1 2016-08-12 00:55:01	0|achow101|my sigs up as well. Matches michagogo's
  2 2016-08-12 01:20:09	0|Lightsword|is compact blocks supposed to use a nServices flag? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/d612837814020ae832499d18e6ee5eb919a87907/src/protocol.h#L251-L278
  3 2016-08-12 01:21:53	0|sipa|luke-jr: no
  4 2016-08-12 01:21:57	0|sipa|eh
  5 2016-08-12 01:22:01	0|sipa|Lightsword: no
  6 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|are particularly well-suited for this purpose. Protocol versions are
  7 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|from https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-May/012630.html:
  8 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|generally better suited to indicating significant new features which
  9 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|here, and absent that recent agreement preferred message-based feature
 10 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|impossible to handle sanely across different nodes on the network, as
 11 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|indication instead of version-message-extension.
 12 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|In line with recent trends, neither service bits nor protocol versions
 13 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|more appropriate for this purpose, are a very limited resource which is
 14 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|nodes might need for correct operation, and thus might wish to actively
 15 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|oops, that paste was longer than i expected
 16 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|seek out when making connections. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that
 17 2016-08-12 01:23:32	0|sipa|they cannot indicate optional features. Service bits, while somewhat
 18 2016-08-12 01:28:07	0|Lightsword|oh, so identification of compact blocks support is just based on MSG_CMPCT_BLOCK?
 19 2016-08-12 01:28:25	0|sipa|no, based on sendcmpct
 20 2016-08-12 01:32:37	0|Lightsword|sipa, so that won’t conflict with other messages unless something else used “sendcmpct” in NetMsgType here right? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/d612837814020ae832499d18e6ee5eb919a87907/src/protocol.cpp#L38
 21 2016-08-12 01:33:04	0|sipa|yes
 22 2016-08-12 01:50:40	0|gmaxwell|yea, and 12 bytes gives a lot more 'version space' than 32 bits. :P
 23 2016-08-12 02:40:52	0|cfields|luke-jr: yes, those were already there. but in fairness, i wouldn't have caught them anyway. i'm not familiar enough with the code to review for actual correctness, i'm pretty much just looking at each commit with the assumption that everything around it is sane
 24 2016-08-12 02:41:33	0|cfields|(actually, i like to think i would've spotted the uninit bug :)
 25 2016-08-12 02:42:16	0|cfields|michagogo: thanks. had dinner while builds were cranking, working on sigs now
 26 2016-08-12 02:42:36	0|cfields|and thanks achow101 as well
 27 2016-08-12 02:48:48	0|luke-jr|cfields: I only managed to catch them as a result of the unit tests
 28 2016-08-12 02:50:43	0|cfields|ah
 29 2016-08-12 02:52:08	0|cfields|sipa: what's going on with your gpg key? iirc I meant to ask you a while ago (rc2 sig, maybe?). It doesn't look like any of your known (to me) keys
 30 2016-08-12 02:53:37	0|sipa|uh
 31 2016-08-12 02:53:42	0|sipa|which one did i sgn with?
 32 2016-08-12 02:54:45	0|cfields|9692 B91B BF0E 8D34 DFD3  3B18 82C5 C009 628E CF0C
 33 2016-08-12 02:55:02	0|sipa|is that a subkey?
 34 2016-08-12 02:56:51	0|cfields|oh wait, that's michagogo's
 35 2016-08-12 02:59:04	0|cfields|79A1A931
 36 2016-08-12 03:00:22	0|cfields|looks like a new key. created: 2015-10-20
 37 2016-08-12 03:14:59	0|sipa|yes, thT's my current key
 38 2016-08-12 03:15:59	0|sipa|have you not signed that one?
 39 2016-08-12 03:16:52	0|sipa|main key fingerprint is 133E AC17 9436 F14A 5CF1  B794 860F EB80 4E66 9320
 40 2016-08-12 03:17:03	0|sipa|that should be on bitcoin.org even
 41 2016-08-12 03:25:29	0|cfields|sipa: i just signed yours recently. must be some local issue, i'll poke around
 42 2016-08-12 03:29:55	0|sipa|cfields: well the key id you're listing in the subkey
 43 2016-08-12 03:30:05	0|sipa|maybe somehow you don't recognize that somehow?
