|StringerBell|ok it's killing me. How does that github bot work?
 10 2016-04-05 08:58:22	0|jonasschnelli|StringerBell: Its publishing created/closed/merged PRs issues?
 11 2016-04-05 08:59:09	0|StringerBell|I mean it is a user but it's not connected to the channel
 12 2016-04-05 08:59:45	0|Luke-Jr|StringerBell: the channel is not +n which restricts sending to members
 13 2016-04-05 08:59:45	0|StringerBell|Don't mean to get off topic but never seen that before.
 14 2016-04-05 08:59:46	0|sipa|StringerBell: be default you can send messages to a channel without being joined
 15 2016-04-05 08:59:58	0|StringerBell|oh lol ok
 16 2016-04-05 09:00:13	0|Luke-Jr|IRC isn't designed to be "rooms" as much as it is pub/sub IM ;)
 17 2016-04-05 09:00:46	0|Luke-Jr|so JOIN = subscribe, and PRIVMSG = publish
 18 2016-04-05 09:00:58	0|StringerBell|ah
 19 2016-04-05 09:05:12	0|btcdrak|It can be set to authorise,  join, mag and leave but then it is a lot more messages
 20 2016-04-05 09:05:37	0|btcdrak|It is a github commit hook
 21 2016-04-05 09:05:41	0|Luke-Jr|not like anyone abuses the -n
 22 2016-04-05 09:38:42	0|wumpus|yes the side is a tad slow
 23 2016-04-05 09:38:45	0|wumpus|site*
 24 2016-04-05 09:59:03	0|GitHub37|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #7811: [0.12.2] qa Backports (060.12...06Mf1604-qa012) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7811
 25 2016-04-05 11:32:24	0|btcdrak|Last week's meeting summary: https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/2016/03/31/
 26 2016-04-05 11:38:53	0|btcdrak|wumpus: can you try an experiment for me please, by kicking slackircbridge
 27 2016-04-05 11:51:15	0|sipa|hmm, when i regenerate the script_tests, i get lines like:
 28 2016-04-05 11:51:16	0|sipa|[
 29 2016-04-05 11:51:18	0|sipa|...
 30 2016-04-05 11:51:21	0|sipa|],
 31 2016-04-05 11:51:24	0|sipa|instead of:
 32 2016-04-05 11:51:26	0|sipa|[
 33 2016-04-05 11:51:27	0|sipa|...
 34 2016-04-05 11:51:29	0|sipa|],
 35 2016-04-05 11:51:36	0|sipa|wumpus: you touched that code last
 36 2016-04-05 11:52:28	0|sipa|btcdrak: done
 37 2016-04-05 11:52:50	0|btcdrak|sipa thanks
 38 2016-04-05 11:57:43	0|btcdrak|sipa: thanks. one last time please boot him again.
 39 2016-04-05 11:58:49	0|jonasschnelli|ping sdaftuar
 40 2016-04-05 11:59:05	0|sipa|btcdrak: you've got op
 41 2016-04-05 11:59:41	0|jonasschnelli|Or anyone else... check https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7222/files#diff-df7d84ff2f53fcb2a0dc15a3a51e55ceR85  I think this is wrong.
 42 2016-04-05 11:59:46	0|jonasschnelli|(Already merged)
 43 2016-04-05 12:00:08	0|jonasschnelli|If a tx is not in the mempool and signal rbf, we can't be sure if it's rbfable.
 44 2016-04-05 12:00:16	0|jonasschnelli|*signals
 45 2016-04-05 12:01:04	0|sipa|why not?
 46 2016-04-05 12:03:54	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: ancestors?
 47 2016-04-05 12:04:08	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: I think this check is more appropriate: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7222/files#diff-d0eca4d0f80c5b045d2aa64609e811ecR28?
 48 2016-04-05 12:05:27	0|jonasschnelli|Because a unconfirmed input could signal RBF?
 49 2016-04-05 12:29:06	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: i think it's correct
 50 2016-04-05 12:29:16	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Yes. Me2!
