1 2016-06-22 02:11:27	0|jl2012|I talked to wangchun. F2pool has stopped setting the csv bit.
  2 2016-06-22 02:29:37	0|phantomcircuit|jl2012: i dont think it matters the soft fork is locked in either way
  3 2016-06-22 02:29:46	0|phantomcircuit|(i could be wrong here but im prettty sure im not)
  4 2016-06-22 02:30:51	0|gmaxwell|phantomcircuit: it doesn't.
  5 2016-06-22 02:40:20	0|btcdrak|jl2012: need to ask antpool to unset it also.
  6 2016-06-22 02:57:33	0|instagibbs|phantomcircuit, there is just some concern of blocks having bits set that a client wont understand
  7 2016-06-22 02:57:46	0|instagibbs|alerts for no reason(more than we already have now)
  8 2016-06-22 03:14:36	0|btcdrak|yes. please see latest article on website
  9 2016-06-22 06:49:11	0|GitHub53|13bitcoin/06master 143775ff9 15Pieter Wuille: Enable mempool consistency checks in unit tests
 10 2016-06-22 06:49:11	0|GitHub53|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8ccdac1f5f77...961893f26e5c
 11 2016-06-22 06:49:12	0|GitHub53|13bitcoin/06master 14961893f 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8222: Enable mempool consistency checks in unit tests...
 12 2016-06-22 06:49:16	0|GitHub147|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8222: Enable mempool consistency checks in unit tests (06master...06unittestmempool) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8222
 13 2016-06-22 06:50:35	0|GitHub115|13bitcoin/06master 14b3e1348 15Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] fix a bug where the SplashScreen will not be hidden during startup
 14 2016-06-22 06:50:35	0|GitHub115|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/961893f26e5c...760a6c7cb2ea
 15 2016-06-22 06:50:36	0|GitHub115|13bitcoin/06master 14760a6c7 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8231: [Qt] fix a bug where the SplashScreen will not be hidden during startup...
 16 2016-06-22 06:50:40	0|GitHub92|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8231: [Qt] fix a bug where the SplashScreen will not be hidden during startup (06master...062016/06/qt_min_fix) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8231
 17 2016-06-22 06:52:25	0|GitHub180|13bitcoin/06master 144cbe05b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Periodic transifex update...
 18 2016-06-22 06:52:25	0|GitHub180|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/760a6c7cb2ea...9e45ef1ef031
 19 2016-06-22 06:52:26	0|GitHub180|13bitcoin/06master 149e45ef1 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8234: qt: Periodic transifex update...
 20 2016-06-22 06:52:35	0|GitHub197|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8234: qt: Periodic transifex update (06master...062016_06_transifex_update) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8234
 21 2016-06-22 07:28:38	0|GitHub34|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8236: [doc] 0.12.2: prepare release notes (060.12...06Mf1606-docReleaseNotes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8236
 22 2016-06-22 07:47:32	0|fanquake|wumpus Some issues that can be closed #7861 #7873 #7866
 23 2016-06-22 07:47:49	0|fanquake|Also #6701 should have been closed by #7667
 24 2016-06-22 07:48:41	0|fanquake|Possibly also #6702
 25 2016-06-22 07:52:21	0|fanquake|#7872 can also be closed. Not sure why this account has opened so many random/meaningless issues.
 26 2016-06-22 08:02:56	0|MarcoFalke|done
 27 2016-06-22 08:13:28	0|gmaxwell|Anyone have exact IsSuperMajority heights for BIP30/65/66 on mainnet and testnet handy, by any chance?
 28 2016-06-22 08:14:35	0|btcdrak|gmaxwell BIP66 block 363724 according to https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38436/when-did-bip66-switch-from-activation-to-enforcement
 29 2016-06-22 08:21:10	0|btcdrak|gmaxwell: BIP65 was activated on block #388380
 30 2016-06-22 08:22:21	0|btcdrak|luke-jr: maybe we should update the BIPs with activation blocks when they activate
 31 2016-06-22 08:32:39	0|btcdrak|gmaxwell: do you mean BIP34? according to the BIP text "Block number 227,835 (timestamp 2013-03-24 15:49:13 GMT) was the last version 1 block."
 32 2016-06-22 09:05:12	0|gmaxwell|uhh. is reindex broken on master for anyone else?
 33 2016-06-22 09:06:06	0|gmaxwell|oh it's not broken.
 34 2016-06-22 09:06:14	0|gmaxwell|it just looks funny now that it scans headers first.
