1 2016-06-07 00:42:57	0|GitHub8|[13bitcoin] 15tatobg opened pull request #8155: 0.12 (06master...060.12) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8155
  2 2016-06-07 00:43:39	0|GitHub28|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #8155: 0.12 (06master...060.12) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8155
  3 2016-06-07 06:59:06	0|GitHub25|13bitcoin/06master 14fa51a1d 15MarcoFalke: [init] Make feefilter option debug option
  4 2016-06-07 06:59:06	0|GitHub25|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/52c3f348bec3...cfc6da0b1b81
  5 2016-06-07 06:59:07	0|GitHub25|13bitcoin/06master 14cfc6da0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8151: [init] Make feefilter option debug option...
  6 2016-06-07 06:59:17	0|GitHub52|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8151: [init] Make feefilter option debug option (06master...06Mf1606-feefilterDebug) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8151
  7 2016-06-07 09:18:27	0|GitHub147|[13bitcoin] 15jpdffonseca opened pull request #8158: Simplify calls to retrieve credit and balance (06master...06enhancement/unification-wallet-balance) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8158
  8 2016-06-07 09:48:01	0|MarcoFalke|jonasschnelli: VNULL is already a valid type
  9 2016-06-07 09:48:33	0|MarcoFalke|Let's not change its meaning to VANY just for checkObj
 10 2016-06-07 09:49:19	0|MarcoFalke|I could change it to a cpp union but it will still be a wrapper, I assume
 11 2016-06-07 09:49:46	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: yes. Fair enought...
 12 2016-06-07 12:35:00	0|GitHub9|13bitcoin/06master 14bd0f413 15Jonas Nick: Reduce unnecessary hashing in signrawtransaction
 13 2016-06-07 12:35:00	0|GitHub9|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cfc6da0b1b81...9b6a48c2e996
 14 2016-06-07 12:35:01	0|GitHub9|13bitcoin/06master 149b6a48c 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8118: Reduce unnecessary hashing in signrawtransaction...
 15 2016-06-07 12:35:12	0|GitHub145|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8118: Reduce unnecessary hashing in signrawtransaction (06master...06faster-signraw) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8118
 16 2016-06-07 13:26:01	0|GitHub75|13bitcoin/06master 148b78486 15Jonas Schnelli: Log/report in 10% steps during VerifyDB
 17 2016-06-07 13:26:01	0|GitHub75|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9b6a48c2e996...22e0b3567623
 18 2016-06-07 13:26:02	0|GitHub75|13bitcoin/06master 1422e0b35 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8136: Log/report in 10% steps during VerifyDB...
 19 2016-06-07 13:26:11	0|GitHub153|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8136: Log/report in 10% steps during VerifyDB (06master...062016/06/init_checkblocks) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8136
 20 2016-06-07 13:40:49	0|GitHub104|[13bitcoin] 15jmcorgan reopened pull request #8148: Backport leveldb build integration to 0.12 (060.12...060.12) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8148
 21 2016-06-07 13:50:23	0|GitHub146|[13bitcoin] 15iblis17 opened pull request #8159: PR demo (06master...06iblis-demo) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8159
 22 2016-06-07 13:50:33	0|GitHub50|[13bitcoin] 15iblis17 closed pull request #8159: PR demo (06master...06iblis-demo) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8159
 23 2016-06-07 13:57:07	0|sipa|wumpus: what do you think about including arm-linux-gnueabihf binaries in the distribution?
 24 2016-06-07 13:59:41	0|wumpus|sipa: yes we should definitely have ARMHF and ARM64 binary tarballs
 25 2016-06-07 14:00:27	0|wumpus|there was a pull doing this, but it was closed at some point (because it was the wrong way to do it) and no one picked it up
 26 2016-06-07 14:01:37	0|wumpus|hm I can't find it, may have been confused with something else, in any case it'd be welcome
 27 2016-06-07 14:03:05	0|wumpus|ah https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7659
 28 2016-06-07 14:21:02	0|wumpus|created an issue for ithttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8162
 29 2016-06-07 14:32:59	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: mind taking a look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7957? Would be nice to have this merged. Simplifies RBF testing. :)
 30 2016-06-07 14:40:10	0|wumpus|sure
 31 2016-06-07 14:45:10	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: should there be a test in src/test/data/bitcoin-util-test.json for the new -tx behavior?