 51 2016-04-05 12:29:22	0|sipa|if it signals rbf by itself, it should be yes; if it doesn't, it's unknown
 52 2016-04-05 12:29:35	0|sipa|and IsRBFOptIn can't be called for things not in the mempool
 53 2016-04-05 12:29:44	0|jonasschnelli|I overlooked https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7222/files#diff-df7d84ff2f53fcb2a0dc15a3a51e55ceR85
 54 2016-04-05 12:29:48	0|jonasschnelli|if (!mempool.exists(hash)) {
 55 2016-04-05 12:30:17	0|jonasschnelli|The "unknown" https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7222/files#diff-df7d84ff2f53fcb2a0dc15a3a51e55ceR89 is not 100% true.
 56 2016-04-05 12:30:29	0|jonasschnelli|But "unknown" from the local peer perspective is right.
 57 2016-04-05 12:30:54	0|sipa|what other perspective is there?
 58 2016-04-05 12:31:19	0|jonasschnelli|We could miss a ancestor/input in the mempool that has a final nSequence and therefore the transaction would _not_ be replaceable.
 59 2016-04-05 12:33:27	0|jonasschnelli|But however, I think its correct. Yes.
 60 2016-04-05 12:33:52	0|jonasschnelli|But doing a tiny refactor (before I extend it to the GUI)
 61 2016-04-05 12:40:17	0|sipa|jonasschnelli, wumpus: i don't understand the univalue json pretty printer
 62 2016-04-05 12:40:28	0|jonasschnelli|write(2)
 63 2016-04-05 12:40:41	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: what is unclear?
 64 2016-04-05 12:41:13	0|sipa|it puts spaces between comma's and the end of a line
 65 2016-04-05 12:41:33	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: yes. You need to ask jeff. :) Or fix it.
 66 2016-04-05 12:41:57	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Are you referring to your script_tests issue above?
 67 2016-04-05 12:42:06	0|sipa|yes
 68 2016-04-05 12:43:17	0|GitHub178|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #7812: Tiny refactor of `IsRBFOptIn`, avoid exception (06master...062016/04/rbf_refact) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7812
 69 2016-04-05 12:44:15	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/univalue/blob/master/lib/univalue_write.cpp#L79
 70 2016-04-05 12:44:44	0|sdaftuar|jonasschnelli: pong.  happy to review any refactors of that code...
 71 2016-04-05 12:45:18	0|jonasschnelli|sdaftuar: Thanks. Not sure if it makes sense. I think the code is fine. Its just the exception that kinda disturbs me.
 72 2016-04-05 12:45:21	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/univalue/blob/master/lib/univalue_write.cpp#L100
 73 2016-04-05 12:45:50	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: it misses a newline before L100
 74 2016-04-05 12:46:03	0|jonasschnelli|no wait...
 75 2016-04-05 12:46:15	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: it's complicated; i'm writing a workaround for now
 76 2016-04-05 12:46:18	0|jonasschnelli|L98-99 is wrong.
 77 2016-04-05 12:46:23	0|jonasschnelli|I'll fix it.
 78 2016-04-05 12:47:06	0|sipa|please add tests for the pretty printer, i think it's very easy to break
 79 2016-04-05 12:47:45	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: yes.
 80 2016-04-05 12:57:02	0|GitHub91|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #7813: [doc] Update port in tor.md (06master...06Mf1604-docTor) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7813
 81 2016-04-05 13:00:07	0|GitHub153|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #7814: [qa] Switch to py3 (06master...06Mf1604-qaPy3) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7814
 82 2016-04-05 13:08:34	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: script_tests.cpp uses "write(1,4)" (which means 1 whitespace indent, start at level 4).
 83 2016-04-05 13:08:49	0|jonasschnelli|But there is a bug at the opening "[" (not the closing)
 84 2016-04-05 13:21:44	0|GitHub79|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #7815: Break circular dependency main ↔ txdb (06master...062016_04_break_txdb_main_dep) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7815
 85 2016-04-05 13:21:57	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: The pretty print is okay. It's the script_tests.cpp
 86 2016-04-05 13:23:03	0|wumpus|btcdrak: still want me to kick slackircbridge?
 87 2016-04-05 13:23:31	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: The pretty print is okay. It's the script_tests.cpp
 88 2016-04-05 13:23:36	0|jonasschnelli|(sry)
 89 2016-04-05 13:23:37	0|kinlo|is there a slackircbridge?
 90 2016-04-05 13:24:09	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/test/script_tests.cpp#L667 should be write(1)
 91 2016-04-05 13:26:26	0|wumpus|sipa: jonasschnelli: yes I had some problems generating the tests as well last time
 92 2016-04-05 13:26:36	0|jl2012|sorry for OT.  OP_VERIF is invalid even when occuring in an unexecuted OP_IF branch. Where this rule is defined in the code?
