1 2016-10-17 04:15:18	0|GitHub180|[13bitcoin] 15pooleja opened pull request #8935: Documentation: Building on Windows with WSL (06master...06windows_build_docs) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8935
  2 2016-10-17 05:29:11	0|GitHub13|[13bitcoin] 15rebroad opened pull request #8936: Report NodeId in misbehaving debug (06master...06NodeIdWhenMisbehaving) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8936
  3 2016-10-17 07:19:25	0|phantomcircuit|wumpus: in trying to make more of the wallet things private i have run into a problem
  4 2016-10-17 07:19:34	0|phantomcircuit|all the things which are private are called by tests
  5 2016-10-17 07:19:43	0|phantomcircuit|so i cant just make them private
  6 2016-10-17 07:24:30	0|sipa|make them protected, and let the tests work with a subclass
  7 2016-10-17 07:43:32	0|phantomcircuit|sipa: that is a good solution
  8 2016-10-17 09:02:32	0|wumpus|phantomcircuit: +1 on sipa's solution
  9 2016-10-17 09:02:55	0|wumpus|we do a similar thing for CAddrMan for a test interface to override the randomness
 10 2016-10-17 10:26:31	0|wumpus|cfields_: hey, I've been trying something weird: to build bitcoin core in the 'termux' environment on my android phone. This is basically just a arm (64 bit in this case) Linux system, with one catch: there is no shell interpreter, or anything useful for that matter in /bin. All the shell utilities are available in the path though.
 11 2016-10-17 10:27:18	0|wumpus|cfields_: I have no idea whether this can be realistically gotten to work though, so much assumes that /bin/sh is a shell :)
 12 2016-10-17 10:27:34	0|wumpus|cfields_: not a high priority thing though building bitcoin core *on* my phone would be quite awesome
 13 2016-10-17 10:28:50	0|wumpus|(I know there's debian chroots which avoid this, but that requires root and don't want to bother rooting right now)
 14 2016-10-17 11:13:04	0|GitHub13|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/49c591037289...0329511b9cd6
 15 2016-10-17 11:13:05	0|GitHub13|13bitcoin/06master 14032e883 15Matt Corallo: [qa] Send segwit-encoded blocktxn messages in p2p-compactblocks
 16 2016-10-17 11:13:05	0|GitHub13|13bitcoin/06master 14a4ad37d 15Matt Corallo: [qa] Build v4 blocks in p2p-compactblocktests...
 17 2016-10-17 11:13:06	0|GitHub13|13bitcoin/06master 140329511 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8922: [qa] Send segwit-encoded blocktxn messages in p2p-compactblocks...
 18 2016-10-17 11:13:15	0|GitHub100|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8922: [qa] Send segwit-encoded blocktxn messages in p2p-compactblocks (06master...06segwitcb) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8922
 19 2016-10-17 11:26:37	0|GitHub8|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #8937: Define start and end time for segwit deployment (06master...06bip141start) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8937
 20 2016-10-17 11:27:37	0|GitHub80|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 8 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0329511b9cd6...53133c1c041d
 21 2016-10-17 11:27:38	0|GitHub80|13bitcoin/06master 143ade2f6 15Johnson Lau: Add standard limits for P2WSH with tests
 22 2016-10-17 11:27:38	0|GitHub80|13bitcoin/06master 144c0c25a 15Johnson Lau: Require compressed keys in segwit as policy and disable signing with uncompressed keys for segwit scripts
 23 2016-10-17 11:27:39	0|GitHub80|13bitcoin/06master 149f0397a 15Johnson Lau: Make test framework produce lowS signatures
 24 2016-10-17 11:27:44	0|GitHub23|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8499: Add several policy limits and disable uncompressed keys for segwit scripts (06master...06badwitnesscheck) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8499
 25 2016-10-17 11:30:06	0|sipa|petertodd, cdecker, BlueMatt, luke-jr: do your dns seeds support flag filtering?
 26 2016-10-17 11:30:40	0|cdecker|sipa: not yet, was intending to implement it for the longest time
 27 2016-10-17 11:31:16	0|cdecker|Is there a plan to rely on it in future?
 28 2016-10-17 11:31:26	0|sipa|yes, for segwit
 29 2016-10-17 11:31:43	0|cdecker|Ok, then I'll invest some time to support it ^^
 30 2016-10-17 11:31:52	0|sipa|cool!
