1 2016-05-17 00:22:57 0|GitHub144|[13bitcoin] 15pstratem opened pull request #8061: [Wallet] Improve Wallet encapsulation (06master...062016-05-14-wallet-api-cleanup) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8061 2 2016-05-17 01:06:37 0|gmaxwell|In the past 4 days, these 10 blocks were the only blocks to have very low mempool hitrates (less than 50% in mempool; and over 100 missed txn) with the compact block implementation against nodes that have been running the code for about a month (so mature mempools). I wonder if there is any obvious systemic factor, http://0bin.net/paste/wS81yPcdhPGVDFh-#DW3wgBF6x4YauJqOMBU4c+EdZFSrcnLDYlhgVnJ0e 3 2016-05-17 01:06:43 0|gmaxwell|zw 4 2016-05-17 01:12:46 0|phantomcircuit|https://0bin.net/paste/wS81yPcdhPGVDFh-#DW3wgBF6x4YauJqOMBU4c+EdZFSrcnLDYlhgVnJ0ezw 5 2016-05-17 01:14:51 0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell, 6 of those are antpool 6 2016-05-17 01:21:39 0|GitHub87|[13bitcoin] 15pstratem closed pull request #7955: [WIP] sync mempool after new block (06master...062016-04-26-mempoolsync) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7955 7 2016-05-17 03:38:17 0|GitHub91|[13bitcoin] 15pstratem opened pull request #8063: Acquire lock to check for genesis block. (06master...062015-05-16-lockfix) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8063 8 2016-05-17 05:35:23 0|spudowiarslave|test 9 2016-05-17 06:44:52 0|GitHub172|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #7167: Move TestBlockValidity into a background thread (06master...06TBVBackground) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7167 10 2016-05-17 07:26:11 0|warren|Hmm, why is -debug=proxy separate from -debug=net? They should probably be merged? 11 2016-05-17 07:26:39 0|GitHub137|[13bitcoin] 15gmaxwell opened pull request #8065: Addrman offline attempts (06master...06addrman_offline_attempts) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8065 12 2016-05-17 07:27:55 0|GitHub54|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 5 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1f01443567b0...e2bf830bb6c1 13 2016-05-17 07:27:56 0|GitHub54|13bitcoin/06master 14ac40ed7 15error10: Increase timeout waiting for pruned blk00000.dat... 14 2016-05-17 07:27:56 0|GitHub54|13bitcoin/06master 14fa72f7d 15MarcoFalke: [doc] Remove outdated line from listunspent RPC help, fix typo 15 2016-05-17 07:27:57 0|GitHub54|13bitcoin/06master 14fadd048 15MarcoFalke: [doc] Link to clang-format in the developer notes 16 2016-05-17 07:28:05 0|GitHub58|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #8038: [qa, doc] Various minor fixes (06master...06Mf1605-trivial12) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8038 17 2016-05-17 08:01:16 0|GitHub14|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #7884: Optimize CScript.FindAndDelete (06master...06optimize_FindAndDelete) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7884 18 2016-05-17 08:53:31 0|GitHub130|13bitcoin/06master 141475ecf 15EthanHeilman: Fix de-serialization bug where AddrMan is corrupted after exception... 19 2016-05-17 08:53:31 0|GitHub130|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e2bf830bb6c1...5c3f8ddcaa11 20 2016-05-17 08:53:32 0|GitHub130|13bitcoin/06master 145c3f8dd 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #7696: Fix de-serialization bug where AddrMan is left corrupted... 21 2016-05-17 08:53:36 0|GitHub129|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #7696: Fix de-serialization bug where AddrMan is left corrupted (06master...06bug) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7696 22 2016-05-17 09:02:47 0|petertodd|anyone know of some up-to-date UTXO age distribution graphs? (or better yet, UTXO priority distribution graphs) 23 2016-05-17 09:08:44 0|GitHub50|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8066: [qa] test_framework: Use different rpc_auth_pair for each node (06master...06Mf1605-qaAuthPairDiff) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8066 24 2016-05-17 18:21:21 0|BlueMatt|sipa: re: std::unordered_map hasher creation: funny, I cant find any references to it online :( 25 2016-05-17 18:22:16 0|sipa|BlueMatt: it follows from type generality :) 26 2016-05-17 18:22:31 0|sipa|BlueMatt: you can pass in a hasher type that has no no-arg constructor 27 2016-05-17 18:22:38 0|sipa|so unordered_map cannot construct it on its own 28 2016-05-17 18:22:53 0|sipa|so you need to pass it in 29 2016-05-17 18:23:38 0|BlueMatt|wait, how does that work? when passing it in as a class reference unordered_map has to be able to create it somehow? 