 93 2016-04-05 13:27:01	0|wumpus|I added the pretty printing because it ended up all on one line
 94 2016-04-05 13:27:29	0|wumpus|I don't think this was tested after introducing univalue
 95 2016-04-05 13:27:42	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: the issue is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/test/script_tests.cpp#L667
 96 2016-04-05 13:28:02	0|jonasschnelli|you add a root level on level 4
 97 2016-04-05 13:28:08	0|wumpus|ok
 98 2016-04-05 13:28:35	0|jonasschnelli|I guess if i change this i need to update all static test data.
 99 2016-04-05 13:28:38	0|wumpus|apparently I didn't really know what pretty print arguments to use
100 2016-04-05 13:28:49	0|jonasschnelli|heh. Yes. I was also not sure.
101 2016-04-05 13:28:51	0|wumpus|no, I don't think you need to do that
102 2016-04-05 13:29:17	0|wumpus|I probably fixed the excessive indent by hand last time
103 2016-04-05 13:29:51	0|sipa|wumpus: i'm making some changes, and fixing it
104 2016-04-05 13:30:03	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: thanks!
105 2016-04-05 13:30:05	0|wumpus|this was less work than manually formatting the json from everything on one line
106 2016-04-05 13:30:12	0|wumpus|but stil not ideal no
107 2016-04-05 13:30:15	0|wumpus|sipa: ok great!
108 2016-04-05 13:30:48	0|sipa|wumpus: any objections to merging the valid and invalid script tests into one file?
109 2016-04-05 13:31:13	0|sipa|it's annoying for generating, and makes the tests less clear
110 2016-04-05 13:31:15	0|wumpus|sipa: I haven't; though you could consider it an interface change, as it's used by other projects
111 2016-04-05 13:31:35	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: I think you should use write(1) (1 whitespace ident) and only use write(1, X) if you want to insert a sublevel at level x
112 2016-04-05 13:31:40	0|wumpus|and it makes it harder to backport/forward-port tests
113 2016-04-05 13:31:42	0|wumpus|so I'm not sure
114 2016-04-05 13:31:48	0|wumpus|I did consider the same at some point
115 2016-04-05 13:32:10	0|sipa|wumpus: well, i'm working on segwit tests, and i have no intention of manually writing everything for both master and backports
116 2016-04-05 13:32:24	0|sipa|so that would also mean backporting that merging
117 2016-04-05 13:32:28	0|btcdrak|wumpus: no thanks!
118 2016-04-05 13:32:40	0|wumpus|okay
119 2016-04-05 13:32:50	0|btcdrak|kinlo: yes, it's only one way though, so you can read on the Bitcoin Core Slack
120 2016-04-05 13:33:43	0|kinlo|as long as this is the only official channel and we don't actually use slack it's all ok
121 2016-04-05 13:33:58	0|sipa|wumpus: and for segwit, an interface change is inevitable, as we'll need to add a witness field
122 2016-04-05 13:34:05	0|wumpus|sipa: I agree
123 2016-04-05 13:34:12	0|wumpus|sipa: that's a good excuse, go ahead :)
124 2016-04-05 13:35:15	0|wumpus|kinlo: I'm not sure how happy I really am about it. I mean, in principe everything here is public, but on the other hand non-technical people will put everything under a magnifying glass and are bound to misinterpret things
125 2016-04-05 13:35:23	0|btcdrak|wumpus: no thanks!
126 2016-04-05 13:36:48	0|wumpus|this happened before a while ago though i don't remember the specific instance, oh yeah some commit that bumped the version to 0.12.1 on the 0.12 branch was misinterpreted as '0.12.1 tagged!'
127 2016-04-05 13:40:29	0|GitHub15|13bitcoin/06master 143373c43 15Adam Brown: [doc] Update port in tor.md...
128 2016-04-05 13:40:29	0|GitHub15|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a9149688f87c...214ec0b5e8b2
129 2016-04-05 13:40:30	0|GitHub15|13bitcoin/06master 14214ec0b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7813: [doc] Update port in tor.md...
130 2016-04-05 13:40:39	0|GitHub21|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7813: [doc] Update port in tor.md (06master...06Mf1604-docTor) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7813
131 2016-04-05 13:41:55	0|GitHub48|13bitcoin/06master 1410d3ae1 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: devtools: Auto-set branch to merge to in github-merge...