 44 2016-08-12 03:31:45	0|cfields|sipa: ok, fetched and all good now. thanks.
 45 2016-08-12 03:46:40	0|cfields|gitian builders: detached sigs pushed for rc3
 46 2016-08-12 04:36:58	0|jl2012|is it allowed to build for linux/windows/osx at the same time?
 47 2016-08-12 04:38:43	0|sipa|if you have separate gitin-builder directories
 48 2016-08-12 04:39:49	0|jl2012|thanks
 49 2016-08-12 05:08:54	0|jl2012|the manual recommends ./bin/gbuild --memory 3000 ; could I assign more memory to make it faster?
 50 2016-08-12 05:11:19	0|sipa|i don't think so
 51 2016-08-12 05:11:39	0|sipa|you can give it more cpu cores if you have those, and correspondingly more memory
 52 2016-08-12 06:43:12	0|btcdrak|an interesting comment from someone on Slack  https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/1xdZSObI/Screenshot_20160812-074155.png
 53 2016-08-12 07:11:00	0|luke-jr|"Helped someone IBD" :P
 54 2016-08-12 07:42:36	0|sipa|btcdrak: i totally support that idea
 55 2016-08-12 08:03:30	0|jl2012|the linux build took 3.5 hours and is still building. Is that normal?
 56 2016-08-12 08:09:02	0|luke-jr|jl2012: probably the first time for the new dependencies?
 57 2016-08-12 08:12:02	0|jl2012|i don't know. the last line of build.log is currently   CXX      libbitcoin_server_a-miner.o
 58 2016-08-12 08:15:03	0|sipa|jl2012: so the linux build is buding for 4 different architectures
 59 2016-08-12 08:15:14	0|sipa|and each of those 4 rewuires building all dependencies
 60 2016-08-12 08:15:18	0|sipa|including boost
 61 2016-08-12 08:15:25	0|sipa|two of them require building qt
 62 2016-08-12 08:16:51	0|jl2012|so >3.5 hours is normal?
 63 2016-08-12 08:17:07	0|sipa|i believe so
 64 2016-08-12 08:17:14	0|jl2012|i give it 8 atom cores and 3GB memory
 65 2016-08-12 08:17:19	0|sipa|it's much faster when you do with a sexons te
 66 2016-08-12 08:17:23	0|sipa|second time
 67 2016-08-12 08:37:46	0|jonasschnelli|btcdrak: Yes. I agree that we need more "gamification"... I'm currently working on a simple mempool visualization
 68 2016-08-12 08:38:00	0|jonasschnelli|Reward system... sounds a bit to close to games..
 69 2016-08-12 08:38:09	0|jonasschnelli|which bitcoin definitively isn't
 70 2016-08-12 08:47:44	0|sipa|"achievement unlocked! sent a raw transaction on testnet"
 71 2016-08-12 08:47:51	0|jonasschnelli|hehe
 72 2016-08-12 08:48:14	0|jonasschnelli|"achievement unlocked! You deleted your first private key and lost some coins"
 73 2016-08-12 08:48:30	0|murch|jonasschnelli: Oh, that would  be a common one ;)
 74 2016-08-12 08:49:12	0|jonasschnelli|achievement unlocked! You have encountered your first block-corruption
 75 2016-08-12 08:50:32	0|murch|but seriously, more visibility of your contributions would be neat. I.e. how many requests your node answered, or how much data you provided to the network
 76 2016-08-12 08:51:10	0|jonasschnelli|murch: Yes. This would be nice. I'm working on stats stuff for Qt
 77 2016-08-12 08:52:10	0|murch|very nice. :)
 78 2016-08-12 08:52:27	0|sipa|"achievement unlocked! locked all your coins in a locktime output for 1 year!"
