1 2016-09-06 07:35:42	0|gmaxwell|Anyone know what the status of cgminer solo mining segwit support is?
  2 2016-09-06 07:38:01	0|sipa|Lightsword, cfields: ^
  3 2016-09-06 07:51:09	0|btcdrak|BlueMatt: you should do a presentation in Milan.
  4 2016-09-06 07:51:53	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: I don't think fibre is at all obvious.
  5 2016-09-06 07:53:08	0|sipa|by the time you've explained basic FEC, and how short ids are collision-resistant, you've already talked for half an hour
  6 2016-09-06 07:54:14	0|sipa|oh, and tcp networking roundtrips
  7 2016-09-06 07:54:21	0|gmaxwell|Head of line blocking of TCP and the hidden round trips at layer-3 is a good 15 minutes itself.
  8 2016-09-06 08:03:44	0|Lightsword|gmaxwell, sipa, cgminer solo doesn’t support segwit yet not sure if anyone was planning on adding support
  9 2016-09-06 09:02:31	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Do you tell me your secret how you measure consumed cpu cycled by a certain C function with gdb?
 10 2016-09-06 09:03:00	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: don't benchmark while using gdb
 11 2016-09-06 09:03:30	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: Ah. Okay. But how do you measure consumed cycles then?
 12 2016-09-06 09:03:46	0|sipa|1) run it many times (like benchmarking tools do)
 13 2016-09-06 09:04:16	0|jonasschnelli|Using rdtsc?
 14 2016-09-06 09:04:22	0|sipa|2) use rdtsc asm instruction to read the time stamp counter on the CPU and lock your CPU to a single frequency; this gives you sub-nanosecond precision
 15 2016-09-06 09:04:48	0|jonasschnelli|Okay... I'll give it a try
 16 2016-09-06 09:05:18	0|sipa|the bitcoin and libsecp256k1 benchmark tools just run many times, and give you minimum, maximum and average run time
 17 2016-09-06 09:05:32	0|sipa|i have a script that pins my cpu frequency to a single number
 18 2016-09-06 09:05:50	0|sipa|and then i just stop other processes on my system until the the minimum and average are close enough to not matter
 19 2016-09-06 09:06:12	0|jonasschnelli|I guess depending on rdtsc means a system under heavy load (not the tests) will result in biased results?
 20 2016-09-06 09:06:21	0|jonasschnelli|Okay.
 21 2016-09-06 09:06:33	0|sipa|rdtsc is only useful for microbenchmarks
 22 2016-09-06 09:06:43	0|sipa|as it will occasionally incorporate the time of a context switch
 23 2016-09-06 09:06:49	0|jonasschnelli|Do you have that CPU freq script in a gist or so?
 24 2016-09-06 09:07:02	0|jonasschnelli|(though not sure if that works 1:1 on my OSX machine)
 25 2016-09-06 09:07:14	0|sipa|/etc/init.d/cpufrequtils stop
 26 2016-09-06 09:07:14	0|sipa|for A in $(seq 0 7); do cpufreq-set -c $A -g performance -d 2.6GHz -u 2.6GHz; done
 27 2016-09-06 09:07:25	0|sipa|it's linux specific and cpu specific
 28 2016-09-06 09:07:36	0|jonasschnelli|okay... I play with it. Thanks
 29 2016-09-06 09:08:19	0|sipa|for bigger things i just add GetTimeMicros() before and after the code in bitcoind, and log the difference to debug.log
 30 2016-09-06 09:08:21	0|jonasschnelli|would benchmarking in a "quite" VM (fresh install, headless almost no background processes) result in more comparable results?
 31 2016-09-06 09:08:35	0|sipa|i wouldn't use VMs for benchmarking
 32 2016-09-06 09:09:15	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Right. The VM itself is already influent by the hosts processes.
 33 2016-09-06 09:46:34	0|sipa|NicolasDorier: hmm, you have a use case of OP_CODESEP? :o
 34 2016-09-06 12:27:41	0|NicolasDorier|sipa: yes
 35 2016-09-06 12:28:01	0|NicolasDorier|one sec, finding the case I wrote about in lightning discussion some time ago
 36 2016-09-06 12:29:37	0|NicolasDorier|sipa: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-March/000457.html here (forget about R-Value, I was meaning revocation hash)
 37 2016-09-06 12:29:40	0|NicolasDorier|the basic idea
 38 2016-09-06 12:30:01	0|NicolasDorier|is that if you have a ScriptPubKey with 3 different path.
