1 2016-09-16 00:54:32	0|rebroad|please could someone tell me where I can find the doc on gitian building for windows and arm?
 2 2016-09-16 00:54:44	0|rebroad|oh found it
 3 2016-09-16 03:49:55	0|GitHub14|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #8742: Specify Protobuf version 2 in paymentrequest.proto (06master...06proto2-vs-proto3) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8742
 4 2016-09-16 04:41:25	0|GitHub3|[13bitcoin] 15fanquake opened pull request #8743: Remove old manpages from contrib/debian in favour of doc/man (06master...06remove-old-manpages) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8743
 5 2016-09-16 04:44:15	0|dgenr8|how does gitian know not to try to build qt for arm?
 6 2016-09-16 06:53:53	0|jonasschnelli|dgenr8: the configure (autoconf) process will auto-detect the qt libraries..
 7 2016-09-16 06:54:02	0|jonasschnelli|If not available, it will be built headless.
 8 2016-09-16 06:54:12	0|jonasschnelli|You might want to check the bitcoin-qt.m4 macro file
 9 2016-09-16 06:57:10	0|jonasschnelli|dgenr8: and the magic point where qt gets not compiled for ARM is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/depends/packages/packages.mk#L7
10 2016-09-16 09:25:24	0|GitHub99|13bitcoin/06master 14fa27d99 15MarcoFalke: [qa] create_cache: Delete temp dir when done
11 2016-09-16 09:25:24	0|GitHub99|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a82e5d8220bb...1e5799c52535
12 2016-09-16 09:25:25	0|GitHub99|13bitcoin/06master 141e5799c 15MarcoFalke: Merge #8713: [qa] create_cache: Delete temp dir when done...
13 2016-09-16 09:25:39	0|GitHub24|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #8713: [qa] create_cache: Delete temp dir when done (06master...06Mf1609-qaCacheTempdir) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8713
14 2016-09-16 09:32:32	0|GitHub149|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8744: [0.13.1] qa Backports (060.13...06Mf1609-qaBackports) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8744
15 2016-09-16 11:11:03	0|rebroad|would anyone know why there's code in addrman.cpp to randomize the addresses sent in response to a getaddr?
16 2016-09-16 11:19:27	0|rebroad|weird.... block 430068 has a checksum ox 0x00000000
17 2016-09-16 11:19:33	0|rebroad|of
18 2016-09-16 11:23:01	0|rebroad|hmmm, then again it came from 54.199.196.58.. which is doing various weird things...
19 2016-09-16 12:30:52	0|sdaftuar|BlueMatt: sipa: there's an issue with the way the announce bit is set in 8393 (you can't change it).  github isn't letting me comment on the pull right now for some reason though
20 2016-09-16 12:31:19	0|sdaftuar|BlueMatt: anyway it's confusing to me to figure out what the logic for changing it should be
21 2016-09-16 13:03:59	0|rebroad|why aren't problems with LogPrint detected at compile time as they would be with printf?
22 2016-09-16 13:25:53	0|BlueMatt|sipa: sdaftuar https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commit/e2ce06c917a38ccca5e3554e578ccd28417c2174
23 2016-09-16 13:25:56	0|BlueMatt|should fix it
24 2016-09-16 13:29:38	0|BlueMatt|oh ffs, now github is sending me two emails for every comment
25 2016-09-16 13:31:36	0|sdaftuar|BlueMatt: thanks, that looks right
26 2016-09-16 14:36:25	0|sipa|rebroad: compiler magic
27 2016-09-16 14:36:54	0|sipa|rebroad: the c compiler recognizes printf in a special way
28 2016-09-16 14:49:05	0|GitHub44|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #8745: [PoC] Add wallet inspection and modification tool "bitcoin-wallet-tool" (06master...062016/09/wallet-tool) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8745
29 2016-09-16 15:18:19	0|luke-jr|sipa: well, it's possible to get printf-formatting rules on other functions, but LogPrintf isn't as picky as real printf [cc: rebroad]
30 2016-09-16 15:20:51	0|sipa|right, doing so would make the compiler warn about many things that are just fine for LogPrintf
31 2016-09-16 15:23:54	0|luke-jr|I wonder if some trick like http://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/85031/compile-time-printf-style-format-checking would work
32 2016-09-16 15:25:24	0|GitHub64|[13bitcoin] 15achow101 opened pull request #8746: [Qt][RPC] Hide passphrases in debug console history (06master...06hide-walletpassphrase) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8746
33 2016-09-16 15:27:21	0|jonasschnelli|Luke-Jr: Did you had a look at the TinyFormat.h we are using?
