1 2016-05-03 00:00:03	0|luke-jr|would be nice if it let us set labels as well, but apparently not
  2 2016-05-03 00:01:27	0|gmaxwell|or sort orders.
  3 2016-05-03 00:02:47	0|GitHub73|[13bitcoin] 15kazcw closed pull request #7991: Save 7% total memory usage by using pointers as keys in mapNextTx (06master...06memusage) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7991
  4 2016-05-03 00:04:16	0|gmaxwell|I wonder why that was just closed?
  5 2016-05-03 00:50:32	0|cfields|sdaftuar: coverage data updated, much more accurate now
  6 2016-05-03 00:52:15	0|cfields|i'm actually really impressed by our coverage
  7 2016-05-03 00:56:47	0|GitHub35|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #7992: Extend #7956 with one more test. (06master...0616-5-7956-update) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7992
  8 2016-05-03 01:24:28	0|NicolasDorier|cfields: hey unfair ! I worked quite a lot on it as well :o(
  9 2016-05-03 01:24:49	0|cfields|NicolasDorier: ?
 10 2016-05-03 01:25:05	0|NicolasDorier|on the test coverage :p
 11 2016-05-03 01:26:14	0|cfields|NicolasDorier: oh. did you post somewhere? Sorry if I missed something and stomped on your work!
 12 2016-05-03 01:26:38	0|NicolasDorier|cfields: Yes ! https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/commits/24746d28ef494cf4c03d06ef9015e5d5f2dac621 :D
 13 2016-05-03 01:29:30	0|cfields|NicolasDorier: oh haha. I didn't improve the test coverage, that was all you guys :)
 14 2016-05-03 01:29:48	0|cfields|i just made a report :)
 15 2016-05-03 01:30:25	0|NicolasDorier|btw how did you made the report ? can I do it easily as well with some guru command line ?
 16 2016-05-03 01:30:53	0|cfields|NicolasDorier: it was pretty manual this time around. I had to fix up a good bit of stuff
 17 2016-05-03 01:31:12	0|cfields|NicolasDorier: goal is to get it automated and upstreamed so that Travis can generate them for each pull
 18 2016-05-03 01:31:24	0|NicolasDorier|this would be awesome
 19 2016-05-03 01:31:27	0|NicolasDorier|would help quite a lot
 20 2016-05-03 01:34:09	0|cfields|it currently won't compile without patches, that was interesting. We rely on undefined-ish compiler optimizations in CCoinsViewCache, need to figure out the cleanest way to fix that.
 21 2016-05-03 01:34:50	0|cfields|*compile for accurate coverage reporting
 22 2016-05-03 01:49:05	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Where can test coverage be viewed?
 23 2016-05-03 01:50:05	0|cfields|Chris_Stewart_5: https://dev.bitcoincore.org/cfields/post-segwit.coverage/
 24 2016-05-03 01:50:12	0|cfields|Chris_Stewart_5: it's specific to the segwit PR, though
 25 2016-05-03 01:51:47	0|Chris_Stewart_5|cfields: Cool, is there something to setup test coverage on the master branch?
 26 2016-05-03 01:52:05	0|Chris_Stewart_5|to track test coverage on the master branch*
 27 2016-05-03 01:54:05	0|cfields|Chris_Stewart_5: not yet, but I'll start pushing up the changes necessary
 28 2016-05-03 02:18:05	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Seems like the branch coverage is oddly low
 29 2016-05-03 05:46:37	0|NicolasDorier|I added 2 tests to segwit to squash for testing the two untested branch. Interestingly, it catched one NBitcoin bug :p
 30 2016-05-03 10:48:43	0|GitHub4|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7956: test: Add more thorough test for dbwrapper iterators (06master...062016_04_dbwrapper_iterator_tess) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7956
 31 2016-05-03 11:13:49	0|GitHub64|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/03cf6e867502...88b77c7da0a6
 32 2016-05-03 11:13:50	0|GitHub64|13bitcoin/06master 1443bbcd0 15Pavel Janík: [qa] Fix typos in doc and comments
 33 2016-05-03 11:13:50	0|GitHub64|13bitcoin/06master 14fa17f93 15MarcoFalke: [qa] smartfees: Properly use ordered dict
 34 2016-05-03 11:13:51	0|GitHub64|13bitcoin/06master 1488b77c7 15MarcoFalke: Merge #7980: [qa] smartfees: Properly use ordered dict...