 31 2016-10-17 11:32:47	0|GitHub27|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/53133c1c041d...c90111314435
 32 2016-10-17 11:32:48	0|GitHub27|13bitcoin/06master 14282abd8 15fanquake: [build-aux] Boost_Base serial 27
 33 2016-10-17 11:32:48	0|GitHub27|13bitcoin/06master 146dd3723 15fanquake: Set minimum required Boost to 1.47.0
 34 2016-10-17 11:32:49	0|GitHub27|13bitcoin/06master 14c901113 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8920: Set minimum required Boost to 1.47.0...
 35 2016-10-17 11:32:59	0|GitHub135|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8920: Set minimum required Boost to 1.47.0 (06master...06set-minimum-boost) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8920
 36 2016-10-17 11:37:35	0|wumpus|I'm trying to cherry-pick #8499 into #8916 for backporting to 0.13, however I'm running into conflicts in the tests (p2p-segwit.py) - does anyone know if any precursor changes to the RPC tests there that are not in #8916 yet?
 37 2016-10-17 11:38:51	0|wumpus|(big conflicts, not trivial one-liners)
 38 2016-10-17 11:40:03	0|sipa|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/qa/rpc-tests/p2p-segwit.py
 39 2016-10-17 11:41:55	0|wumpus|may be better to leave this backport to jl2012
 40 2016-10-17 11:48:43	0|sipa|$ ./src/bitcoind
 41 2016-10-17 11:48:44	0|sipa|Error: -daemon is not supported on this operating system
 42 2016-10-17 11:49:14	0|sipa|Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS
 43 2016-10-17 11:49:34	0|wumpus|sipa: you need to clean your tree
 44 2016-10-17 11:49:39	0|sipa|ah
 45 2016-10-17 11:49:40	0|sipa|thanks
 46 2016-10-17 11:49:47	0|wumpus|(or at least rerun autoconf and configure)
 47 2016-10-17 11:50:22	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8813#issuecomment-250788185
 48 2016-10-17 11:51:27	0|sipa|ah yes, i remember reading that comment
 49 2016-10-17 12:11:48	0|wumpus|never mind on #8499, I was somehow trying to backports the commit in reverse order
 50 2016-10-17 12:12:01	0|wumpus|(testing a new script and all that)
 51 2016-10-17 12:23:14	0|jl2012|wumpus, you want me to make a backport?
 52 2016-10-17 12:24:22	0|wumpus|jl2012: I was afraid so as the diff looked quite large, but it's no longer necessary
 53 2016-10-17 12:24:34	0|wumpus|it's part of #8916 now
 54 2016-10-17 12:25:00	0|jl2012|if it could be cleanly cherry-picked, that should be fine
 55 2016-10-17 12:25:28	0|wumpus|there was only a trivial two-liner conflict in the tests
 56 2016-10-17 12:25:55	0|jl2012|ok
 57 2016-10-17 12:25:57	0|achow101|Yay! 0.13.1 is almost here! #8937 needs to be added to the milestone
 58 2016-10-17 12:26:18	0|jl2012|let me know if you need any action from me
 59 2016-10-17 12:26:28	0|wumpus|I will, thank you
 60 2016-10-17 12:36:11	0|petertodd|sipa: mine does
 61 2016-10-17 12:36:49	0|sipa|petertodd: oh, i'm confused, you don't even have a mainnet seed
 62 2016-10-17 12:37:00	0|petertodd|sipa: yes, my testnet seed does :)
 63 2016-10-17 12:38:55	0|sipa|interesting, my seeder has 8 IPs that already report NODE_WITNESS
 64 2016-10-17 12:42:21	0|petertodd|sipa: what else are they reporting? I've noticed that some nodes put total garbage in nServices
 65 2016-10-17 12:43:21	0|sipa|i wad about to check, and my laptop battery died
 66 2016-10-17 12:43:27	0|petertodd|ha
 67 2016-10-17 12:49:25	0|sipa|3 of them are possibly legitimate
 68 2016-10-17 13:11:52	0|BlueMatt|sipa: no, am I supposed to do that?
 69 2016-10-17 13:12:05	0|BlueMatt|sipa: oh, you mean to filter to only give segwit peers?
