1 2016-09-05 00:39:32	0|GitHub1|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #8664: Fix segwit-related wallet bug (06master...06segwit-wallet-bug) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8664
  2 2016-09-05 01:14:06	0|jeremyrubin|sipa: the biggest things in c++14 is ergonomic I think -- things like make_unique
  3 2016-09-05 01:18:50	0|jeremyrubin|also being able to move a var into a lambda is a good feature
  4 2016-09-05 04:52:03	0|phantomcircuit|is there an rpc call that will decode a raw transaction, lookup the inputs in the utxo and tell you how much it's paying in fees?
  5 2016-09-05 06:57:39	0|GitHub176|[13bitcoin] 15NicolasDorier opened pull request #8665: Trivial: ContextualCheckBlockHeader should never have pindexPrev equals to NULL (06master...06fixup) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8665
  6 2016-09-05 07:23:28	0|dcousens|phantomcircuit: you could just iterate over the inputs and grab them yourself?  Or is the point to be 'all in one'?
  7 2016-09-05 07:29:05	0|phantomcircuit|dcousens, the point is to be lazy :P
  8 2016-09-05 07:29:07	0|phantomcircuit|er uh
  9 2016-09-05 07:29:10	0|phantomcircuit|yes all in one!
 10 2016-09-05 07:29:24	0|phantomcircuit|this seems like something decoderawtransaction should attempt to do
 11 2016-09-05 07:31:27	0|dcousens|phantomcircuit: understandably,  but,  you could do that for so many RPC calls :S
 12 2016-09-05 07:31:50	0|dcousens|you could probably use wumpus's RPC extension idea to do this
 13 2016-09-05 07:34:51	0|phantomcircuit|dcousens, indeed i can do this with the gettxout rpc call
 14 2016-09-05 07:34:53	0|phantomcircuit|but well
 15 2016-09-05 07:34:56	0|phantomcircuit|so much work
 16 2016-09-05 07:35:11	0|dcousens|dcousens: really?  its like 5 lines of JS,  if you're using JS
 17 2016-09-05 07:35:38	0|dcousens|depending on whether you're doing batched results or not, I suppose
 18 2016-09-05 07:38:20	0|dcousens|rpc('decoderawtransaction', [txHex]...     async.map(result.ins, (input, callback) => { rpc('getrawtransaction', [input.txid, true], (err, tx) => { callback(null, tx.outs[input.vout].value) }) ... or some such
 19 2016-09-05 07:38:48	0|dcousens|or even the gettxout rpc haha
 20 2016-09-05 07:39:22	0|dcousens|but that might depend on your needs, IIRC gettxout is for UTXOs only
 21 2016-09-05 08:34:27	0|sipa|phantomcircuit: it can't generally work, unless all inputs are still unspent
 22 2016-09-05 08:42:43	0|sipa|we could add it as output to sendrawtransaction perhaps, which always knows the fee
 23 2016-09-05 11:30:40	0|GitHub77|13bitcoin/06master 144424af5 15Pieter Wuille: Predeclare PrecomputedTransactionData as sturct
 24 2016-09-05 11:30:40	0|GitHub77|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cbe9ae8c69b9...e82fb872ff5c
 25 2016-09-05 11:30:41	0|GitHub77|13bitcoin/06master 14e82fb87 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #8651: Predeclare PrecomputedTransactionData as struct...
 26 2016-09-05 11:30:55	0|GitHub70|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #8651: Predeclare PrecomputedTransactionData as struct (06master...06classtructblah) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8651
 27 2016-09-05 14:36:22	0|BlueMatt|hmmmm
 28 2016-09-05 14:37:19	0|BlueMatt|ok, so ubuntu 12.04lts is still supported with gcc 4.6.3...bitcoind will refuse to ./configure on that because it doesnt support -std=c++11.....
 29 2016-09-05 14:38:06	0|BlueMatt|so options are: hack things to compile with -std=c++0x (terrible idea, lets not do this), leave it on 0.12.1, or "upgrade" it to a dummy package that removes bitcoind and just gives a popup that tells people to upgrade
 30 2016-09-05 14:40:16	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, can’t you just update gcc?
 31 2016-09-05 14:40:27	0|Lightsword|is this for ppa?
 32 2016-09-05 14:41:23	0|BlueMatt|for ppa, yea
 33 2016-09-05 14:41:38	0|BlueMatt|i mean I could probably convince launchpad to install a backported gcc for the building of that package
 34 2016-09-05 14:42:07	0|BlueMatt|but....eww
 35 2016-09-05 14:42:36	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, does launchpad compile it themselves or do you compile it locally then upload it to them?
