1 2016-05-02 00:33:27	0|GitHub48|[13bitcoin] 15pstratem opened pull request #7985: [Consensus] Add nAdjustedTime parameter to CheckBlock and CheckBlockHeader. (06master...062016-05-01-checkblock-header) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7985
 2 2016-05-02 00:50:31	0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell: ^ ping
 3 2016-05-02 00:54:06	0|gmaxwell|phantomcircuit: concept ack.  While I'm here, can you get fuzzing going on matt's compact block relay new message types?
 4 2016-05-02 00:55:29	0|phantomcircuit|i've been fuzzing most of the deserialization but had the same issue with linking as i'm having with CheckBlock
 5 2016-05-02 00:56:11	0|phantomcircuit|best i can tell there's an issue with -fPIC and -fPIE being mixed somewhere but it doesn't really make any sense to me yet
 6 2016-05-02 00:56:32	0|phantomcircuit|the next step for that is to make params also a parameter
 7 2016-05-02 00:56:37	0|phantomcircuit|brb
 8 2016-05-02 01:02:47	0|phantomcircuit|b
 9 2016-05-02 01:10:58	0|gmaxwell|phantomcircuit: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6634387/c-statically-linked-shared-library  < is that the error you're getting?
10 2016-05-02 01:16:59	0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell: yeah
11 2016-05-02 01:18:30	0|phantomcircuit|i get what the issue is, i'm just not sure how to fix it with autotools
12 2016-05-02 07:17:30	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell, sipa: re encryption: Did we agree on rekeying = cranking the initial KDF by HASH(old_sym_key)?
13 2016-05-02 07:24:10	0|jonasschnelli|Lee Clagett mentioned (http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-April/012604.html) that a single ECDH should be sufficient for both directions. What do you think about that?
14 2016-05-02 07:24:20	0|jonasschnelli|«Why are there two key exchanges? A single shared-secret could be used
15 2016-05-02 07:24:20	0|jonasschnelli|symmetric cipher rule.»
16 2016-05-02 07:24:20	0|jonasschnelli|to generate keys for each direction. And it would reinforce the single
17 2016-05-02 07:25:18	0|sipa|i don't disagree; i think it's just easier to keep it seoarate
18 2016-05-02 07:25:21	0|sipa|*separate
19 2016-05-02 07:28:25	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Let's keep it for now.
20 2016-05-02 07:28:46	0|jonasschnelli|What about dropping the Symmetric Cipher Negotiation for the first version of the BIP?
21 2016-05-02 07:29:02	0|jonasschnelli|There is only ChaCha20-Poly1305 anyways.
22 2016-05-02 07:29:34	0|jonasschnelli|If we would extend the encryption to support multiple symmetric cipher suites, we could work that out in detail.
23 2016-05-02 07:29:42	0|jonasschnelli|(later)
24 2016-05-02 09:01:03	0|GitHub145|[13bitcoin] 15tuladhar opened pull request #7986: Refactor bitcoin-cli.cpp (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7986
25 2016-05-02 12:49:18	0|GitHub168|13bitcoin/06master 14f4ac02e 15Kaz Wesley: fix race that could fail to persist a ban...
26 2016-05-02 12:49:18	0|GitHub168|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/86b800c6a299...03cf6e867502
27 2016-05-02 12:49:19	0|GitHub168|13bitcoin/06master 1403cf6e8 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7959: fix race that could fail to persist a ban...
28 2016-05-02 12:49:28	0|GitHub132|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7959: fix race that could fail to persist a ban (06master...06banmap_race) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7959
29 2016-05-02 14:31:13	0|spudowiar1|if I were my brother's age now, I'd be rich now
30 2016-05-02 14:31:47	0|spudowiar1|anyone know where I can get proofs about Satoshi being uncovered?
31 2016-05-02 14:32:20	0|murch|spudowiar1: #bitcoin is chewing that piece of fat. Here is probably not the right place.
32 2016-05-02 14:32:38	0|spudowiar1|yeah, just found it
33 2016-05-02 14:32:49	0|spudowiar1|murch: forgot to join Bitcoin related channels on IRC
34 2016-05-02 14:32:53	0|spudowiar1|murch: just remembered
35 2016-05-02 16:49:01	0|GitHub86|[13bitcoin] 15tuladhar opened pull request #7989: bitcoin-cli.cpp: Use symbolic constant for exit code (06master...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7989
36 2016-05-02 16:49:52	0|GitHub78|[13bitcoin] 15tuladhar closed pull request #7986: Refactor bitcoin-cli.cpp (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7986
37 2016-05-02 16:57:21	0|spudowiar|hehe
38 2016-05-02 18:10:21	0|MarcoFalke|paveljanik, do you see the IndexError('pop from empty list',) often?
39 2016-05-02 18:11:01	0|paveljanik|MarcoFalke, master or 7980?
40 2016-05-02 18:11:08	0|paveljanik|current 7980 looks OK, no issues so far.
41 2016-05-02 18:11:28	0|paveljanik|but in the previous commit, almost always IIRC
42 2016-05-02 18:11:38	0|MarcoFalke|Hmm
43 2016-05-02 18:11:55	0|MarcoFalke|but good that it is now fixed, somehow
44 2016-05-02 18:12:35	0|paveljanik|I can't judge myself, sorry. I can only state what fails in the master and is OK in your PR.