 39 2016-09-06 12:30:14	0|NicolasDorier|and one party wants to sign only for one specific path
 40 2016-09-06 12:30:25	0|NicolasDorier|without CODESEP, you need 3 different public key
 41 2016-09-06 12:30:43	0|NicolasDorier|with CODESEP, the signer can decide which path to sign by choosing the ScriptCode that interest him
 42 2016-09-06 12:30:59	0|sipa|but scriptcode is always from the last codesep to the end
 43 2016-09-06 12:31:03	0|sipa|so they'd always overlap
 44 2016-09-06 12:31:38	0|NicolasDorier|not always, depends if they are on same branch or not
 45 2016-09-06 12:31:46	0|NicolasDorier|if you have 2 branch with an OP_IF
 46 2016-09-06 12:31:53	0|NicolasDorier|you put a OP_CODESEP on each branch
 47 2016-09-06 12:32:04	0|NicolasDorier|then the signer decide which branch he agrees on signing
 48 2016-09-06 12:32:20	0|sipa|oh, right, only executed codeseps matter
 49 2016-09-06 12:37:38	0|NicolasDorier|sipa: Even if they are on single branch it can be useful actually, if Alice wants to sign until a certain point in the Script, and on certain condition, a second signature from her might be needed later down the path.
 50 2016-09-06 12:38:12	0|sipa|have you tested that?
 51 2016-09-06 13:06:03	0|btcdrak|I remembered a ML post about op_cs https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-March/000455.html
 52 2016-09-06 13:06:28	0|sipa|btcdrak: NicolasDorier just linked to that as well
 53 2016-09-06 13:06:46	0|btcdrak|oh lol. I should read the entire log before replying :-p
 54 2016-09-06 13:20:35	0|GitHub111|13bitcoin/06master 14ff2ed7a 15mruddy: trivial: remove unnecessary variable fDaemon
 55 2016-09-06 13:20:35	0|GitHub111|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e82fb872ff5c...d077f43f7ecf
 56 2016-09-06 13:20:36	0|GitHub111|13bitcoin/06master 14d077f43 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8663: trivial: remove unnecessary variable fDaemon...
 57 2016-09-06 13:20:51	0|GitHub96|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8663: trivial: remove unnecessary variable fDaemon (06master...06trivial_fDaemon) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8663
 58 2016-09-06 13:24:13	0|GitHub0|13bitcoin/06master 1438acbf8 15Doug: Remove unused Qt 4.6 patch....
 59 2016-09-06 13:24:13	0|GitHub0|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d077f43f7ecf...8ea44405e76f
 60 2016-09-06 13:24:14	0|GitHub0|13bitcoin/06master 148ea4440 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8645: Remove unused Qt 4.6 patch....
 61 2016-09-06 13:24:23	0|GitHub121|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8645: Remove unused Qt 4.6 patch. (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8645
 62 2016-09-06 17:01:35	0|jl2012|does signrawtransaction allow signing out-of-range SIGHASH_SINGLE? (i.e. the sighash = 1 bug)
 63 2016-09-06 17:07:24	0|instagibbs_|jl2012: it skips those
 64 2016-09-06 17:07:42	0|jl2012|so it won't complete and return error?
 65 2016-09-06 17:08:03	0|instagibbs_|afaict from the code just skips signing it
 66 2016-09-06 17:08:14	0|jl2012|thanks
 67 2016-09-06 17:26:10	0|btcdrak|https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/208
 68 2016-09-06 17:42:49	0|instagibbs_|jonasschnelli: did https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8606 fix your issue?
 69 2016-09-06 18:00:32	0|cfields|jeremyrubin: is there a squashed version of your checkqueue coming up?
 70 2016-09-06 20:00:16	0|cfields|gmaxwell: I haven't looked at cgminer yet, but I can
 71 2016-09-06 20:00:37	0|sipa|i assume it will be similar to ckpool?