132 2016-04-05 13:41:55	0|GitHub48|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/214ec0b5e8b2...55db5f07b1c4
133 2016-04-05 13:41:56	0|GitHub48|13bitcoin/06master 1455db5f0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7781: devtools: Auto-set branch to merge to in github-merge...
134 2016-04-05 13:42:00	0|GitHub91|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7781: devtools: Auto-set branch to merge to in github-merge (06master...062016_04_github_merge_autobranch) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7781
135 2016-04-05 13:45:06	0|GitHub129|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/55db5f07b1c4...3cc0fb3a23e5
136 2016-04-05 13:45:07	0|GitHub129|13bitcoin/06master 143cc0fb3 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7776: build: Remove unnecessary executables from gitian release...
137 2016-04-05 13:45:07	0|GitHub129|13bitcoin/06master 14f063863 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Remove unnecessary executables from gitian release...
138 2016-04-05 13:45:14	0|GitHub28|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7776: build: Remove unnecessary executables from gitian release (06master...062016_03_gitian_release_cleanup) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7776
139 2016-04-05 13:46:08	0|GitHub41|13bitcoin/060.12 14a784675 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Remove unnecessary executables from gitian release...
140 2016-04-05 13:46:08	0|GitHub41|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.12: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a784675a329d6206af125d997381221dd1e99d11
141 2016-04-05 13:56:16	0|jl2012|re OP_VERIF I think I find the answer at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L295
142 2016-04-05 13:57:43	0|GitHub158|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #7816: [Wallet] slighly refactor GetOldestKeyPoolTime() (06master...062016/04/wallet_oldest_key) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7816
143 2016-04-05 14:08:09	0|btcdrak|wumpus: kinlo: the slackbridge has been in operation for a few months already
144 2016-04-05 14:09:08	0|btcdrak|I was just setting the rejoin flag
145 2016-04-05 14:09:40	0|GitHub91|13bitcoin/06master 1492107d5 15mruddy: RPC: add versionHex in getblock and getblockheader JSON results; expand data in getblockchaininfo bip9_softforks field.
146 2016-04-05 14:09:40	0|GitHub91|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3cc0fb3a23e5...916b15a87a1f
147 2016-04-05 14:09:41	0|GitHub91|13bitcoin/06master 14916b15a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7774: RPC: add versionHex in getblock and getblockheader JSON results...
148 2016-04-05 14:09:47	0|GitHub102|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7774: RPC: add versionHex in getblock and getblockheader JSON results (06master...06hexver) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7774
149 2016-04-05 14:13:59	0|wumpus|btcdrak: okay
150 2016-04-05 14:14:17	0|GitHub49|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #7817: [Qt] attribute replaceable (RBF) transactions (06master...062016/04/qt_rbf) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7817
151 2016-04-05 14:16:14	0|btcdrak|wumpus: do we need to do a hard coded seeds update for 0.12.1?
152 2016-04-05 14:16:36	0|wumpus|I only do that for major releases
153 2016-04-05 14:16:59	0|GitHub175|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #7818: Refactor script tests (06master...06refactorscriptests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7818
154 2016-04-05 14:17:40	0|wumpus|should update the translation strings though
155 2016-04-05 14:21:39	0|GitHub48|13bitcoin/06master 14190c1e2 15JeremyRand: Doc: change Precise to Trusty in gitian-building.md...
156 2016-04-05 14:21:39	0|GitHub48|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/916b15a87a1f...e30a5b0aaaa9
157 2016-04-05 14:21:40	0|GitHub48|13bitcoin/06master 14e30a5b0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7791: Doc: change Precise to Trusty in gitian-building.md...
158 2016-04-05 14:21:53	0|GitHub42|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7791: Doc: change Precise to Trusty in gitian-building.md (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7791
159 2016-04-05 15:06:29	0|Chris_Stewart_5|I'm looking at this test case from script_invalid.json inside of bitcoin core, shouldn't this have a MINIMALDATA flag?