 70 2016-10-17 13:23:39	0|sipa|yes
 71 2016-10-17 13:24:30	0|sipa|a request for xHEXFLAGS.your.dns.seed gives only peers that report said flags in their result
 72 2016-10-17 13:24:42	0|BlueMatt|oh
 73 2016-10-17 13:24:43	0|BlueMatt|uhhhhh
 74 2016-10-17 13:24:47	0|BlueMatt|hum
 75 2016-10-17 13:25:05	0|sipa|if supported, bitcoin core will ask for x9.your.dns.seed
 76 2016-10-17 13:25:15	0|BlueMatt|that doesnt work with my dnsseed
 77 2016-10-17 13:25:21	0|sipa|(NODE_NETWORK and NODE_WITNESS)
 78 2016-10-17 13:25:27	0|sipa|that's fine, it doesn't have to
 79 2016-10-17 13:25:34	0|BlueMatt|my seed generates a bind zonefile and schleps that off to a bunch of servers
 80 2016-10-17 13:25:35	0|sipa|it's enabled on a per seed basis
 81 2016-10-17 13:25:46	0|BlueMatt|so there is no way for me to reasonably do that
 82 2016-10-17 13:25:51	0|BlueMatt|though i could do it for a small subset of possible flags
 83 2016-10-17 13:26:03	0|sipa|yes, only x9 is needed
 84 2016-10-17 13:26:24	0|BlueMatt|mmm, ok
 85 2016-10-17 13:26:51	0|BlueMatt|give me a few hours
 86 2016-10-17 13:28:20	0|sipa|ha, there isn't *that* much hurry either
 87 2016-10-17 13:28:43	0|BlueMatt|all y'all with dnsseed-server-homogeneousness
 88 2016-10-17 13:28:48	0|BlueMatt|need some diversity :p
 89 2016-10-17 13:28:55	0|sipa|i am not complaining.
 90 2016-10-17 13:28:58	0|sipa|:)
 91 2016-10-17 13:29:06	0|BlueMatt|ehh, 0.13.1rc1 today, should get it done :p
 92 2016-10-17 14:01:37	0|paveljanik|better discussing Oxford comma than FT ;-)
 93 2016-10-17 14:02:46	0|instagibbs|FT? :P
 94 2016-10-17 14:02:58	0|GitHub66|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8916: 0.13.1 backports (060.13...062016_10_backports) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8916
 95 2016-10-17 14:02:58	0|GitHub73|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 22 new commits to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/4ed26277347c...09bc76de60b7
 96 2016-10-17 14:02:59	0|GitHub73|13bitcoin/060.13 140027672 15Johnson Lau: Make non-minimal OP_IF/NOTIF argument non-standard for P2WSH...
 97 2016-10-17 14:02:59	0|GitHub73|13bitcoin/060.13 143e80ab7 15Johnson Lau: Add policy: null signature for failed CHECK(MULTI)SIG...
 98 2016-10-17 14:03:00	0|GitHub73|13bitcoin/060.13 147ae6242 15Cory Fields: net: fix a few cases where messages were sent rather than dropped upon disconnection...
 99 2016-10-17 14:04:17	0|BlueMatt|instagibbs: flexible transactions - tom zanders shit
100 2016-10-17 14:04:59	0|instagibbs|Oh, haha.
101 2016-10-17 14:06:18	0|paveljanik|hmm, removing the Oxford commas can save us 2 (two!) bytes!
102 2016-10-17 14:06:39	0|paveljanik|imagine all those forks!
103 2016-10-17 14:06:52	0|instagibbs|I see you've found your scaling bitcoin topic for 2017
104 2016-10-17 14:08:29	0|paveljanik|the next SB will surely be at the date of my wife' birthday or any similar death-important family date as always :-(
105 2016-10-17 14:09:52	0|sipa|well at least we'll have a few topics for the next SB, such as segwit, ft, and the oxford comma.
106 2016-10-17 14:09:58	0|sipa|*ducks*
107 2016-10-17 14:10:25	0|paveljanik|Can't parse the sentence ;-)
108 2016-10-17 14:12:48	0|BlueMatt|I think he meant ft, segwit and the oxford comma
109 2016-10-17 14:14:16	0|btcdrak|FTFY: ft, segwit and, the oxford comma
110 2016-10-17 14:14:25	0|BlueMatt|bip 9 bit 1 has def never been used, right?
111 2016-10-17 14:14:34	0|BlueMatt|has someone scanned recent block versions?