 72 2016-09-06 20:06:31	0|cfields|unsure
 73 2016-09-06 20:17:37	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, doubt it
 74 2016-09-06 20:38:32	0|GitHub117|[13bitcoin] 15JeremyRubin opened pull request #8671: Minimal fix to slow prevector tests as stopgap measure (06master...06simple_faster_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8671
 75 2016-09-06 20:38:38	0|GitHub186|[13bitcoin] 15Cocosoft opened pull request #8672: Qt: Show transaction size in transaction details window (06master...06qttxsizeindetails) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8672
 76 2016-09-06 20:42:03	0|GitHub172|[13bitcoin] 15JeremyRubin closed pull request #8650: Make tests much faster by replacing BOOST_CHECK with FAST_CHECK (06master...06faster_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8650
 77 2016-09-06 20:42:22	0|GitHub82|[13bitcoin] 15JeremyRubin closed pull request #8632: Speed up prevector tests by parallelization (06master...06faster_prevector_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8632
 78 2016-09-06 20:56:36	0|GitHub122|[13bitcoin] 15JeremyRubin opened pull request #8673: Trivial: Fix obvious assignment/equality error in test (06master...06fix_arith_tests_trivial) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8673
 79 2016-09-06 21:23:54	0|jeremyrubin|cfields: it is available now
 80 2016-09-06 21:24:11	0|jeremyrubin|cfields: but I'm not PR'ing it until I can speed up the PrevectorTests
 81 2016-09-06 21:25:03	0|jeremyrubin|cfields: https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/tree/lockfree-checkqueue-restructured
 82 2016-09-06 21:25:39	0|jeremyrubin|cfields: I guess I should say, until #8671 gets merged
 83 2016-09-06 21:39:41	0|luke-jr|cfields: were your ckpool changes accepted upstream?
 84 2016-09-06 21:40:14	0|cfields|jeremyrubin: perfect, thanks
 85 2016-09-06 21:40:17	0|cfields|luke-jr: yes
 86 2016-09-06 21:53:36	0|CocoBTC|luke-jr, I saw your reply to the PR, thanks.  I'm not entirely sure on where/how to get this value (size + feerate-based-on-weight), or what it is.  I'm still working on getting my head up-to-date with SegWit.
 87 2016-09-06 21:54:02	0|luke-jr|heh, I meant show both the size, and the feerate
 88 2016-09-06 21:54:05	0|luke-jr|not to add them ☺
 89 2016-09-06 21:55:53	0|luke-jr|basically you get the feerate with Fee / GetVirtualTransactionSize
 90 2016-09-06 21:55:55	0|CocoBTC|Lol! I see. That makes sense :)
 91 2016-09-06 21:56:09	0|CocoBTC|Right
 92 2016-09-06 22:05:25	0|CocoBTC|Do I need to know/care about nSigOpCost?
 93 2016-09-06 22:10:11	0|luke-jr|hmm, not normally, but for incoming transactions it's possibly relevant
 94 2016-09-06 22:10:17	0|luke-jr|due to nSigOpsPerByte
 95 2016-09-06 22:11:55	0|luke-jr|ah, GetVirtualTransactionSize takes care of that for you
 96 2016-09-06 22:12:02	0|luke-jr|just you need to give it the right value as an argument
 97 2016-09-06 22:12:23	0|CocoBTC|Well it defaults to 0? Or maybe I read the code wrong.
 98 2016-09-06 22:12:30	0|CocoBTC|Right!
 99 2016-09-06 22:12:51	0|luke-jr|hmm.. I'm not sure it makes sense for it to have that default :x
100 2016-09-06 22:13:40	0|luke-jr|looks like rawtx and the wallet currently don't provide it
101 2016-09-06 22:13:47	0|luke-jr|probably okay for the wallet side because it's for sending
102 2016-09-06 22:14:04	0|luke-jr|but you can't assume incoming are sane in this respect, so you'll need to provide it
103 2016-09-06 22:14:46	0|CocoBTC|Okay! Thank you for your help.
104 2016-09-06 22:15:16	0|luke-jr|np