 79 2016-08-12 08:52:41	0|jonasschnelli|hehe
 80 2016-08-12 08:53:05	0|murch|sipa: Do you ever sleep? :p
 81 2016-08-12 08:53:22	0|jonasschnelli|He can still blame the jetlag
 82 2016-08-12 08:53:26	0|murch|yeah
 83 2016-08-12 08:53:45	0|sipa|murch: it's 2am here
 84 2016-08-12 08:53:55	0|murch|sipa:  I know. ;)
 85 2016-08-12 08:54:14	0|murch|apropos jetlag: Would sometime next week in Basel be good for sipa and jonasschnelli?
 86 2016-08-12 08:54:42	0|jonasschnelli|I'm here (in Basel) and mostly available for a chat
 87 2016-08-12 08:56:53	0|murch|sipa and I would perhaps like to get together for a beer sometime. My sis lives close to Basel, and just made me an uncle, so I'd be around Basel sometime again. sipa proposed that in Basel we could include you. :)
 88 2016-08-12 08:57:04	0|murch|sipa: correct me if I'm misrepresenting that
 89 2016-08-12 08:57:26	0|sipa|sure, i can come to basel next week
 90 2016-08-12 08:58:07	0|murch|jonasschnelli: I'm currently working on a Master thesis on Coin Selection. You might recognize my nickname from Bitcoin.Stackexchange.com ;)
 91 2016-08-12 09:00:19	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. We know you murch.
 92 2016-08-12 09:00:32	0|murch|oh dear :p
 93 2016-08-12 09:00:42	0|jonasschnelli|I'm available next week, mostly afternoons or between 10:00 and 11:00 am local time.
 94 2016-08-12 09:07:14	0|murch|Okay, how about Thursday afternoon?
 95 2016-08-12 09:08:44	0|murch|sipa, jonasschnelli: perhaps we should take this to a private channel?
 96 2016-08-12 09:08:55	0|jonasschnelli|yes.
 97 2016-08-12 12:00:39	0|GitHub4|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #8501: Add mempool statistics collector (06master...062016/08/stats_rpc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8501
 98 2016-08-12 12:12:38	0|JZA|is the linux foundation bitcoin-dev the official mailing list for bitcoin-core development?
 99 2016-08-12 12:12:43	0|JZA|or is it a satelite one?
100 2016-08-12 12:12:54	0|JZA|is pretty low traffic so I wonder.
101 2016-08-12 12:14:12	0|jonasschnelli|JZA: bitcoin-dev is more for protocol discussion (must not be directly related to Bitcoin-Core)
102 2016-08-12 12:14:37	0|jonasschnelli|There is also a bitcoin-core lf mailing list,... this would be for Bitcoin-Core topics
103 2016-08-12 12:14:40	0|jonasschnelli|But low traffic.
104 2016-08-12 12:15:03	0|wumpus|but even more low-traffic. Most bitcoin developer don't like mailling lists a lot, it seems, most discussion happens on github and IRC
105 2016-08-12 12:15:23	0|michagogo|cfields: Thanks, got my signed sigs pushed.
106 2016-08-12 12:15:46	0|michagogo|https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gitian.sigs/pull/385
107 2016-08-12 12:16:44	0|jonasschnelli|I just built the code-signed binares... are the detaches signatures even already uploaded?
108 2016-08-12 12:17:25	0|wumpus|I'm a bit late with building, turned it on yesterday before going to sleep, but then had the usual lxc-after-reboot issue so it didn't continue
109 2016-08-12 12:19:51	0|michagogo|jonasschnelli: yep
110 2016-08-12 12:20:12	0|michagogo|(otherwise you couldn't have built the code-signed binaries...?)
111 2016-08-12 12:20:34	0|michagogo|06:46:49 <cfields> gitian builders: detached sigs pushed for rc3
112 2016-08-12 12:20:40	0|michagogo|(it's 15:20 now)
113 2016-08-12 12:20:50	0|michagogo|wumpus: lxc-after-reboot issue?