 35 2016-06-22 09:06:20	0|gmaxwell|hm. we might get bug reports on that.
 36 2016-06-22 09:08:17	0|wumpus|those mrCertified issues are crazy, didn't notice them before, thanks for closing fanquake/MarcoFalke
 37 2016-06-22 09:18:00	0|sipa|btcdrak: bips.md has more info
 38 2016-06-22 09:31:14	0|GitHub199|13bitcoin/060.11 140cd4fb6 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Final translation update on 0.11 branch...
 39 2016-06-22 09:31:14	0|GitHub199|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.11: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/0cd4fb6570f67d40891673bc8c41e473b9753c63
 40 2016-06-22 09:32:47	0|gmaxwell|so the first point where     if (block.nVersion >= 2 && IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, consensusParams.nMajorityEnforceBlockUpgrade, consensusParams))
 41 2016-06-22 09:35:02	0|gmaxwell|is true is 224413, which seems to suggest that the BIP34 height in the chainparams is wrong?
 42 2016-06-22 09:37:01	0|gmaxwell|nevermind. activated vs enforced.
 43 2016-06-22 09:37:38	0|wumpus|phew
 44 2016-06-22 09:38:11	0|sipa|gmaxwell: what looks funny about it?
 45 2016-06-22 09:39:23	0|sipa|gmaxwell: the chainparams value is the first point where it activated and never went to non-activated anymore
 46 2016-06-22 09:40:53	0|wumpus|maybe add a comment to prevent people panicking from this again in the future :)
 47 2016-06-22 09:41:08	0|gmaxwell|I will.
 48 2016-06-22 09:41:49	0|gmaxwell|I was in the process of making a patch to remove all the IsSuperMajority code, and replace with simple height checks.
 49 2016-06-22 09:54:56	0|gmaxwell|I think it's weird that we end up with network connections while reindexing.
 50 2016-06-22 09:59:43	0|wumpus|outgoing or incoming?
 51 2016-06-22 10:00:20	0|gmaxwell|outgoing.
 52 2016-06-22 10:00:23	0|wumpus|in principle the network code is simply running while reindexing, it just doesn't request blocks nor transactions
 53 2016-06-22 10:00:41	0|wumpus|I don't think that's necessarily wrong
 54 2016-06-22 10:01:09	0|gmaxwell|I'm probably only really noticing because I have debugging turned up and the invs are filling up my logs.
 55 2016-06-22 10:01:24	0|gmaxwell|Is it useful to have connections up while reindexing?
 56 2016-06-22 10:01:41	0|sipa|i guess it may make sense for addr relay
 57 2016-06-22 10:01:42	0|wumpus|no, but it also doesn't hurt, there doesn't need to be a strong coupling between network code and chain handling code
 58 2016-06-22 10:02:11	0|sipa|we could extend the dont-request-blocks rule to dont-request-transactions too
 59 2016-06-22 10:02:28	0|wumpus|I think that's already the case?
 60 2016-06-22 10:02:36	0|gmaxwell|doesn't appear to be requesting any.
 61 2016-06-22 10:02:41	0|gmaxwell|The negatives I can think of: wastes network resources, might defeat "is it working" monitoring. Otherwise, I agree.
 62 2016-06-22 10:03:14	0|wumpus|there is also a paralellism aspect: there will already be connections to request blocks on when the reindexing finished
 63 2016-06-22 10:03:48	0|gmaxwell|Thats a point.
 64 2016-06-22 10:03:59	0|wumpus|in any case there doesn't seem to be a strong reason to special-case this, so let's not
 65 2016-06-22 10:05:10	0|wumpus|the amount of network resources 'wasted' during reindex must be negible compared to a running node, and if you really care about (say when benchmarking) that and want to do a pure reindex, pass -connect=0 and disable listening...
 66 2016-06-22 10:05:16	0|sipa|wumpus: unfortunately, there is a bug around that
 67 2016-06-22 10:05:25	0|sipa|wumpus: we don't start requesting headers when reindex finishes
 68 2016-06-22 10:05:47	0|sipa|so only when an inv for a new block arrives, actual sync continues after a reindex
 69 2016-06-22 10:05:56	0|gmaxwell|We should probably release note that reindex may look inactive for a period of time at the beginning.