 36 2016-09-05 14:42:52	0|BlueMatt|they do the compilation
 37 2016-09-05 14:43:03	0|BlueMatt|if not I'd just be uploading the statically-compiled packages
 38 2016-09-05 14:43:11	0|BlueMatt|gitian ones, that is
 39 2016-09-05 14:44:16	0|sipa|i wonder how much of c++11 we use in 0.13.0
 40 2016-09-05 14:44:22	0|sipa|not much, i think
 41 2016-09-05 14:44:36	0|BlueMatt|https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html
 42 2016-09-05 14:44:55	0|BlueMatt|I mean I'd bet it would compile and probably work, but I'm not really sure I'd want to ship something that probably works and might have compiler bugs in it
 43 2016-09-05 14:45:23	0|sipa|maybe std::atomic is the only thing
 44 2016-09-05 14:45:29	0|sipa|yes, agree
 45 2016-09-05 14:48:41	0|BlueMatt|whats min gcc we support?
 46 2016-09-05 14:49:29	0|sipa|4.7
 47 2016-09-05 14:50:53	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, is clang on 12.04 a high enough version?
 48 2016-09-05 14:51:33	0|sipa|4.7 may just work
 49 2016-09-05 14:52:38	0|sipa|eh, 4.6 may just work
 50 2016-09-05 14:52:52	0|sipa|with -std=c++0x
 51 2016-09-05 14:52:54	0|BlueMatt|sipa: it does not recognize -std=c++11, only -std=c++0x
 52 2016-09-05 14:52:59	0|BlueMatt|yes, I'd kinda prefer to not do that?
 53 2016-09-05 14:53:13	0|sipa|does 4.6 have any known bugs?
 54 2016-09-05 14:53:20	0|BlueMatt|this is my question, I suppose
 55 2016-09-05 14:53:53	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: good point, looks like that could be an option
 56 2016-09-05 14:54:26	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, does launchpad not let you use a custom gcc version?
 57 2016-09-05 14:55:06	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: I can tell it to depend on https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/ubuntu/test and then change the configure flags to use whatever, I think
 58 2016-09-05 14:55:32	0|Lightsword|yeah, I would think that would be best probably
 59 2016-09-05 14:55:32	0|sipa|clang-3.4 is in precise
 60 2016-09-05 14:55:37	0|sipa|we need 3.3 or higher
 61 2016-09-05 14:55:41	0|BlueMatt|yes, clang looks pretty well-supported
 62 2016-09-05 14:55:45	0|BlueMatt|so I could swap to clang
 63 2016-09-05 14:57:36	0|sipa|seems clang 3.3 supports c++11 completely
 64 2016-09-05 14:57:42	0|BlueMatt|indeed
 65 2016-09-05 14:57:51	0|sipa|while for some features, gcc 4.8 is even needed
 66 2016-09-05 14:58:05	0|BlueMatt|yea, clang was much faster for ++11
 67 2016-09-05 14:58:18	0|Lightsword|faster to compile or faster performing binaries?
 68 2016-09-05 14:58:46	0|BlueMatt|earlier to ship c++11 features, sorry
 69 2016-09-05 15:01:00	0|BlueMatt|yea, I think that might be better than "test builds"
 70 2016-09-05 15:01:12	0|BlueMatt|would anyone object to bitcoin-ppa on precise being compiled with clang?
 71 2016-09-05 15:01:54	0|BlueMatt|I think I got one or two emails when I didnt update it previously
 72 2016-09-05 15:02:07	0|Lightsword|how long ago was that?
 73 2016-09-05 15:02:20	0|BlueMatt|or maybe that was when I tried to update something that wasnt even supported anymore and launchpad wouldnt build for it
 74 2016-09-05 15:02:29	0|BlueMatt|a long time ago...I'd really hope no one is anymore, but you never know
 75 2016-09-05 15:02:34	0|BlueMatt|and technically it still gets security updates
 76 2016-09-05 15:02:41	0|BlueMatt|though I kinda doubt canonical gives much of a shit about it anymore
 77 2016-09-05 15:02:54	0|Lightsword|for another year maybe
 78 2016-09-05 15:03:06	0|BlueMatt|yea, 2017-04-26
 79 2016-09-05 15:03:15	0|BlueMatt|not even a year
 80 2016-09-05 15:17:56	0|btcdrak|BlueMatt: may be worth dropping support for 12.04 soon. People shouldnt be running bitcoind on EOL operating systems.