 32 2016-06-07 14:45:38	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: wasn't aware of a test script bit bitcoin-tx... i'll have a look
 33 2016-06-07 14:46:12	0|wumpus|yes not many people realize that :) it gets executed with `make test`
 34 2016-06-07 14:46:15	0|wumpus|eh make check
 35 2016-06-07 14:46:31	0|wumpus|by bitcoin-util-test.py
 36 2016-06-07 14:46:38	0|sipa|but only make check in the root, not make check in src/
 37 2016-06-07 14:50:15	0|sipa|i'd like to see some review on #8084 and #8065
 38 2016-06-07 14:50:44	0|sipa|#8065 should be easy to test by monitoring fails added to addrman, and disconnecting your network cable
 39 2016-06-07 15:58:04	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: was the seeder flag check correct (if (id >= 0 && (idToInfo[id].services & requestedFlags) == requestedFlags) {)?
 40 2016-06-07 15:58:11	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/pull/36#discussion_r65778140
 41 2016-06-07 15:58:18	0|jonasschnelli|haven't double checked
 42 2016-06-07 15:59:50	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: no, i don't understand why it can be correct
 43 2016-06-07 15:59:56	0|sipa|i'm fixing it now
 44 2016-06-07 16:00:02	0|sipa|(but maybe i'm missing something)
 45 2016-06-07 16:00:10	0|sipa|so feel free to explain why you think it is
 46 2016-06-07 16:04:05	0|paveljanik|jonasschnelli, wumpus: in src/rpc, we shadow global tableRPC by the same-named argument to all Register*RPCCommands(CRPCTable &table). Before changing all names (by adding underscore), do we really want to pass the global in and then shadow it by the same named argument? What about removing the argument instead?
 47 2016-06-07 16:04:47	0|sipa|how about renaming the global? :)
 48 2016-06-07 16:05:24	0|paveljanik|there are millions of use of it outside the register part...
 49 2016-06-07 16:06:16	0|sipa|well, in an ideal world there would not be a global (or at least not one that's commonly used)
 50 2016-06-07 16:06:55	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: right. It should be the same like this line: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/pull/36/files#diff-623e3fd6da1a45222eeec71496747b31R185
 51 2016-06-07 16:07:14	0|jonasschnelli|Tell me if you want me to PR
 52 2016-06-07 16:07:20	0|sipa|i'll do it
 53 2016-06-07 16:07:30	0|jonasschnelli|thanks!
 54 2016-06-07 16:09:06	0|paveljanik|sipa, I prefer to rename argument names
 55 2016-06-07 16:09:13	0|sipa|paveljanik: ok
 56 2016-06-07 16:09:28	0|paveljanik|to e.g. t ;-)
 57 2016-06-07 16:09:34	0|paveljanik|to save a lot of bytes ;-)
 58 2016-06-07 16:12:38	0|sipa|paveljanik: an alternative is making the tableRPC global static (and not exposed from rpc/server.cpp), and instead add a function that just calls tableRPC.appendCommand
 59 2016-06-07 16:12:52	0|sipa|it's not shadowing if the global isn't visible
 60 2016-06-07 16:13:47	0|paveljanik|this can't work: qt/rpcconsole.cpp:        UniValue result = tableRPC.execute(
 61 2016-06-07 16:14:01	0|sipa|ok, a wrapper for that too :)
 62 2016-06-07 16:14:55	0|paveljanik|and now clang-fu it ;-)
 63 2016-06-07 16:17:00	0|wumpus|sipa: well the idea is to make it possible to have multiple rpc tables
 64 2016-06-07 16:17:17	0|wumpus|sipa: that's why tablerpc is an argument to Register* in the first place
 65 2016-06-07 16:17:36	0|paveljanik|yes
 66 2016-06-07 16:17:37	0|wumpus|this makes it possible to have multiple RPC entry points, at some point
 67 2016-06-07 16:17:46	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. The idea of the register is to avoid a superglobal dispatch table.