34 2016-09-16 16:26:31	0|dgenr8|jonasschnelli: perfect, thank you!
35 2016-09-16 18:47:23	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Does a full node remove a competing chain after X amount of blocks being ahead of it? Can a full node store competing chains for a small amount of time?
36 2016-09-16 18:48:05	0|sipa|if there is no pruning, we never prune
37 2016-09-16 18:48:13	0|sipa|if we do, we prune after some time
38 2016-09-16 18:48:28	0|sipa|regardless of whether it's main chain or not
39 2016-09-16 18:49:01	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Hmm interesting. I've always wondered about this. So it will store ALL blocks indefinitely as long as they are valid ( meet POW threshold, all valid txs, etc?)
40 2016-09-16 18:49:33	0|sipa|even invalid blocks
41 2016-09-16 18:49:47	0|sipa|because not all checks can be done immediately
42 2016-09-16 18:51:00	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Like  time on the relative scale of performing all sigops? Or time for something else that takes much longer?
43 2016-09-16 18:54:09	0|Chris_Stewart_5|sigops in the block*
44 2016-09-16 18:54:47	0|sipa|signature checks can only be done once we build the chainstate for tjat block, which requires processing the previous blocks
45 2016-09-16 18:55:07	0|sipa|if there is a reorganization, we don't do that until the chain takes over the other chain
46 2016-09-16 18:57:41	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Interesting, thanks for the explanation.
47 2016-09-16 18:58:19	0|sipa|but we do certainly validate pow and syntactic correctness before storing blocks on dizk
48 2016-09-16 18:58:23	0|sipa|*disk
49 2016-09-16 18:58:41	0|sipa|which means an attack to fill up nodes' disks would be very expensove
50 2016-09-16 18:58:45	0|sipa|*expensive
51 2016-09-16 18:58:56	0|Chris_Stewart_5|yeah, that was what I just thinking about
52 2016-09-16 19:01:33	0|Chris_Stewart_5|What is the relative cost of a SHA256(SHA256()) compared to an ECDSA signature verification?
53 2016-09-16 19:02:28	0|Chris_Stewart_5|because if i'm understanding this correctly, to store that block we need to still build the merkle tree to check POW validity
54 2016-09-16 19:05:36	0|sipa|an ecdsa verification is equivalent to hashing around 15kB
55 2016-09-16 19:07:47	0|GitHub107|[13bitcoin] 15jonnynewbs opened pull request #8747: [rpc] Fix transaction size comments and RPC help text. (06master...06rpc_comments) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8747
56 2016-09-16 19:08:24	0|Chris_Stewart_5|much cheaper i guess, haha.
57 2016-09-16 20:07:14	0|jl2012|why SIGPUSHONLY is not a policy?
58 2016-09-16 20:07:45	0|luke-jr|?
59 2016-09-16 20:08:40	0|sipa|it is part of strictenc, no?
60 2016-09-16 20:24:33	0|luke-jr|Author: Johnson Lau <jl2012@users.noreply.github.com>
61 2016-09-16 20:24:39	0|luke-jr|jl2012: is this intentional?
62 2016-09-16 20:29:14	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: no
63 2016-09-16 20:39:24	0|luke-jr|are we closing nested templates with >>  now? is that safe?
64 2016-09-16 20:43:17	0|sipa|yes
65 2016-09-16 20:43:29	0|sipa|it's required to be supported by c++11
66 2016-09-16 20:44:12	0|sipa|you can't do it in c++03, as the lexer is required by the standard there to treat >> is a single token
67 2016-09-16 20:45:51	0|sipa|also, (personal opinion on style), i despise '> >'.
68 2016-09-16 20:46:05	0|luke-jr|>.>
69 2016-09-16 20:46:41	0|midnightmagic|that's 1940s /w 2
70 2016-09-16 20:46:46	0|midnightmagic|:-( sorry.