160 2016-04-05 15:06:31	0|Chris_Stewart_5|["0x4c01","0x01 NOP", "P2SH,STRICTENC", "PUSHDATA1 with not enough bytes"]
161 2016-04-05 15:15:29	0|GitHub68|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #7819: [Qt] Simple opt-in-RBF checkbox (06master...062016/04/qt_rbf_set) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7819
162 2016-04-05 15:18:35	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: the test should fail even without minimaldata rule
163 2016-04-05 15:19:26	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: as it's trying to push a 1-byte value which is past the end of scriptSig
164 2016-04-05 15:39:11	0|GitHub31|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e30a5b0aaaa9...4dc1b3a29693
165 2016-04-05 15:39:12	0|GitHub31|13bitcoin/06master 140087f26 15Pavel Janík: Use relative paths instead of absolute paths
166 2016-04-05 15:39:12	0|GitHub31|13bitcoin/06master 144dc1b3a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7788: Use relative paths instead of absolute paths in protoc calls...
167 2016-04-05 15:39:16	0|GitHub118|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7788: Use relative paths instead of absolute paths in protoc calls (06master...0620160402_protoc_use_relpath) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7788
168 2016-04-05 15:40:21	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: interesting. I didn't realize that limitation was there. I thought you think of the scriptSig & scriptPubKey as one big concatenated list when you were running it through the interpreter.
169 2016-04-05 15:41:20	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: yes
170 2016-04-05 15:41:46	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: but the scriptSig here contains an opcode that says "The next 1 byte is to be pushed: ", and then no more bytes
171 2016-04-05 15:41:50	0|sipa|which is obviously invalid
172 2016-04-05 15:42:10	0|sipa|it's like an unterminated quotation mark, or a missing endif
173 2016-04-05 15:45:51	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: typically you want negative tests that specify the weakest condition under which failure is expected
174 2016-04-05 15:48:33	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: If it was evaluated at as one big concatenated list though the next byte could be in the scriptPubKey. Where does the validation fail in bitcoin core?
175 2016-04-05 15:48:38	0|Chris_Stewart_5|is it this line? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L294
176 2016-04-05 15:49:01	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: that changed in early 2010
177 2016-04-05 15:49:11	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: scriptPubKey and scriptSig are evaluated separately
178 2016-04-05 15:49:18	0|Chris_Stewart_5|haha just realized that :-)
179 2016-04-05 15:49:50	0|Chris_Stewart_5|stack state is shared between the two, is there a reason this is done? Is it one of those things "Its always been done this way so we are going to keep doing it that way" or is there more reason to it
180 2016-04-05 15:50:08	0|GitHub120|13bitcoin/06master 14fada0c4 15MarcoFalke: [doc] Fix doxygen comments for members
181 2016-04-05 15:50:08	0|GitHub120|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4dc1b3a29693...1b2460bd5824
182 2016-04-05 15:50:09	0|GitHub120|13bitcoin/06master 141b2460b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7793: [doxygen] Fix member comments...
183 2016-04-05 15:50:13	0|GitHub171|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7793: [doxygen] Fix member comments (06master...06Mf1604-doxygenMembers) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7793
184 2016-04-05 15:51:05	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: that's how the scriptSig communicates its resulting stack to the scriptPubKey
185 2016-04-05 15:51:12	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: what alternative would you suggest?
186 2016-04-05 15:52:52	0|Chris_Stewart_5|concatenate the scriptSig ++ scriptPubKey together and run the entire thing through the interpreter instead of mamking two calls to EvalScript and maintaing stack state
187 2016-04-05 15:53:16	0|sipa|that's how Bitcoin was in 2009, and it had massive security risks
188 2016-04-05 15:53:22	0|sipa|as the scriptSig is under control of the attacker
189 2016-04-05 15:54:11	0|sipa|say your scriptPubKey is 47 bytes, you'd just make a scriptSig 0x3F (which means "push the next 47 bytes onto the stack"), and the result would be accepted
190 2016-04-05 15:54:38	0|sipa|as it would treat the whole scriptPubKey that's concatenated after it as data being pushed, rather than code
191 2016-04-05 15:54:53	0|instagibbs|sipa, ok now that section of code makes sense
192 2016-04-05 15:56:46	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: Wow that is a great way to explain it. So basically that would allow the script to trivially succeed since the scriptPubKey != OP_0 || OP_FALSE right?
193 2016-04-05 15:57:25	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: furthermore, changing it back to that model of execution would almost by definition be a hard fork
194 2016-04-05 15:57:39	0|sipa|because if it has any effect at all, it's going to turn invalid things into valid things
195 2016-04-05 15:57:59	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: Ok. Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it
196 2016-04-05 16:01:36	0|GitHub166|13bitcoin/060.12 14c210654 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: pre-rc1 translations update...