 70 2016-06-22 10:05:58	0|wumpus|that seems wrong
 71 2016-06-22 10:06:05	0|sipa|we should fix it
 72 2016-06-22 10:06:16	0|sipa|i'll file an issue if there is none already
 73 2016-06-22 10:06:17	0|gmaxwell|indeed, but after 3 hours, an extra block delay is not the end of the world. :)
 74 2016-06-22 10:07:01	0|wumpus|on the other hand reindex is just a tool to fix for broken databases, which unfortunately happen much more than they should, but it shouldn't be something people are doing day in day out
 75 2016-06-22 10:07:26	0|wumpus|so I suppose the +/- 10 minute delay is indeed not the end of the world
 76 2016-06-22 10:07:41	0|gmaxwell|I think that at some not far future version we should rename reindex to work around bad instructions on the internet that have people reindexing every time they see a shadow.
 77 2016-06-22 10:07:48	0|wumpus|nah
 78 2016-06-22 10:08:15	0|sipa|-really-reindex
 79 2016-06-22 10:08:25	0|gmaxwell|--rebuild-state
 80 2016-06-22 10:08:29	0|sipa|well we do have -reindex-chainstate now
 81 2016-06-22 10:08:43	0|sipa|but -reindex itself is still useful when your block files are corrupted
 82 2016-06-22 10:08:54	0|wumpus|for better or worse, there are many legitimate issues solved by a reindex, seems almost sadistic to break all kinds of well-meant guides on the internet. Even if it results in slightly more reindexes besing run all in all.
 83 2016-06-22 10:09:08	0|sipa|of course
 84 2016-06-22 10:09:16	0|gmaxwell|not yet, but in some near future where awesome improvements reduce the use for ever running it, of course.
 85 2016-06-22 10:09:23	0|sipa|same with rescan
 86 2016-06-22 10:09:32	0|wumpus|I'm not a fan of the rename-an-option-to-prevent-people-from-doing-it school if the option isn't a danger of monetary loss
 87 2016-06-22 10:09:46	0|sipa|at least the very common advice to fix random problems with a -rescan has died out
 88 2016-06-22 10:09:53	0|wumpus|if there was a purge-privatekeys option for the wallet I would want to rename it eveery release :p
 89 2016-06-22 10:10:04	0|sipa|haha
 90 2016-06-22 10:10:12	0|gmaxwell|okay. I won't argue for it, I was only motivated by the fact that many of the old reasons are gone.
 91 2016-06-22 10:10:12	0|sipa|--steal-my-coins
 92 2016-06-22 10:10:37	0|sipa|gmaxwell: do you have evidence of -reindex commonly being suggested for the wrong reasons?
 93 2016-06-22 10:10:46	0|gmaxwell|E.g. someone in #bitcoin two days ago was exasperated while on day three of a reindex on an rpi3 that was totally unneeded.
 94 2016-06-22 10:11:24	0|wumpus|the utxo backup fallback woud still be a good idea, we should aim to get it into 0.14
 95 2016-06-22 10:11:25	0|gmaxwell|In that case, it was listed as a mandatory step for moving chainstate from x86 to rpi, suggested due non-portability that no longer exists.
 96 2016-06-22 10:11:31	0|sipa|wumpus: agree
 97 2016-06-22 10:12:05	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: was that a guide on the wiki? if so it'd be easy to fix
 98 2016-06-22 10:12:14	0|wumpus|if not, we should probably contact the author
 99 2016-06-22 10:13:30	0|gmaxwell|(also, for pruning to someday become a default option, we must reduce the incidence of reindex to ~0)
100 2016-06-22 10:13:36	0|wumpus|do you have a link to that guide?
101 2016-06-22 10:17:01	0|gmaxwell|I thought I asked him, but I didn't. I asked now.
102 2016-06-22 10:18:27	0|GitHub189|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #8238: [WIP][depends] ZeroMQ 4.1.5 && ZMQ on Windows (06master...06depends-zeromq-4-1-5) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8238
103 2016-06-22 10:27:16	0|fanquake|Was #6702 solved by #7667 ?
104 2016-06-22 10:29:26	0|fanquake|Can probably close #7724, sipa replied and it seems that the issue is user hardware.
105 2016-06-22 10:34:58	0|fanquake|#7735 Isn't going to happen any time soon, and can probably be closed.
106 2016-06-22 10:37:55	0|fanquake|#7979 can be closed.
107 2016-06-22 10:44:33	0|wumpus|thanks, done
108 2016-06-22 10:50:07	0|fanquake|#7725 Looks closable, seems like the issue was related directory permissions.