 81 2016-09-05 15:18:28	0|BlueMatt|btcdrak: see above, its not EOL until 2017-04
 82 2016-09-05 15:55:00	0|BlueMatt|heh, so it looks like boost-1.48 can be compiled in c++11 mode: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6198
 83 2016-09-05 15:55:07	0|BlueMatt|and 12.04 only ships 1.48
 84 2016-09-05 15:55:13	0|sipa|can or can't?
 85 2016-09-05 15:55:18	0|BlueMatt|cant
 86 2016-09-05 15:55:54	0|sipa|maybe it's better to replace it with a dummy package...
 87 2016-09-05 15:56:02	0|BlueMatt|yea, thats kinda where I'm leaning now
 88 2016-09-05 15:56:11	0|sipa|can't you just delete support for precise?
 89 2016-09-05 15:56:19	0|BlueMatt|I can delete the existing package
 90 2016-09-05 15:56:24	0|BlueMatt|so no new installs can happen
 91 2016-09-05 15:56:38	0|sipa|right, but then people just remain stuck on 0.12.1
 92 2016-09-05 15:56:42	0|BlueMatt|yea
 93 2016-09-05 15:56:58	0|sipa|i see
 94 2016-09-05 16:01:07	0|BlueMatt|I mean I can literally replace with an empty package
 95 2016-09-05 16:02:06	0|BlueMatt|I'm gonna do that for now
 96 2016-09-05 16:27:19	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, wonder if it would be better to just use .deb’s instead of ppa’s so that gitian builds can be used
 97 2016-09-05 16:27:20	0|Lightsword|.deb’s with a custom repo
 98 2016-09-05 16:36:28	0|Algorithmer|Hi guys
 99 2016-09-05 16:36:45	0|Algorithmer|Can someone help me with block.io api?
100 2016-09-05 16:37:03	0|achow101|Algorithmer: not here. This is for bitcoin core development.
101 2016-09-05 16:37:27	0|Algorithmer|Ok sorry
102 2016-09-05 16:51:00	0|GitHub78|[13bitcoin] 15jl2012 opened pull request #8667: Fix SIGHASH_SINGLE bug in test_framework SignatureHash (06master...06patch-16) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8667
103 2016-09-05 19:33:31	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: yea, I've generally wanted to move to a model where the packages are install-once and just contain the gitian verifier
104 2016-09-05 19:33:46	0|BlueMatt|lightningbot: and then they decide to update when they see new gitian-signed updates
105 2016-09-05 19:33:47	0|lightningbot|BlueMatt: Error: "and" is not a valid command.
106 2016-09-05 19:33:53	0|BlueMatt|arg
107 2016-09-05 19:34:16	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: but I've never gotten around to doing it....would love for someone to do so
108 2016-09-05 19:34:20	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, well with a custom repo I think it would just use the same signature scheme as normal packages
109 2016-09-05 19:34:35	0|BlueMatt|yes, that would also probably be a step up from the launchpad-controlled keys that are used now
110 2016-09-05 19:34:49	0|Lightsword|yeah, and should be fairly simple
111 2016-09-05 19:35:04	0|BlueMatt|ehh, I mean then we have to secure a hosted server
112 2016-09-05 19:35:08	0|BlueMatt|or.../I/ have to
113 2016-09-05 19:35:19	0|Lightsword|bitcoincore.org or bitcoin.org?
114 2016-09-05 19:35:20	0|BlueMatt|much eaiser to have an install-once gitian verifier
115 2016-09-05 19:35:28	0|BlueMatt|bitcoin.org maybe, but I'd prefer to not put it there
116 2016-09-05 19:35:37	0|BlueMatt|bitcoincore.org has deliberately never hosted bins
117 2016-09-05 19:35:44	0|BlueMatt|(for this reason)
118 2016-09-05 19:35:47	0|gmaxwell|it is _not_ acceptable to have autoupdates. Install once should be fine, but the users should trigger the update. (It could notify and such too)
119 2016-09-05 19:35:54	0|kanzure|are the launchpad builds signed by anything other than launchpad?