114 2016-08-12 12:22:31	0|wumpus|michagogo: yes http://www.hastebin.com/alehoxojen.vbs I get that every time the first time when I run any gitian command after reboot; the second and latter time don't have the issue
115 2016-08-12 12:22:47	0|michagogo|o_O
116 2016-08-12 12:22:56	0|michagogo|Doesn't happen for me in my 14.04 VM
117 2016-08-12 12:23:47	0|wumpus|this is on debian 8.5
118 2016-08-12 12:57:12	0|jonasschnelli|Anyone interested in testing this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7783?
119 2016-08-12 12:57:50	0|jonasschnelli|Factored out to non-gui classes, has now unit tests (as recommended by sipa), would like to see this in 0.14 for the GUI
120 2016-08-12 13:01:21	0|wumpus|I don't agree that the functionality belongs in server.cpp
121 2016-08-12 13:02:00	0|wumpus|this does not act on JSON objects so it dos not belong server-side
122 2016-08-12 13:03:46	0|wumpus|apart from that I agree this is very useful, in the GUI
123 2016-08-12 13:03:59	0|wumpus|but please no string parsing in the server
124 2016-08-12 13:04:19	0|wumpus|this opens possible vulnerabilities, DoS possibilities, etc
125 2016-08-12 13:04:49	0|wumpus|fine with abstracting out, but then abstract it so that it can work with any dispatching interface (both local and remote)
126 2016-08-12 13:05:03	0|wumpus|I'm not sure that's within the scope of the pull
127 2016-08-12 13:15:22	0|wumpus|to be clear I really like this funcitonality in the GUI, and possible in bitcoin-cli, but let's not conflate this with hypothetical JSON-RPC nested commanding
128 2016-08-12 13:30:08	0|Chris_Stewart_5|In a partial merkle tree, does a txid that is appended to the binary tree to create an even number of nodes match inside the partial merkle tree?
129 2016-08-12 13:36:58	0|Chris_Stewart_5|if that makes any sense..
130 2016-08-12 14:06:35	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: yes. Agree. I also think we should only have it in the GUI
131 2016-08-12 14:06:51	0|jonasschnelli|The reason for factoring it out was the missed possibility to do unit tests (though I think there are also GUI only unit tests).
132 2016-08-12 14:07:24	0|wumpus|yes, there are also GUI unit tests, though currently they are mostly useless, would be good to add a few
133 2016-08-12 14:07:25	0|jonasschnelli|I think I move it to a GUI only class and cleanup the server client hell.
134 2016-08-12 14:08:34	0|wumpus|in any case, if it belongs in the core it's in rpc/client.cpp, and should take a command dispatcher so that it can be used both in the GUI or in a remote client
135 2016-08-12 14:09:31	0|wumpus|but yes it's simplest to just keep it in the GUI
136 2016-08-12 14:09:42	0|wumpus|then if someone needs it for -cli do this work
137 2016-08-12 14:09:49	0|wumpus|don't overdesign in front
138 2016-08-12 17:21:41	0|cfields|jl2012: your gpg key is expired
139 2016-08-12 17:24:20	0|PascalCoin|Please, can you tell in which chanel can I give information about a new P2P cryptocurrency? (yet... another one) Thanks!
140 2016-08-12 17:25:58	0|sipa|##altcoin-dev ?
141 2016-08-12 17:30:22	0|PascalCoin|thanks sipa
142 2016-08-12 17:46:49	0|jl2012|cfields: it's September?
143 2016-08-12 17:48:19	0|cfields|jl2012: heh, i just replied on the PR. Gitian's display order fooled me again
144 2016-08-12 18:27:32	0|cfields|luke-jr: readability suggestion: you might consider adding .json files and de-serializing them for tests. Would make test review much easier.
145 2016-08-12 22:32:45	0|GitHub137|[13bitcoin] 15juscamarena opened pull request #8503: [doc] typos, text errors (06master...06Test-branch) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8503