 68 2016-06-07 16:17:49	0|wumpus|probably it shouldn't be a global though
 69 2016-06-07 16:17:55	0|wumpus|agree with that
 70 2016-06-07 16:18:00	0|wumpus|but please don't hardcode tablerpc
 71 2016-06-07 16:18:10	0|jonasschnelli|The table itself should be a rpc-server object.
 72 2016-06-07 16:18:25	0|jonasschnelli|Modules should "register" callbacks.
 73 2016-06-07 16:18:36	0|paveljanik|I'm most inclned to rename arguments to t...
 74 2016-06-07 16:19:10	0|wumpus|in any case, let's not entangle this with the refactor to remove shadowing
 75 2016-06-07 16:19:27	0|sipa|paveljanik: whatever is easiest
 76 2016-06-07 16:19:36	0|sipa|indeed, they're orthogonal improvements
 77 2016-06-07 16:20:12	0|paveljanik|sure
 78 2016-06-07 16:20:13	0|paveljanik|will do
 79 2016-06-07 16:20:20	0|paveljanik|this as one PR.
 80 2016-06-07 16:25:43	0|GitHub19|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/22e0b3567623...79004d4ae671
 81 2016-06-07 16:25:44	0|GitHub19|13bitcoin/06master 14a946bb6 15Jonas Schnelli: [RPC] createrawtransaction: add option to set the sequence number per input
 82 2016-06-07 16:25:44	0|GitHub19|13bitcoin/06master 14e59336f 15Jonas Schnelli: [bitcoin-tx] allow to set nSequence number over the in= command
 83 2016-06-07 16:25:45	0|GitHub19|13bitcoin/06master 14ae357d5 15Jonas Schnelli: [Bitcoin-Tx] Add tests for sequence number support
 84 2016-06-07 16:25:48	0|GitHub140|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7957: [RPC][Bitcoin-TX] Add support for sequence number (06master...062016/04/rbf_base) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7957
 85 2016-06-07 16:52:47	0|GitHub110|[13bitcoin] 15paveljanik opened pull request #8163: Do not shadow global RPC table variable (tableRPC) (06master...0620160607_shadowing_rpc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8163
 86 2016-06-07 16:54:39	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin-seeder/pull/40/files
 87 2016-06-07 16:55:30	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: should we not provide a default whitelist?
 88 2016-06-07 16:55:38	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: there is one
 89 2016-06-07 16:55:45	0|jonasschnelli|Ah.. right
 90 2016-06-07 16:55:45	0|sipa|line 148
 91 2016-06-07 16:55:59	0|jonasschnelli|1,5,9,13... hmm..
 92 2016-06-07 16:56:38	0|sipa|also, servicebits were already printed in dnsseed.dump
 93 2016-06-07 16:56:51	0|jonasschnelli|You don't want to add NODE_GETUTXO to the WL?
 94 2016-06-07 16:56:55	0|sipa|no
 95 2016-06-07 16:57:11	0|jonasschnelli|Okay. Right. Not by default.
 96 2016-06-07 16:57:14	0|sipa|you can enable it if you need it
 97 2016-06-07 16:58:19	0|jonasschnelli|ack
 98 2016-06-07 18:02:02	0|GitHub40|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #8164: [Tests] fix missing test fixtures in Makefile.test.include (06master...062016/04/rbf_base) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8164
 99 2016-06-07 18:02:07	0|jonasschnelli|Travis is currently failing.
100 2016-06-07 18:02:12	0|jonasschnelli|Was my fault... sorry.
101 2016-06-07 18:02:15	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8164 should fix it.
102 2016-06-07 18:51:45	0|jonasschnelli|Hmm.. is this not 32bit save? uint32_t nSequenceIn=std::numeric_limits<unsigned int>::max();
103 2016-06-07 18:52:06	0|jonasschnelli|https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/135941357#L1909
104 2016-06-07 18:52:14	0|jonasschnelli|(seems to fail on travis 32bit)
105 2016-06-07 18:55:28	0|jonasschnelli|Ah.. i'm using atoi() for uint32_t,... not good.