120 2016-09-05 19:35:54	0|Lightsword|they would still be signed…just like normal ubuntu packages
121 2016-09-05 19:36:13	0|Lightsword|gmaxwell, it wouldn’t be any different from ppa
122 2016-09-05 19:36:23	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: yesyes, by gitian-verifier I mean a notification of update and install through gitian verification
123 2016-09-05 19:36:35	0|BlueMatt|kanzure: no
124 2016-09-05 19:36:44	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: great.
125 2016-09-05 19:37:00	0|BlueMatt|kanzure: the upload from me to launchpad is pgp-signed (ie the source files are), but launchpad just takes those and builds the bins and signs with keys it controls
126 2016-09-05 19:37:04	0|BlueMatt|kanzure: its really quite a shitty model
127 2016-09-05 19:37:26	0|BlueMatt|but, afaiu, they are built on a similar set of boxes as the actual ubuntu builds, so....
128 2016-09-05 19:37:53	0|gmaxwell|Lightsword: the difference is that if bluematt wants to be kidnapped by having the ability to trigger automatic updates or court ordered, thats his own problem. it's not one that should be extended to other contributors to the system.
129 2016-09-05 19:37:57	0|Lightsword|is it possible to have multiple signers for normal package managers?
130 2016-09-05 19:38:29	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: only via the multisig rsa stuff, I'd presume
131 2016-09-05 19:39:04	0|Lightsword|gmaxwell, do you consider apt-get update && apt-get upgrade to be an automatic update?
132 2016-09-05 19:40:05	0|Lightsword|ie using signed apt repository system
133 2016-09-05 19:40:18	0|gmaxwell|I consider that not my problem.
134 2016-09-05 19:40:33	0|BlueMatt|luckily right now its probably 10x easier to make launchpad push a new build than convince me to :p
135 2016-09-05 19:43:00	0|Lightsword|wonder how easy it would be to do an apt repository using the gitan sigs as multisig
136 2016-09-05 19:43:26	0|BlueMatt|afaiu the multisig-rsa stuff requires collaborative setup
137 2016-09-05 19:43:42	0|BlueMatt|but I havent heard anything about it in like 5/10 years, maybe it didnt even work
138 2016-09-05 19:43:49	0|gmaxwell|it works fine.
139 2016-09-05 19:43:51	0|BlueMatt|seems like something gmaxwell would remember
140 2016-09-05 19:43:55	0|BlueMatt|heh, there we go :p
141 2016-09-05 19:44:20	0|gmaxwell|worse than collaborative setup, the straight forward construction requires a trusted dealer.
142 2016-09-05 19:44:36	0|gmaxwell|but it's one time trust at least, assuming the dealer doesn't retain the key.
143 2016-09-05 19:44:38	0|BlueMatt|iirc someone had a multiuser setup for it?
144 2016-09-05 19:44:57	0|kanzure|this would be to avoid distributing a program to verify individual separate gitian signatures?
145 2016-09-05 19:45:08	0|gmaxwell|there is some MPC approach to it, but it's seriously more complex.
146 2016-09-05 19:45:19	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: sure, ofc....
147 2016-09-05 19:45:35	0|gmaxwell|kanzure: it's whats required to make the apple and msft signing threshold secure.
148 2016-09-05 19:45:37	0|BlueMatt|kanzure: yes, the idea is that you would do multisig-rsa where the verifier is simple rsa
149 2016-09-05 19:45:40	0|Lightsword|https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CreateAuthenticatedRepository
150 2016-09-05 19:46:17	0|BlueMatt|kanzure: that way you can make android/apt/yum/apple/etc/etc validate your multisig in their normal package validation routines
151 2016-09-05 19:46:30	0|kanzure|yes well it would be nice to use the default package validation infrastructure i guess, although i don't know how to balance that with discouraging people to use PPAs in the first place.
152 2016-09-05 19:47:10	0|Lightsword|kanzure, well custom authenticated repo is better than ppa at least
153 2016-09-05 19:48:23	0|kanzure|er, this seems sort of backwards; the reason why the ppa is being used at all with launchpad builds is because -- well nevermind i shouldn't point this out i guess.