112 2016-10-17 14:15:16	0|btcdrak|blocks have only been 0x30000000, 0x20000000, 0x20000001, and 0x30000001
113 2016-10-17 14:15:48	0|BlueMatt|bit 1 being 0x2, right?
114 2016-10-17 14:15:55	0|btcdrak|BlueMatt: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009/assignments.mediawiki
115 2016-10-17 14:16:04	0|btcdrak|BlueMatt: yes
116 2016-10-17 14:16:07	0|sipa|yes
117 2016-10-17 14:16:10	0|btcdrak|we used bit 0 for CSV
118 2016-10-17 14:16:13	0|BlueMatt|ok, sounds good
119 2016-10-17 14:16:21	0|BlueMatt|just figued I'd doube check
120 2016-10-17 14:17:04	0|instagibbs|just to make sure what about bip109
121 2016-10-17 14:17:34	0|BlueMatt|sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8637#issuecomment-253547659
122 2016-10-17 14:18:38	0|btcdrak|We can save more bytes on the BIPs by aggregating like Schnorr: BIP141+143+147 = BIP431
123 2016-10-17 14:19:43	0|sipa|BlueMatt: last use of bit 1 was over 20k blocks ago
124 2016-10-17 14:19:51	0|BlueMatt|sipa: thanks
125 2016-10-17 14:20:13	0|sipa|though apparently it has been used with some frequency further back
126 2016-10-17 14:20:24	0|BlueMatt|heh, funny
127 2016-10-17 14:20:27	0|sipa|1128 blocks set bit 1 in the past 50k blocks
128 2016-10-17 14:20:28	0|btcdrak|sipa bit 1?
129 2016-10-17 14:21:11	0|instagibbs|BlueMatt, sigh, at a minimum I'd like the debug help for cmpctblocks(sp!?)
130 2016-10-17 14:21:27	0|BlueMatt|instagibbs: yes, thats why I'm poking sipa :p
131 2016-10-17 14:21:29	0|instagibbs|cmpctblock
132 2016-10-17 14:21:33	0|sipa|cmpctblcks, w dnt spprt th s f vwls hr
133 2016-10-17 14:22:05	0|BlueMatt|we dont support the use of vowels here, for those with parse-issues
134 2016-10-17 14:22:25	0|sipa|i approve of BlueMatt's compact writing decoder
135 2016-10-17 14:23:01	0|achow101|it would be much more compact if you removed all the spaces
136 2016-10-17 14:23:11	0|jtimon|wumpus: around?
137 2016-10-17 14:23:31	0|jtimon|re https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8921 "getinfo has been deprecated" when did that happened? for 0.13 or for 0.14 ?
138 2016-10-17 14:23:57	0|jtimon|ie is there any blocker to remove it already or are we just waiting to do it for 0.15 ?
139 2016-10-17 14:24:20	0|instagibbs|0.14
140 2016-10-17 14:24:51	0|jtimon|instagibbs: I see, so we're in fact waiting for removing it in 0.15, thanks
141 2016-10-17 14:25:17	0|btcdrak|oh why is getinfo for the chop?
142 2016-10-17 14:25:17	0|GitHub170|[13bitcoin] 15s-matthew-english opened pull request #8938: update to bitcoin-qt.desktop (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8938
143 2016-10-17 14:25:18	0|instagibbs|Not sure, just saying it's not deprecated in 0.13.1
144 2016-10-17 14:25:26	0|achow101|jtimon: apparently it has been deprecated for years
145 2016-10-17 14:25:39	0|instagibbs|it's a hodgepodge of info you can individually get elsewhere
146 2016-10-17 14:25:42	0|GitHub167|13bitcoin/060.13 14cb8887e 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: periodic translation update
147 2016-10-17 14:25:42	0|GitHub167|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/cb8887e87df315dbc6c560149b3a97b704a676aa
148 2016-10-17 14:25:53	0|jonasschnelli|getinfo is to general and uses all sorts of locks
149 2016-10-17 14:26:12	0|GitHub185|[13bitcoin] 15s-matthew-english closed pull request #8938: update to bitcoin-qt.desktop (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8938
150 2016-10-17 14:26:23	0|btcdrak|wow, looks like an RC today
151 2016-10-17 14:26:23	0|jtimon|btcdrak: it has been for a while, at least jun12 2014, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4333#issuecomment-45882887
152 2016-10-17 14:26:47	0|achow101|so if rc is tagged today, then should we hold off on that pre-final alert?