109 2016-06-22 10:52:10	0|fanquake|#7733 Could be closed as wontfix, as documentation was linked to elsewhere. Unless we need to follow up and add links to the README or something?
110 2016-06-22 10:55:33	0|wumpus|agree
111 2016-06-22 10:55:52	0|sipa|fanquake: thanks a lot for going through those issues!
112 2016-06-22 10:56:12	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/4095 is a qt issue, and a curious one at that, anyone ever managed to reproduce this?
113 2016-06-22 10:56:24	0|wumpus|yes, thanks!
114 2016-06-22 11:02:07	0|fanquake|#5758 Seems to have gone stale, no followup replies.
115 2016-06-22 11:02:46	0|sipa|fanquake: closed 1.5 years ago?
116 2016-06-22 11:02:55	0|wumpus|wrong number I think
117 2016-06-22 11:03:06	0|sipa|we need a checksum digit in PR numbers
118 2016-06-22 11:03:11	0|fanquake|Sorry, #5785
119 2016-06-22 11:03:12	0|wumpus|<:
120 2016-06-22 11:04:47	0|sipa|ack on merging compact blocks?
121 2016-06-22 11:05:32	0|fanquake|#6472 && #7341 can probably be closed now that we've switched to Qt5.6.1
122 2016-06-22 11:09:09	0|fanquake|Can close #7834 - Changes to the macports portfile have been made upstream, and  parallel builds are working ok normally.
123 2016-06-22 11:14:53	0|btcdrak|sipa: ack.
124 2016-06-22 11:44:15	0|wumpus|I've been testing compact blocks on one of my ARM nodes for quite some time, no issues
125 2016-06-22 12:11:22	0|instagibbs|I see no reason to block merging. Only nits/minor improvements left which can be taken on later.
126 2016-06-22 12:20:08	0|wumpus|agree
127 2016-06-22 12:20:15	0|wumpus|okay, hold on tight
128 2016-06-22 12:31:04	0|GitHub185|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 19 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/9e45ef1ef031...e9d76a161d30
129 2016-06-22 12:31:05	0|GitHub185|13bitcoin/06master 147c29ec9 15Matt Corallo: If AcceptBlockHeader returns true, pindex will be set....
130 2016-06-22 12:31:05	0|GitHub185|13bitcoin/06master 1496806c3 15Pieter Wuille: Stop trimming when mapTx is empty
131 2016-06-22 12:31:06	0|GitHub185|13bitcoin/06master 14cbda71c 15Matt Corallo: Move context-required checks from CheckBlockHeader to Contextual...
132 2016-06-22 12:31:14	0|GitHub25|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8068: Compact Blocks (06master...06udp) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8068
133 2016-06-22 12:31:19	0|wumpus|^^
134 2016-06-22 12:31:25	0|fanquake|Woo
135 2016-06-22 12:31:29	0|instagibbs|\o/
136 2016-06-22 12:32:00	0|btcdrak|oh man
137 2016-06-22 12:32:04	0|btcdrak|yis!
138 2016-06-22 12:42:44	0|shangzhou|wow
139 2016-06-22 12:51:44	0|GitHub170|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e9d76a161d30...9f1807af2422
140 2016-06-22 12:51:45	0|GitHub170|13bitcoin/06master 1405f64c9 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Mention Linux ARM builds in release notes
141 2016-06-22 12:51:45	0|GitHub170|13bitcoin/06master 14b7bf037 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Mention ARM executables in release process...
142 2016-06-22 12:51:46	0|GitHub170|13bitcoin/06master 1406f40ef 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: depends: Mention aarch64 as common cross-compile target
143 2016-06-22 12:51:47	0|GitHub183|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8233: Mention Linux ARM executables in release process and notes (06master...062016_06_release_process_arm) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8233
144 2016-06-22 12:58:20	0|wumpus|is there any way to see (in the GUI or through RPC) if a wallet is BIP32?
145 2016-06-22 13:49:18	0|sipa|i'm rebasing segwit on top of compact blocks; they'll be mutually exclusive until we define a means to negotiate witness-or-not in compact blocks
146 2016-06-22 13:49:34	0|sipa|so compact blocks won't work on test where segwit is already defined
147 2016-06-22 13:49:42	0|sipa|s/won't work/won't be used/
148 2016-06-22 13:52:46	0|wumpus|makes sense for the first version, being clear that it should not stay that way
149 2016-06-22 13:53:03	0|sipa|yes, and fixing it is trivial
150 2016-06-22 13:53:11	0|sipa|but i feel that's beyond the scope of segwit
151 2016-06-22 13:53:36	0|sipa|as that will at the very least testing how they interact in the real world
152 2016-06-22 13:58:45	0|wumpus|yes
153 2016-06-22 13:59:38	0|wumpus|though there is the risk that miners may see segwit as a step back, if its activation disables compact blocks
154 2016-06-22 14:00:33	0|sipa|we definitely need to have segwit+compactblock support defined and implement before picking a start time for segwit
155 2016-06-22 14:01:19	0|instagibbs|sipa, for 0.13 you mean?