197 2016-04-05 16:01:36	0|GitHub166|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.12: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/c2106543fe017d443c2e50daf3dd1d42e6ec35a2
198 2016-04-05 16:08:09	0|GitHub174|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7654: Add net2 debug option (06master...06DebugNet2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7654
199 2016-04-05 16:17:12	0|gmaxwell|"errors": "WARNING: check your network connection, 5 blocks received in the last 4 hours (24 expected)"
200 2016-04-05 16:17:50	0|gmaxwell|of course I dunno when that triggered, though I don't think that host has had any network outages.
201 2016-04-05 16:18:14	0|wumpus|that's the one we disabled on 0.12 right?
202 2016-04-05 16:18:26	0|gmaxwell|yep.
203 2016-04-05 17:28:44	0|cfields_|wumpus: have you looked into the spurious (possible) race condition that we're hitting on travis sometimes? I'm going to poke at it now, curious if you have anything to go on
204 2016-04-05 17:29:39	0|MarcoFalke|which one do you mean?
205 2016-04-05 17:30:06	0|cfields_|MarcoFalke: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7470
206 2016-04-05 17:30:30	0|cfields_|I've noticed a few of those (or similar) lately
207 2016-04-05 17:31:01	0|MarcoFalke|Ok, this is not travis only. I think some people could "reproduce" those locally
208 2016-04-05 17:31:19	0|MarcoFalke|Note: Please don't retrigger https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7817 (just reported the issue to travis)
209 2016-04-05 17:31:29	0|cfields_|MarcoFalke: ah nice, you happen to have a repro case handy?
210 2016-04-05 17:32:48	0|MarcoFalke|Unfortunatley not, but didn't someone mention it can happen after some time?
211 2016-04-05 17:33:15	0|cfields_|not sure
212 2016-04-05 17:33:22	0|MarcoFalke|So I was thinking about adding some random sleeps in the test suite and let it run over night
213 2016-04-05 17:37:01	0|cfields_|sure, if there's a race condition caused by arbitrary sleeps, we'd definitely want to know about those
214 2016-04-05 18:57:09	0|paveljanik|GH is a bit slow right now...
215 2016-04-05 19:41:47	0|GitHub127|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #7820: Consensus: Policy: Move CFeeRate out of consensus module and create CPolicy interface (06master...060.12.99-consensus-dust-out) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7820
216 2016-04-05 22:57:36	0|sipa|oh, github supports verifying gpg signatures now
217 2016-04-05 23:15:05	0|PRab|sipa: You figure out how to verify your gpg key? I added mine to https://github.com/settings/keys, but its still showing "Unverified".
218 2016-04-05 23:15:56	0|sipa|yeah, works for me: https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1/commits/master
219 2016-04-05 23:16:16	0|sipa|does your commit email address match an email address in the key?
220 2016-04-05 23:18:17	0|PRab|sipa: It should. Maybe it doesn't scan old commits. I believe https://github.com/bitcoin/gitian.sigs/commits/master/0.12.0rc5-linux/prab/bitcoin-linux-0.12-build.assert should have been signed with that key.
221 2016-04-05 23:20:15	0|sipa|committer Paul Rabahy <PRabahy@gmail.com> 1455405253 -0500
222 2016-04-05 23:20:33	0|sipa|maybe upper/lower case mix?
223 2016-04-05 23:21:38	0|PRab|Looks the same to me.
224 2016-04-05 23:21:40	0|PRab|https://imgur.com/WN1kiEt
225 2016-04-05 23:22:07	0|sipa|PRab: ah, but that email address is not associated with your github account
226 2016-04-05 23:22:44	0|PRab|Ah, got it.
227 2016-04-05 23:23:14	0|PRab|github has it as prabahy@gmail.com
228 2016-04-05 23:23:41	0|PRab|I'll get ahold of github support.
229 2016-04-05 23:27:20	0|sipa|and it works pretty far back: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9269d0e96e621a6e02da8074785ac310ce64db73
230 2016-04-05 23:28:42	0|PRab|Hum, I managed to fix my email address (had to go through a temp email because of case insensitivity), but its still not working.
231 2016-04-05 23:31:15	0|PRab|Anyway, really cool feature.