153 2016-10-17 14:26:56	0|jtimon|jonasschnelli: are there more locks than cs_main ? :p
154 2016-10-17 14:27:02	0|jonasschnelli|hehe...
155 2016-10-17 14:27:13	0|instagibbs|"Perhaps 0.10 is a good release for killing getinfo :)?" heh
156 2016-10-17 14:27:22	0|jonasschnelli|"all sorts of locks" mostly means: cs_main and cs_wallet
157 2016-10-17 14:28:06	0|sipa|we clearly need to add a cs_getinfo first.
158 2016-10-17 14:28:59	0|jtimon|yeah, not sure if I should wait for 0.15 to remove the "temporal" TestnetToBeDeprecatedFieldRPC or do it directly in #8921, certainly rpcmining can remove its redundant "testnet" field though
159 2016-10-17 14:29:13	0|btcdrak|sipa: you need to update your BIP PR to amend this as well https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009/assignments.mediawiki
160 2016-10-17 14:30:31	0|btcdrak|maybe I can just edit it
161 2016-10-17 14:32:33	0|sipa|BlueMatt: your rebase of compact block tweaks differs from my manual version
162 2016-10-17 14:32:40	0|sipa|-                        if (mi->second->nHeight >= chainActive.Height() - MAX_CMPCTBLOCK_DEPTH) {
163 2016-10-17 14:32:43	0|sipa|+                        if (CanDirectFetch(Params().GetConsensus()) && mi->second->nHeight >= chainActive.Height() - MAX_CMPCTBLOCK_DEPTH) {
164 2016-10-17 14:32:48	0|BlueMatt|argh
165 2016-10-17 14:32:48	0|sipa|+        bool fBlockRead = false;
166 2016-10-17 14:32:48	0|sipa|+        CBlock block;
167 2016-10-17 14:32:48	0|sipa|-        LOCK(cs_main);
168 2016-10-17 14:32:56	0|sipa|we want the '+' side of this, right?
169 2016-10-17 14:33:04	0|BlueMatt|i have no idea, need context
170 2016-10-17 14:33:20	0|sipa|the '-' side lacks your fix for reduction of locks
171 2016-10-17 14:33:22	0|BlueMatt|note that my branch includes one commit on top
172 2016-10-17 14:33:27	0|sipa|ah
173 2016-10-17 14:33:34	0|BlueMatt|yea, i was suggesting we dont bother with that commit (the cs_main fix)
174 2016-10-17 14:33:43	0|BlueMatt|just because it already has acks on the pr
175 2016-10-17 14:33:47	0|BlueMatt|easy to push it to another pr
176 2016-10-17 14:34:12	0|sipa|BlueMatt: then there is still a difference
177 2016-10-17 14:34:19	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: yea, i think sdaftuar point that out to me on fri or so
178 2016-10-17 14:34:36	0|BlueMatt|should fix
179 2016-10-17 14:36:12	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: great. I mean, not a big deal, but I grep Params() every time I rebase #7829 git blame would blame you
180 2016-10-17 14:36:35	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: no, its already passed into that function, so should not call Params()
181 2016-10-17 14:36:52	0|BlueMatt|sipa: lemme look
182 2016-10-17 14:37:28	0|sipa|BlueMatt: in response to receiving a getdata MSG_CMPCT_BLOCK, and we're likely in IBD, should we respond with a normal block or not?
183 2016-10-17 14:37:38	0|BlueMatt|yes
184 2016-10-17 14:37:38	0|sipa|i don't remember where this patch originates
185 2016-10-17 14:37:39	0|BlueMatt|normal block
186 2016-10-17 14:37:42	0|sipa|ok
187 2016-10-17 14:38:44	0|sipa|rebased
188 2016-10-17 14:38:48	0|sipa|(using your history)
189 2016-10-17 14:38:54	0|BlueMatt|kk
190 2016-10-17 14:39:34	0|BlueMatt|wait, now I'm confused
191 2016-10-17 14:39:40	0|BlueMatt|i thought we did want the CanDirectFetch?
192 2016-10-17 14:39:45	0|sipa|indeed
193 2016-10-17 14:39:49	0|sipa|your version had that, mine does not
194 2016-10-17 14:40:00	0|BlueMatt|i dont see it on the github diff now?