156 2016-06-22 14:01:32	0|btcdrak|sipa: so step 1 is to merge in master, then step 2 work out the segwit+cb support, then step 3 set starttime?
157 2016-06-22 14:01:42	0|sipa|yes
158 2016-06-22 14:01:52	0|wumpus|oh! yes that order makes sense
159 2016-06-22 14:04:38	0|instagibbs|cb doesn't matter for 0.12.2, so backport with activation can move forward regardless, right?
160 2016-06-22 14:04:56	0|wumpus|right, cb doesn't matter for 0.12.2
161 2016-06-22 14:05:32	0|sipa|indeed, backport of segwit and definition of cb+segwit can happen in parallel
162 2016-06-22 14:05:42	0|sipa|when both are done, we can pick a start time
163 2016-06-22 14:07:40	0|btcdrak|neat :)
164 2016-06-22 14:08:07	0|btcdrak|so I assume after CB rebase, it's merge time?
165 2016-06-22 14:09:02	0|sipa|i'm unconfortable with the fact that the codebase since 7910 started and now has diverged so much that the recent changes and integration are not very transparent to review
166 2016-06-22 14:09:22	0|sipa|not so much that nobody has looked at them, but more that there isn't a good way to know whether you've seen everythong
167 2016-06-22 14:09:34	0|sipa|you can look at the merge commit in 7910
168 2016-06-22 14:09:41	0|sipa|but it's pretty big by now
169 2016-06-22 14:10:13	0|btcdrak|i thought we're not merging 7910, but the other cleaned up version?
170 2016-06-22 14:10:37	0|sipa|yes, of course
171 2016-06-22 14:10:45	0|sipa|but 8049 has been rebased constantly
172 2016-06-22 14:12:21	0|btcdrak|also I assume we need to reactivate/hf testnet?
173 2016-06-22 14:12:45	0|sipa|testnet activation is included in both
174 2016-06-22 14:14:29	0|sipa|but for example, #7935 introduced the concept of gbt_force (bip9 rollouts which the GBT client needs explicit support for)
175 2016-06-22 14:15:23	0|sipa|in rebased segwit (#8149), the commit that adds GBT support for segwit also introduces the integration with gbt_force
176 2016-06-22 14:15:47	0|sipa|in the old segwit patch (#7910), that integration is completely hidden inside the merge commit with master
177 2016-06-22 14:17:40	0|sipa|other than that, i don't think waiting with merge makes much sense...
178 2016-06-22 14:18:28	0|sipa|looking at the merge commit in 7910 may make sense
179 2016-06-22 14:18:53	0|sipa|(git show will show you all conflicts it resolved, but the format with double +/- signs is not so simple to read)
180 2016-06-22 14:28:28	0|fanquake|sipa great work
181 2016-06-22 14:30:50	0|GitHub86|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #8240: doc: Mention Windows XP end of support in release notes (06master...062016_06_windows_xp) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8240
182 2016-06-22 14:44:32	0|GitHub192|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8236: [doc] 0.12.2: prepare release notes (060.12...06Mf1606-docReleaseNotes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8236
183 2016-06-22 14:44:32	0|GitHub198|13bitcoin/060.12 14ffff324 15MarcoFalke: [doc] 0.12: prepare release notes
184 2016-06-22 14:44:32	0|GitHub198|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 060.12: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f3eebcf5158f...9adad33938ec
185 2016-06-22 14:44:33	0|GitHub198|13bitcoin/060.12 149adad33 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8236: [doc] 0.12.2: prepare release notes...
186 2016-06-22 14:57:09	0|GitHub54|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #8241: 0.13: Disable bad chain alerts (06master...062016_06_alexit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8241
187 2016-06-22 17:03:27	0|GitHub1|[13bitcoin] 15paveljanik opened pull request #8242: Check if the macro PKG_PROG_PKG_CONFIG was expanded. (06master...0620160622_check_pkg-config) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8242