45 2016-05-02 18:13:56	0|MarcoFalke|It is popping from the unspents, so if the dict was ordered wrong and you ended up with odd unspents... Maybe that caused it.
46 2016-05-02 18:14:32	0|MarcoFalke|I am running with the py3 patch and this dict-patch right now in a loop
47 2016-05-02 18:14:47	0|MarcoFalke|If there are no issues, I think it is fine
48 2016-05-02 18:15:34	0|paveljanik|BTW - why the difference between running from the main dir as python qa/rpc/... and ./smartfee.py?
49 2016-05-02 18:15:56	0|paveljanik|will be back in half an hour.
50 2016-05-02 18:16:03	0|MarcoFalke|Sure
51 2016-05-02 18:16:30	0|MarcoFalke|There should be no difference. It is just me being in the root dir all the time ;)
52 2016-05-02 18:45:59	0|paveljanik|MarcoFalke, ok, but why it has different results?
53 2016-05-02 18:47:31	0|paveljanik|on master, python qa/rpc-tests/smartfees.py  --srcdir=src almost always ends up on "pop from empty list". But ./smartfee.py never...
54 2016-05-02 18:50:10	0|MarcoFalke|Which means self.nodes[0].listunspent(0) is empty
55 2016-05-02 18:50:14	0|MarcoFalke|Corrupt cache?
56 2016-05-02 18:51:39	0|paveljanik|what cache? Isn't it setting everything from scratch itself?
57 2016-05-02 18:52:23	0|paveljanik|a, you mean cache/ directory?
58 2016-05-02 18:52:36	0|MarcoFalke|Jup
59 2016-05-02 18:52:42	0|paveljanik|Right, removing it fixed the problem.
60 2016-05-02 18:53:04	0|paveljanik|8)
61 2016-05-02 18:53:40	0|paveljanik|I was fooled by "Initializing test directory /var/folders/65/fn0h49r55k7779vg1b_h461r0000gn/T/testOdh...." 8)
62 2016-05-02 18:54:28	0|MarcoFalke|Yes, it is not really intuitive, as the cache dirs end up in different locations
63 2016-05-02 18:54:47	0|MarcoFalke|There prop should be only one cache dir at the root
64 2016-05-02 20:04:56	0|cfields|gmaxwell: took way too long to get to this, but: https://dev.bitcoincore.org/cfields/post-segwit.coverage/
65 2016-05-02 20:09:37	0|sdaftuar|cfields: that's the test suite coverage?  i was just wanting to look at that...
66 2016-05-02 20:10:06	0|cfields|sdaftuar: yes, that's all tests, excluding extended pruning rpc
67 2016-05-02 20:10:25	0|sdaftuar|ah ok, awesome.  thanks!
68 2016-05-02 20:11:12	0|paveljanik|MarcoFalke, tests running now - on master, every second fails, 7980: every test was OK so far. Will report tomorrow. Thank you!
69 2016-05-02 20:11:15	0|cfields|I'm looking through it now to see what's interesting to test for
70 2016-05-02 20:11:33	0|cfields|sdaftuar: as a next step i'm trying to create a coverage diff, but i'm not sure if the tools know how to handle that
71 2016-05-02 20:13:00	0|sdaftuar|cool.  i'm going through the PR commit by commit, so i'll see if i can just manually look at what code hasn't been tested
72 2016-05-02 20:31:47	0|GitHub4|[13bitcoin] 15kazcw opened pull request #7991: Save 7% total memory usage by using pointers as keys in mapNextTx (06master...06memusage) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7991
73 2016-05-02 20:50:44	0|gmaxwell|nickler: You asked me earlier about coverage, see cfiel ds above.
74 2016-05-02 21:50:28	0|james341|hey
75 2016-05-02 21:50:41	0|james341|can u help me with something?
76 2016-05-02 21:50:51	0|james341|now I am in a very difficult situation and I do not have enough money even for food . who do not mind , please give me a couple of dollars . here is my Bitcoin address :"1HZAGzo7DJ4cqMuHuhjPZY1hwHhZYU52Tu" . I will be very grateful to anyone who can help me  --  do not consider this topic for spam, I need help
77 2016-05-02 22:17:30	0|spudowiar1|oin
78 2016-05-02 23:38:42	0|achow101|Is gavin's commit access still revoked?
79 2016-05-02 23:40:55	0|gmaxwell|Yes. I think it's unlikely to be restored. It hasn't been used in a year, and the situation with CSW is still very screwy.
80 2016-05-02 23:52:54	0|molz|gmaxwell, but what does it mean his name is still on this page:  https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people
81 2016-05-02 23:54:50	0|gmaxwell|molz: he's an org member with readonly access. like luke-jr. for example. (there are others, but they're set to private)
82 2016-05-02 23:55:31	0|molz|gmaxwell, ah.. thanks for this info, i kept wondering about this
83 2016-05-02 23:56:00	0|gmaxwell|(being an org member lets you assign tickets to them-- really bitcoin core should probably make a lot more people org members)