195 2016-10-17 14:40:25	0|sipa|presumably because the CanDirectFetch already exists in master, and my patch unintentionally undid it
196 2016-10-17 14:40:37	0|sipa|while yours leaves it alone
197 2016-10-17 14:40:45	0|BlueMatt|ahh, ok
198 2016-10-17 14:41:44	0|sipa|actually, no
199 2016-10-17 14:42:08	0|BlueMatt|yea, no, it should be on L4877
200 2016-10-17 14:42:25	0|sipa|i just pushed the wrong branch
201 2016-10-17 14:42:27	0|sipa|fixed now
202 2016-10-17 14:42:30	0|BlueMatt|(though, as jtimon points out, it shouldnt call Params(), it should use consensusParams)
203 2016-10-17 14:42:36	0|sipa|ah
204 2016-10-17 14:43:06	0|sipa|fixing
205 2016-10-17 14:43:11	0|BlueMatt|thanks
206 2016-10-17 14:43:22	0|sipa|jtimon: sorry, wasn't clear to me that we actually already had a consensusParams variable there
207 2016-10-17 14:49:40	0|GitHub157|13bitcoin/06master 14f9c23de 15Pieter Wuille: Define start and end time for segwit deployment
208 2016-10-17 14:49:40	0|GitHub157|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c90111314435...c6b959efcf2d
209 2016-10-17 14:49:41	0|GitHub157|13bitcoin/06master 14c6b959e 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8937: Define start and end time for segwit deployment...
210 2016-10-17 14:49:53	0|GitHub74|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8937: Define start and end time for segwit deployment (06master...06bip141start) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8937
211 2016-10-17 14:50:24	0|sipa|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A0.13.1
212 2016-10-17 14:50:28	0|sipa|> No results matched your search.
213 2016-10-17 14:50:31	0|sipa|\0/
214 2016-10-17 14:50:38	0|achow101|\o/
215 2016-10-17 14:50:56	0|jtimon|sipa: ideally if we don't have it, create it at the top for "my minions" to turn it into a parameter more easily
216 2016-10-17 14:51:21	0|sipa|jtimon: fixed in #8637
217 2016-10-17 14:51:26	0|jtimon|thanks!
218 2016-10-17 14:51:41	0|sipa|BlueMatt: how ready is FIBRE for segwit?
219 2016-10-17 14:51:48	0|BlueMatt|uhhh, uhhhhh
220 2016-10-17 14:51:53	0|BlueMatt|just needs rebased on master now
221 2016-10-17 14:51:56	0|sipa|You have 6 weeks.
222 2016-10-17 14:52:09	0|BlueMatt|I'll do that this week
223 2016-10-17 14:52:16	0|sipa|May the blocks be ever in your favor.
224 2016-10-17 14:53:17	0|GitHub97|13bitcoin/060.13 148b66659 15Pieter Wuille: Define start and end time for segwit deployment...
225 2016-10-17 14:53:17	0|GitHub97|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/8b66659921e6170831f3a043e9a54fa45776aa68
226 2016-10-17 14:53:29	0|achow101|rc1 tag now?
227 2016-10-17 14:54:02	0|btcdrak|achow101: we need release notes yet I think?
228 2016-10-17 14:54:09	0|sipa|going to update my node to 0.13 branch
229 2016-10-17 14:54:21	0|instagibbs|cmpctblks twkz, and notes?
230 2016-10-17 14:54:39	0|sipa|i don't think we need the tweaks in 0.13
231 2016-10-17 14:54:52	0|instagibbs|ok fine :( I'll just tattoo it on my arm
232 2016-10-17 14:54:54	0|jtimon|yeah, doesn't 8637 need backporting?
233 2016-10-17 14:55:03	0|jtimon|oh, ok
234 2016-10-17 14:55:37	0|achow101|oh, release notes. can't forget about those
235 2016-10-17 14:55:51	0|instagibbs|Well at this point, I should just proposed we change the debug string to something easier to remember
236 2016-10-17 14:56:09	0|jtimon|what debug string?
237 2016-10-17 14:57:24	0|instagibbs|-debug=cmpctblock. I'll stop complaining now :)
238 2016-10-17 14:57:45	0|wumpus|working on release notes
239 2016-10-17 14:57:52	0|sipa|you need help?
240 2016-10-17 14:58:30	0|wumpus|probably; I'll do the list of pulls and authors, but if something needs special mention please submit a pull
241 2016-10-17 14:58:54	0|BlueMatt|sipa: if i update my dnsseed today do we want that in 0.13?
