1 2016-07-04 05:36:40	0|helo|is there a use case covered by abandontransaction that wouldn't be covered by something like bumpfee <unconfirmed txid> [nblocks=1]?
 2 2016-07-04 05:38:12	0|helo|probably dirty to implement, though...
 3 2016-07-04 05:39:38	0|gmaxwell|you ran two copies of a wallet at once and double spent some coins.
 4 2016-07-04 05:48:15	0|helo|not sure i follow. abandontransaction is good in that scenario?
 5 2016-07-04 09:09:13	0|GitHub19|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8302: [Qt] Disable some menu items during splashscreen/verification state (060.12...06Mf1607-012qtDebugSplash) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8302
 6 2016-07-04 10:23:07	0|gmaxwell|apparently we're able to connect to 0.0.0.0 now.
 7 2016-07-04 10:23:20	0|gmaxwell|2016-07-04 10:21:07 trying connection 0.0.0.0 lastseen=0.0hrs
 8 2016-07-04 10:23:24	0|gmaxwell|2016-07-04 10:21:07 connection from 127.0.0.1:35940 accepted
 9 2016-07-04 10:25:22	0|sipa|?
10 2016-07-04 10:31:54	0|gmaxwell|historically I've used connect=0.0.0.0 as a dummy to not connect to anything, and it seems that now this causes a connection to myself.
11 2016-07-04 10:33:21	0|gmaxwell|2016-07-04 10:32:05 Ignoring getheaders from peer=21 because node is in initial block download
12 2016-07-04 10:33:28	0|gmaxwell|hm. thats confusing.
13 2016-07-04 10:33:33	0|gmaxwell|"blocks": 887328,
14 2016-07-04 10:36:03	0|gmaxwell|I don't understand why it's claiming to be in IBD. the best header it has is just one beyond that.
15 2016-07-04 10:36:27	0|sipa|how old is the best header?
16 2016-07-04 10:36:58	0|phantomcircuit|gmaxwell, is the time right?
17 2016-07-04 10:37:18	0|gmaxwell|ah, indeed.
18 2016-07-04 10:37:30	0|gmaxwell|/someone/ is opening up the time window on testnet.
19 2016-07-04 10:38:02	0|gmaxwell|my best block timestamp is 3.1 days old (best header timestamp I dunno how to easily get)
20 2016-07-04 10:39:15	0|gmaxwell|okay, well that logic is broken.
21 2016-07-04 13:35:32	0|jonasschnelli_|wumpus: is this meant for 0.13: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8288?
22 2016-07-04 15:56:00	0|btcdrak|47 blocks until csv activation
23 2016-07-04 16:02:30	0|afk11|whoop!
24 2016-07-04 16:09:51	0|achow101|does a regtest network automatically have segwit deployed from the beginning?
25 2016-07-04 16:11:31	0|btcdrak|achow101, no you have to generate blocks first
26 2016-07-04 16:12:22	0|achow101|do I have to do the whole deployment thing or will newly generated blocks be segwit blocks
27 2016-07-04 16:12:37	0|btcdrak|you have to generate 144*2 blocks
28 2016-07-04 16:15:25	0|achow101|why only 288?
29 2016-07-04 16:15:34	0|btcdrak|just generate blocks, bitcoind will set and unset the bit. you can see examples here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/qa/rpc-tests/bip9-softforks.py
30 2016-07-04 16:16:01	0|achow101|ah. thanks
31 2016-07-04 16:16:07	0|btcdrak|yes, 144 transitions to locked_in, then 144 more to transition to activated.
32 2016-07-04 16:25:15	0|GitHub110|13bitcoin/06master 1436f1b9d 15Suhas Daftuar: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py
33 2016-07-04 16:25:15	0|GitHub110|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/da50997a3ee7...115735d547fd
34 2016-07-04 16:25:16	0|GitHub110|13bitcoin/06master 14115735d 15MarcoFalke: Merge #8280: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py...
35 2016-07-04 16:25:25	0|GitHub174|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #8280: Tests: Increase sync_blocks() timeouts in pruning.py (06master...06fix-pruning-test) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8280
36 2016-07-04 23:16:41	0|btcdrak|CSV activated!
37 2016-07-04 23:17:22	0|btcdrak|mined by Kano CKPool 000000000000000004a1b34462cb8aeebd5799177f7a29cf28f2d1961716b5b5
38 2016-07-04 23:25:37	0|JackH|\o/
39 2016-07-04 23:27:05	0|gmaxwell|\O/
40 2016-07-04 23:27:45	0|afk11|:D
41 2016-07-04 23:28:36	0|sipa|\\o
42 2016-07-04 23:28:39	0|sipa|o//
43 2016-07-04 23:28:44	0|sipa|\o/
44 2016-07-04 23:28:50	0|sipa||o|
45 2016-07-04 23:29:15	0|afk11|%
46 2016-07-04 23:34:54	0|Chris_Stewart_5|^.^
47 2016-07-04 23:58:33	0|moli|btcdrak, no, it was at block 419327 and mined by BTCC
48 2016-07-04 23:58:40	0|moli|right?