 35 2016-05-03 11:13:59	0|GitHub92|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #7980: [qa] smartfees: Properly use ordered dict (06master...06Mf1604-qaOrderedDict) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7980
 36 2016-05-03 12:37:00	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Is this the correct syntax to run a specific test in a test suite? test_bitcoin --run_test=script_tests/script_json_test
 37 2016-05-03 12:37:03	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Doesn't seem to find the test
 38 2016-05-03 12:39:01	0|sipa|$ ./src/test/test_bitcoin --run_test=script_tests/script_json_test
 39 2016-05-03 12:39:04	0|sipa|runs fine for me
 40 2016-05-03 12:54:15	0|Chris_Stewart_5|thanks sipa
 41 2016-05-03 12:57:54	0|GitHub171|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #7993: [depends] Update FreeType, ccache, ZeroMQ (06master...06depends-no-sourceforge) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7993
 42 2016-05-03 13:06:15	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: I'm trying to add OP_CSV tests to script_tests, do I need to adjust a some sort of flag to have our script_test framework parse CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY correctly?
 43 2016-05-03 13:06:26	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Currently getting a script parse error
 44 2016-05-03 13:10:43	0|instagibbs|Chris_Stewart_5, link to code? Worst case it's an noop
 45 2016-05-03 13:12:23	0|Chris_Stewart_5|instagibbs: Actually is OP_CSV not merged into master yet? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a6a860796a44a2805a58391a009ba22752f64e32/src/script/script.cpp#L134
 46 2016-05-03 13:15:04	0|instagibbs|it's still named NOP3 in most parts afaik
 47 2016-05-03 13:15:05	0|instagibbs|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a6a860796a44a2805a58391a009ba22752f64e32/src/test/data/tx_valid.json#L239
 48 2016-05-03 13:15:21	0|instagibbs|once activated I think more renaming will occur
 49 2016-05-03 14:20:49	0|GitHub190|[13bitcoin] 15Christewart opened pull request #7994: Add op csv tests to script_tests.json (06master...06add_op_csv_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7994
 50 2016-05-03 14:42:14	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Curious, is there a site to see how much of the network supports a soft fork?
 51 2016-05-03 14:43:03	0|sipa|http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png
 52 2016-05-03 14:43:32	0|sipa|http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-ever.png
 53 2016-05-03 14:44:15	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sipa: how often do you regenerate that png?
 54 2016-05-03 14:44:40	0|sipa|every hour
 55 2016-05-03 14:49:43	0|JackH|we need 95% to activate CSV right?
 56 2016-05-03 14:50:31	0|sipa|yes
 57 2016-05-03 15:10:11	0|sipa|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bips.md <- does not list BIP68/112/113 ?
 58 2016-05-03 16:01:57	0|GitHub199|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #7995: main: Make version bits GUI warning clearer to translators (06master...062016_05_minor_message_change) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7995
 59 2016-05-03 18:33:06	0|paveljanik|FYI: https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20160503.txt
 60 2016-05-03 18:35:55	0|btcdrak|paveljanik: every month
 61 2016-05-03 18:37:00	0|paveljanik|yes 8(
 62 2016-05-03 18:37:11	0|luke-jr|seems we should do 0.12.2 with updated OpenSSL and GBT fix
 63 2016-05-03 18:44:48	0|paveljanik|luke-jr, good topic for Thu meeting...
 64 2016-05-03 20:57:55	0|wallet42|with a custom aes implementation and libsecp256k1 as sign/verification is there a plan for a release which wont depend on openssl?