242 2016-10-17 14:59:22	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i would say so
243 2016-10-17 14:59:35	0|wumpus|yes
244 2016-10-17 15:00:01	0|BlueMatt|argh, ok, I'll prioritize that today
245 2016-10-17 15:00:08	0|sipa|BlueMatt: you can of course 'trivially' support it by just making x9.* an alias for the normal seed
246 2016-10-17 15:00:20	0|btcdrak|are petertodd and jonasschnelli's seed working ok yet? they seemed really flakey for a while
247 2016-10-17 15:00:21	0|sipa|so you can do the actual implementation work later
248 2016-10-17 15:00:40	0|BlueMatt|sipa: ok, true, I'll do that and we can add the tag today
249 2016-10-17 15:01:47	0|sipa|btcdrak: jonasschnelli's seems to work, though it only returns one x9 node
250 2016-10-17 15:01:57	0|btcdrak|I was just about to say
251 2016-10-17 15:02:36	0|btcdrak|sipa: yours in only returning 3 x9s
252 2016-10-17 15:03:00	0|sipa|btcdrak: it knows about 8, though a few are fake
253 2016-10-17 15:03:09	0|sipa|the result corresponds with my database, though
254 2016-10-17 15:03:21	0|sipa|so i think we're good
255 2016-10-17 15:03:28	0|sipa|once 0.13.1 nodes appear, they should be detected
256 2016-10-17 15:04:01	0|sipa|wumpus: are the release notes for 0.13.1 supposed to be relative to 0.13.0 or 0.12?
257 2016-10-17 15:04:54	0|sipa|0.13.0 i suppose, as the file is empty
258 2016-10-17 15:05:59	0|wumpus|wumpus: 0.13.0
259 2016-10-17 15:06:14	0|sipa|wumpus: is wumpus talking to himself?
260 2016-10-17 15:07:54	0|wumpus|release notes are relative to the last minor release in case of a major release, and relative to the previous release on that branch in case of a minor release
261 2016-10-17 15:08:19	0|wumpus|lol
262 2016-10-17 15:08:31	0|achow101|what are x9 nodes?
263 2016-10-17 15:09:23	0|sipa|achow101: 9 == hex for NODE_NETWORK|NODE_WITNESS
264 2016-10-17 15:09:50	0|achow101|i see
265 2016-10-17 15:10:04	0|BlueMatt|;; ANSWER SECTION:
266 2016-10-17 15:10:04	0|BlueMatt|dig x9.dnsseed.bluematt.me
267 2016-10-17 15:10:04	0|BlueMatt|x9.dnsseed.bluematt.me.	120	IN	CNAME	dnsseed.bluematt.me.
268 2016-10-17 15:10:05	0|gribble|Error: "ANSWER" is not a valid command.
269 2016-10-17 15:10:08	0|BlueMatt|is that sufficient sipa ?
270 2016-10-17 15:10:27	0|sipa|ack
271 2016-10-17 15:10:53	0|BlueMatt|if you add it to src, please include a comment noting that this is only active for x9, and someone needs to ping me if they want more
272 2016-10-17 15:11:10	0|sipa|same for my seeder
273 2016-10-17 15:11:17	0|sipa|it supports only a few combinations
274 2016-10-17 15:11:30	0|BlueMatt|ok, should add a comment, then :)
275 2016-10-17 15:11:38	0|achow101|how do i see what nodes the seeder reports for those nodes?
276 2016-10-17 15:11:47	0|achow101|for x9
277 2016-10-17 15:12:07	0|sipa|dig x9.[seedername]
278 2016-10-17 15:12:29	0|achow101|thnx
279 2016-10-17 15:12:49	0|GitHub16|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #8939: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1 (06master...06bips131) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8939
280 2016-10-17 15:16:53	0|sipa|BlueMatt: send PR?
281 2016-10-17 15:22:25	0|BlueMatt|sipa: I'ma add lots o comments
282 2016-10-17 15:22:54	0|sipa|k!
283 2016-10-17 15:23:16	0|BlueMatt|sipa: which does yours support?
284 2016-10-17 15:23:42	0|sipa|x1, x5, x9, x13
285 2016-10-17 15:24:07	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: which does yours support?
286 2016-10-17 15:24:10	0|BlueMatt|I assume the same as sipa?