154 2016-09-05 19:48:24	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: it does require I maintain (a) a secure build server, (b) a secure server to serve off of (kinda, I guess really just a secure way to serve the pgp key which signs the packages), and (c) get kidnapped :p
155 2016-09-05 19:48:45	0|kanzure|if you are going to be doing a secure build server then you might as well use the gitian builds in the first place
156 2016-09-05 19:48:52	0|BlueMatt|yup
157 2016-09-05 19:49:13	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, well if you can do it with multisig-rsa with gitian main thing is just serving the initial pgp key securely
158 2016-09-05 19:49:32	0|kanzure|but the reason why this is not done is not because of the difficulty of doing gitian things, Lightsword
159 2016-09-05 19:50:23	0|Lightsword|yeah, I know autoupdates are to be avoided…but this isn’t any worse than the ppa is IMO
160 2016-09-05 19:50:40	0|kanzure|no i mean, the ppa is pretty awful, i think people with their heads on straight are correctly avoiding it
161 2016-09-05 19:51:08	0|BlueMatt|kanzure: people with their heads on straight are correctly avoiding ubuntu for their bitcoin node hosting, I'd think
162 2016-09-05 19:51:22	0|BlueMatt|kanzure: but the number of people who even validate gitian sigs is probably +/- 0
163 2016-09-05 19:51:23	0|kanzure|let's not get too optimistic
164 2016-09-05 19:51:37	0|kanzure|:)
165 2016-09-05 19:51:39	0|Lightsword|uh, a lot of pool servers use ubuntu
166 2016-09-05 19:51:45	0|BlueMatt|the number of people building themselves is like....non-0
167 2016-09-05 19:51:57	0|BlueMatt|but the folks who might otherwise validate gitian sigs probably build themselves
168 2016-09-05 19:52:16	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: I'd assume they dont use the ppa, though?
169 2016-09-05 19:52:30	0|kanzure|do not ask questions you don't want the answer to
170 2016-09-05 19:52:32	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: if the answer is that they do, please dont respond
171 2016-09-05 19:52:34	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, I did early on but haven’t for a while
172 2016-09-05 19:52:44	0|BlueMatt|kanzure: yea, fair point
173 2016-09-05 19:53:48	0|Lightsword|a lot of people do seem to be using the ppa though
174 2016-09-05 19:53:57	0|Lightsword|since it’s in a lot of guides
175 2016-09-05 19:53:59	0|BlueMatt|yes, this is true
176 2016-09-05 19:54:17	0|BlueMatt|well yea, lots of folks use it since its easy to install, reasonable to keep up-to-date, etc
177 2016-09-05 19:54:33	0|CocoBTC|I don't think many people understands the risk
178 2016-09-05 19:54:45	0|CocoBTC|s
179 2016-09-05 19:54:56	0|BlueMatt|anyway, I'll get a secure build server and switch it to not-launchpad-hosted when someone gets a reasonable server which we all feel comfortable hosting binaries on :p
180 2016-09-05 19:56:17	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, I can host one if you want for the signed binaries, would probably not want to be hosting the pgp key though myself :P
181 2016-09-05 19:56:29	0|BlueMatt|yea, thought so :p
182 2016-09-05 19:57:00	0|Lightsword|not sure how best to distribute that though
183 2016-09-05 19:57:06	0|BlueMatt|one of these days I'll fly somewhere decent and buy a rack with some crazy tempest protection and explosives inside and host shit there
184 2016-09-05 19:57:09	0|BlueMatt|one of these days........
185 2016-09-05 19:57:57	0|Lightsword|I mean, I’m pretty sure I can run a secure server…just by limiting attack surface by only running nginx and ssh key based auth and nothing else
186 2016-09-05 19:58:13	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: right up until someone figures out where its hosted :P
187 2016-09-05 19:58:43	0|Lightsword|well…I usually put my stuff behind cloudflare to prevent that…
188 2016-09-05 19:58:46	0|BlueMatt|remember: the value of compromising this would be more than what the fbi paid cmu to compromise tor to locate dark net market sites
189 2016-09-05 19:59:00	0|BlueMatt|also, FUCK CMU
190 2016-09-05 19:59:03	0|sipa|there's a swiss company that houses server inside a bunker inside a mountain
191 2016-09-05 19:59:13	0|Lightsword|yeah, this is really just an initial key distribution problem though
192 2016-09-05 19:59:21	0|Lightsword|could just stick it on bitcoin.org
193 2016-09-05 19:59:22	0|BlueMatt|sipa: there are many of those....thats fine right up until you dont want the owner of the mountain to have access
194 2016-09-05 19:59:29	0|sipa|BlueMatt: details
195 2016-09-05 19:59:33	0|BlueMatt|heh
196 2016-09-05 19:59:40	0|sipa|:p
197 2016-09-05 20:00:04	0|Lightsword|could maybe just put the key on github…
198 2016-09-05 20:00:14	0|BlueMatt|*stab*
199 2016-09-05 20:00:15	0|Lightsword|and a few other places
200 2016-09-05 20:00:30	0|BlueMatt|but, yea, the key distribution is more of a problem, I suppose
201 2016-09-05 20:00:33	0|kanzure|i thought "open access policies" were good?