106 2016-06-07 18:55:49	0|sipa|on all our supported platforms int is 32 bit
107 2016-06-07 18:57:44	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Yes. But I guess atoi() throws away the unsigned? Does always use signed int IMO.
108 2016-06-07 18:58:03	0|jonasschnelli|Trying now with std::stoul()
109 2016-06-07 19:05:32	0|Danco_|Hello may i make a GPU question here?
110 2016-06-07 19:06:03	0|jonasschnelli|Danco_: depends if its bitcoin-core-dev relevant... but shoot!
111 2016-06-07 19:06:17	0|Danco_|Hello, i have a hardware  question about my GPU capacita, I have an AMD 4870x2, and i want to know how many Mhash/s could i make with it. I found in this link: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison its  between 180.6 and 203 Mhash... But i'm not quite sure,  But in this link : https://litecoin.info/Mining_hardware_comparison#AMD_.28ATI.29 its just 142kH/s, so i'm pretty confused.
112 2016-06-07 19:06:22	0|Danco_|There it is
113 2016-06-07 19:06:46	0|jonasschnelli|I guess the only way is by trying it yourself. :)
114 2016-06-07 19:06:59	0|jonasschnelli|But GPU mining is history? right?
115 2016-06-07 19:07:15	0|jonasschnelli|(at least on the bitcoin blockchain)
116 2016-06-07 19:07:20	0|Danco_|For Litecoin is still useful.
117 2016-06-07 19:08:01	0|btcdrak|Danco_: it's probably a question for #bitcoin-dev or #bitcoin. this channel is specifically for Bitcoin Core development.
118 2016-06-07 19:08:46	0|Danco_|Ok ok i'll make it there :D thanks.
119 2016-06-07 19:25:32	0|GitHub70|[13bitcoin] 15paveljanik opened pull request #8166: src/test: Do not shadow local variables (06master...0620160607_shadowing_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8166
120 2016-06-07 20:47:58	0|jonasschnelli|cfields_: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8164/files/86efa30ae3fd36aa77b19ff0f70bb89be9ec308e#r66149475
121 2016-06-07 20:48:16	0|jonasschnelli|Why use strtoll instead of std::stoul?
122 2016-06-07 20:49:58	0|cfields_|jonasschnelli: typo. stoll would work, i was just making the point that i think it needs to be a long long to be completely safe
123 2016-06-07 20:50:28	0|sipa|oh, i didn't know about stoll!
124 2016-06-07 20:51:05	0|cfields_|jonasschnelli: feel free to ignore, I'm not familiar enough there to know if it's necessary to be paranoid there.
125 2016-06-07 20:51:18	0|cfields_|- a "there"
126 2016-06-07 20:51:30	0|jonasschnelli|cfields_: yeah. Me too. :)
127 2016-06-07 20:52:06	0|cfields_|sipa: c++11's full of surprises :)
128 2016-06-07 20:52:29	0|jonasschnelli|But I guess there are other placed in bitcoin-tx where we do not check for overflows (like vout, etc.)
129 2016-06-07 20:52:42	0|jonasschnelli|Travis is currently failing on master.
130 2016-06-07 20:52:49	0|jonasschnelli|So a quick review and merge of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8164 would be great.
131 2016-06-07 20:52:54	0|cfields_|jonasschnelli: right, probably low on the list of real concerns
132 2016-06-07 20:55:02	0|cfields_|jonasschnelli: sec, i'm looking up the actual failure. I'd hate mask real bugs there.
133 2016-06-07 21:16:17	0|cfields_|jonasschnelli: ok, just tested. It's pretty easy to screw that up, especially if you're typing a seq by hand and add one too many digits. Silently inserting the wrong value is pretty nasty.
134 2016-06-07 21:16:23	0|cfields_|jonasschnelli: http://pastebin.com/raw/Yz18syyR
135 2016-06-07 23:37:30	0|sipa|luke-jr: good thing BIP8 was never assigned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIP-8 (image what would happen if something related to error correction or checksums got that...)