30 2016-05-17 18:23:57 0|sipa|explicit unordered_map( size_type bucket_count, const Hash& hash = Hash(), const KeyEqual& equal = KeyEqual(), const Allocator& alloc = Allocator() ); 31 2016-05-17 18:24:02 0|sipa|is the constructor 32 2016-05-17 18:24:10 0|BlueMatt|ohhhh, oops, yea, missed that 33 2016-05-17 19:41:33 0|Chris_Stewart_5|Question about BIP113, if I have a locktime transaction I need the locktime on that tx to be < the median block timestamp for the last 11 blocks correct? 34 2016-05-17 20:31:23 0|gmaxwell|Jeff Garzik is attacking the project's work again, https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/732648223823695874 35 2016-05-17 20:32:50 0|gmaxwell|I think it's doubtful that he's ever thought about the deployment implications of SW as a hardfork, having actually done it in elements alpha and found it barely workable there-- because doing it the HF way so throughly destroys all software compatiblity-- I continue to be surprised at the level of ignorance displayed here. 36 2016-05-17 20:34:50 0|gmaxwell|I'm also disappointed to see yet another transparently political move-- which is all I could characterize someone clammering to halt segwit when it's relatively uncontroversial (except emong those trying to use the lack of it as a wedge to force other rule changes onto the network, like Jeff.)-- while at the same time he supported (and continues to support) trying to force a hardfork onto the sy 37 2016-05-17 20:34:56 0|gmaxwell|stem using a much lower criteria of 75% hashpower. 38 2016-05-17 20:36:15 0|gmaxwell|I've been contacting Jeff for months in private raising my concerns about his unproductive tyrades-- seemingly motivated by creating drama to bring attention to his business-- while he continues to contribute no ongoing technical work the the bitcoin ecosystem. Most of my emails have gone unresponded or not meaningfully responded. 39 2016-05-17 20:38:35 0|gmaxwell|https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/729511340008611840 last week Jeff was offering his Bloq company as a provider for "segwit roadmap with dates"; at the time I thought it was inexplicable considering AFAIK no one with Bloq has been contributing to segwit development/testing at all. With today's comment it seems like it was an request for proposal for payment to attack and delay segwit. 40 2016-05-17 20:54:19 0|gmaxwell|I was reading this: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greenaddress-is-first-bitcoin-wallet-to-launch-replace-by-fee-bitcoin-transactions-miner-adoption-slow-1463516896 41 2016-05-17 20:54:32 0|gmaxwell|and saw the "Editors note: Shortly before publication, Bitcoin Core developers pointed out that an RBF-notification might be added soon, after all." and was confused by that. 42 2016-05-17 20:55:08 0|gmaxwell|Whats the context? I think based on petertodd's measurements saying that a subset of transactions are replacable would be misleading. All unconfirmed transactions a fairly reliably replacable. 43 2016-05-17 21:03:37 0|btcdrak|gmaxwell: AaronvanW (the author) is in here. 44 2016-05-17 21:04:42 0|AaronvanW|that's what jonasschnelli told me 45 2016-05-17 21:04:47 0|AaronvanW|unless I misunderstood 46 2016-05-17 21:04:53 0|AaronvanW|also in this channel iirx 47 2016-05-17 21:04:55 0|AaronvanW|iirc 48 2016-05-17 21:04:58 0|AaronvanW|yesterday 49 2016-05-17 21:07:09 0|AaronvanW|(I don't think I misunderstood) 50 2016-05-17 21:08:23 0|instagibbs|s/RBF-notification/bip-125 replaceable notification/ 51 2016-05-17 21:08:37 0|instagibbs|it's a bit of a mouthful though 52 2016-05-17 21:08:48 0|instagibbs|RBF-signaling, perhaps 53 2016-05-17 21:09:56 0|btcdrak|aaronvanw: gmaxwell: There is a PR open for it https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7817 54 2016-05-17 21:20:04 0|TD-Linux|it's kind of hard to convey "you shouldn't accept this yet" vs "you REALLY shouldn't accept this yet" 55 2016-05-17 22:09:21 0|luke-jr|petertodd: your NACK there is IMO incomplete. in theory, if you + others sign an outgoing tx (eg, CoinJoin), it can still be double-spent by those others 56 2016-05-17 22:10:15 0|luke-jr|AaronvanW: probably should stress the "might" there. I don't think such notification will get sufficient agreement to merge. 57 2016-05-17 22:29:16 0|gmaxwell|AaronvanW: oh, I'm not suggesting that you had anything wrong. 58 2016-05-17 22:29:36 0|gmaxwell|AaronvanW: only perhaps that someone responded to you without having discussed it or thought it through. 59 2016-05-17 22:31:06 0|gmaxwell|aaronvanw: at least the form shown in the example of another wallet with a red warning I'd oppose as materially misleading and likely to result in funds loss.