 65 2016-05-03 20:59:41	0|sipa|hopefully :)
 66 2016-05-03 20:59:53	0|sipa|the last dependency is the PRNG for key generation
 67 2016-05-03 21:18:31	0|wallet42|i have a crypto question
 68 2016-05-03 21:19:10	0|wallet42|my local /dev/urandom produces about 12 MB/s
 69 2016-05-03 21:21:11	0|wallet42|cat /dev/urandom | pv > /dev/null
 70 2016-05-03 21:21:26	0|GitHub103|[13bitcoin] 15kazcw opened pull request #7997: replace mapNextTx with slimmer setSpends (06master...06setSpends) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7997
 71 2016-05-03 21:22:42	0|wallet42|PASSWORD=$(xxd -l 16 -p /dev/urandom); openssl enc -aes-128-ctr -k $PASSWORD < /dev/zero | pv > /dev/null
 72 2016-05-03 21:23:08	0|wallet42|produces about 1.6 GB/s
 73 2016-05-03 21:23:17	0|wallet42|is this "safe" ?
 74 2016-05-03 21:23:40	0|wallet42|if i want to wipe my hard drive for instance
 75 2016-05-03 21:24:43	0|wallet42|talking about a _faster_ PRNG
 76 2016-05-03 21:24:52	0|gmaxwell|The openssl output has a header, so it will not be totally random.
 77 2016-05-03 21:25:12	0|sipa|i'd just write /dev/urandom
 78 2016-05-03 21:25:18	0|sipa|if you're paranoid
 79 2016-05-03 21:25:24	0|sipa|overwrite it 2 times
 80 2016-05-03 21:26:03	0|wallet42|i use /dev/urandom as initializer but my SSD can write 900 MB/s, why settle for 12 MB/s
 81 2016-05-03 21:26:28	0|wallet42|is there a crypto reason this is a bad PRNG?
 82 2016-05-03 21:26:31	0|gmaxwell|wallet42: note that on modern disks (esp for SSD), there really is no safe way to overwrite the whole disk.
 83 2016-05-03 21:27:06	0|sipa|i think there is typical advice not to use aes-ctr for very large messages without rekeying
 84 2016-05-03 21:27:17	0|gmaxwell|there is a 'secure erase' available from hdparm which is specified to erase more than you can normally access, but it's anyone's guess at how effective it actually is.
 85 2016-05-03 21:27:50	0|gmaxwell|sipa: I think any single disk that exists is small enough where that issue doesn't matter.
 86 2016-05-03 21:28:04	0|sipa|aes-ctr is by definition a bad prng, as it produces a permutation, not a random function
 87 2016-05-03 21:28:18	0|sipa|also, the argument is unlikely to matter here
 88 2016-05-03 21:28:37	0|gmaxwell|But if your goal is to not have it clear you overwrote it with openssl that command won't work due to the header.
 89 2016-05-03 21:28:49	0|sipa|you don't need a perfectly random function, just something unoredictable is enough
 90 2016-05-03 21:28:50	0|gmaxwell|doing that then overwriting with zeros would.
 91 2016-05-03 21:29:00	0|wallet42|would a sha256(password+nonce) be better than aes-ctr?
 92 2016-05-03 21:29:18	0|gmaxwell|it would be much slower.
 93 2016-05-03 21:29:28	0|sipa|it would be a random function, though
 94 2016-05-03 21:29:43	0|sipa|or at least, indistinguishable from one
 95 2016-05-03 21:30:14	0|wallet42|ok so sha256's randomness is better than aes-ctr
 96 2016-05-03 21:30:21	0|sipa|in theory
 97 2016-05-03 21:31:06	0|sipa|i don't think the distuishability matters here at all
 98 2016-05-03 21:33:40	0|wallet42|how can i bench libsecp256k1
 99 2016-05-03 21:34:32	0|sipa|it has a bench binary
100 2016-05-03 21:35:01	0|wallet42|ah --enable-benchmark
101 2016-05-03 21:35:04	0|wallet42|sorry
102 2016-05-03 21:35:26	0|sipa|oh right, it's not standard anymore
103 2016-05-03 21:37:57	0|wallet42|80us = 12,500 op/s ?
104 2016-05-03 21:38:18	0|wallet42|shit :D
105 2016-05-03 21:38:25	0|sipa|per thread
106 2016-05-03 21:38:35	0|wallet42|<3 sipa, (no homo)
107 2016-05-03 21:39:53	0|wallet42|boringssl does only 2,800 op/s for Ed25519 verify
108 2016-05-03 21:40:11	0|sipa|there are some non-merged optimizations that are make it a few % faster stoll
109 2016-05-03 21:40:21	0|sipa|*still