202 2016-09-05 20:00:44	0|jeremyrubin|buys old mine shaft, quick-crete, and 100 m ethernet cable
203 2016-09-05 20:00:44	0|kanzure|maybe that's something else.
204 2016-09-05 20:00:45	0|BlueMatt|but I dont particularly want to have /the/ key that can sign for lots of updated bitcoin-qt clients
205 2016-09-05 20:01:02	0|Lightsword|yeah..multisig-rsa would be nice...
206 2016-09-05 20:01:16	0|BlueMatt|jeremyrubin: I prefer old oil shafts....1 mile down? no problem!
207 2016-09-05 20:01:17	0|Lightsword|for signing the builds….wonder if a m of n scheme is possible
208 2016-09-05 20:02:51	0|Lightsword|with authenticated repository infrastructure
209 2016-09-05 20:26:08	0|BlueMatt|sipa: ping?
210 2016-09-05 20:33:20	0|BlueMatt|https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/772754012739399681
211 2016-09-05 20:33:25	0|BlueMatt|Info: there will be a little „hackathlon“ event after the #scalingbitcoin conference in Milan. Mo/Tue, 10th-11th October. More infos to come
212 2016-09-05 20:33:50	0|BlueMatt|ie another core hackathon after scaling bitcoin: milan, monday and tuesday
213 2016-09-05 20:35:21	0|BlueMatt|general fyi: book your accomodation to wed, if you feel like sticking around to do in-person Bitcoin Core code review/hacking just like the last few times
214 2016-09-05 20:39:20	0|Lightsword|is there any actual usable code for multisig rsa?
215 2016-09-05 20:39:21	0|phantomcircuit|BlueMatt, just replace the ppa thing with something that downloads that static binaries to $HOME
216 2016-09-05 20:39:28	0|phantomcircuit|(yes yes stabs face)
217 2016-09-05 20:39:36	0|BlueMatt|phantomcircuit: yes, with gitian verification
218 2016-09-05 20:39:43	0|BlueMatt|phantomcircuit: you jest, but I'd actually like to do something like that
219 2016-09-05 20:39:47	0|BlueMatt|though probably not $HOME
220 2016-09-05 20:40:28	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: some folks said they had code for it
221 2016-09-05 20:40:31	0|BlueMatt|maybe gmaxwell
222 2016-09-05 20:41:13	0|Lightsword|could always just download to /usr/bin :P
223 2016-09-05 20:41:24	0|BlueMatt|people might hate you more for that
224 2016-09-05 21:01:49	0|BlueMatt|lol, in writing the compact block version negotiation spec:
225 2016-09-05 21:01:51	0|BlueMatt|"As a node must send all sendcmpct messages which contain a novel version announcement before any other compact block-related messages, it is possible to determine which version of compact blocks will be used for each object received. It is, however, not possible to know which version will be used to encode the response to a request for a compact block object before any MSG_CMPCT_BLOCK-containing inv, cmpctblock, getblocktxn, or
226 2016-09-05 21:01:51	0|BlueMatt|blocktxn messages have been exchanged."
227 2016-09-05 21:01:54	0|BlueMatt|that seems...irritating
228 2016-09-05 21:02:23	0|BlueMatt|actually, add ping to that list :)
229 2016-09-05 21:15:04	0|BlueMatt|sipa: nvm, I just posted text for compact block version negotiation ont he pr...I think its not crazy, but it is awkward (eg the above text)
230 2016-09-05 21:15:13	0|BlueMatt|it might require slight implementation tweaks, though nothing major, I think
231 2016-09-05 23:42:28	0|BlueMatt|copied from -wizards:
232 2016-09-05 23:42:35	0|BlueMatt|<BlueMatt> but this may be some form of the the-thing-i-work-on-of-course-seems-self-explanitory-because-i-work-on-it effect
233 2016-09-05 23:42:35	0|BlueMatt|<BlueMatt> frankly I find fibre to be somewhat self-explanitory and could likely only talk for about 3 minutes at a really technical level about it
234 2016-09-05 23:42:35	0|BlueMatt|<BlueMatt> is there any interest in a fibre/propagation talk by me in milan?