287 2016-10-17 15:24:22	0|sipa|presumably the same - it's the software default, though it can be configured with a cmdline flag
288 2016-10-17 15:25:18	0|sipa|so NETWORK, NETWORK|BLOOM, NETWORK|WITNESS, NETWORK|BLOOM|WITNESS.
289 2016-10-17 15:26:31	0|achow101|does the current master advertise WITNESS?
290 2016-10-17 15:26:38	0|sipa|yes
291 2016-10-17 15:26:52	0|sipa|it should!
292 2016-10-17 15:27:16	0|GitHub145|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #8940: Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me (06master...062016-10-dnsseed) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8940
293 2016-10-17 15:27:25	0|BlueMatt|sipa: ^
294 2016-10-17 15:27:42	0|achow101|hmm. I don't see my node in the seeders for x9
295 2016-10-17 15:28:05	0|BlueMatt|achow101: lol, they're not /that/ fast to pick up updates
296 2016-10-17 15:28:46	0|sipa|achow101: wait a few days
297 2016-10-17 15:29:06	0|achow101|I've been running builds of master since a very long time ago
298 2016-10-17 15:29:47	0|sipa|master only advertizes NODE_WITNESS since the merge of 8937, 40 minutes ago
299 2016-10-17 15:29:52	0|BlueMatt|achow101: master has only supported it for like the last hour
300 2016-10-17 15:30:25	0|achow101|oh. I thought it advertised it earlier.
301 2016-10-17 15:31:33	0|instagibbs|achow101, NODE_WITNESS is only advertised once bip9 parameters have been defined for a chain
302 2016-10-17 15:32:05	0|achow101|yup. just realized that
303 2016-10-17 15:48:05	0|sipa|"subver": "/Satoshi:0.13.99(Ereshkigal)/",
304 2016-10-17 15:48:09	0|sipa|anyone know what that is?
305 2016-10-17 15:49:07	0|MarcoFalke|just someone setting -uacomment?
306 2016-10-17 15:49:50	0|sipa|there are multiple nodes reporting that
307 2016-10-17 15:49:57	0|wumpus|should be only one, mine
308 2016-10-17 15:50:01	0|sipa|ah
309 2016-10-17 15:50:12	0|MarcoFalke|Anything holding back 8928?
310 2016-10-17 15:50:51	0|sipa|wumpus: i have hereby deanonimized your onion address (i have two connections reporting that, one onion one ipv4)
311 2016-10-17 15:52:10	0|wumpus|good one :-) luckily it's a public node
312 2016-10-17 15:53:05	0|wumpus|though good point on deanonimization using bitcoin user agents, woudl be something to add as warning to onionscan
313 2016-10-17 15:54:43	0|wumpus|though one shouldn't have their node listening on both onion and clearnet if the intention is to hide, I hope we mention that in tor.md
314 2016-10-17 15:55:21	0|sipa|i believe we do
315 2016-10-17 15:57:03	0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: completely focused on 0.13.1 right now, will look later
316 2016-10-17 16:03:36	0|wumpus|sipa: I can't find the commit for #8651 (Predeclare PrecomputedTransactionData as struct) in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8679 , am I missing something or was it squashed into another one?
317 2016-10-17 16:04:16	0|wumpus|(need to manually fix these as they have no Github-Pull header)
318 2016-10-17 16:04:59	0|sipa|wumpus: seems it was squashed
319 2016-10-17 16:05:42	0|wumpus|yes, seems to be part of b8c79a057c48c871a5e48bdcdf600fbfe68f656b, thanks
320 2016-10-17 16:08:31	0|sipa|wumpus: i'll remember to add Github-Pull tags in the future
321 2016-10-17 16:08:43	0|sipa|wumpus: is there some reference for that in the developer notes?
322 2016-10-17 16:09:52	0|wumpus|no, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere, it should be
323 2016-10-17 16:10:41	0|wumpus|I recently wrote my own auto-backport script and there's one by luke-jr floating around, should probably reference at least one of them there then
324 2016-10-17 16:12:36	0|wumpus|anyhow having to sort a few manually is not a big deal, it's a lot of manual work anyway
325 2016-10-17 16:13:40	0|MarcoFalke|I like the script by luke-jr. Makes sure the formatting is consistent and it requires less brain power, so less typos.
326 2016-10-17 16:14:02	0|MarcoFalke|Oh, Is 8939 the last pull before tagging 0.13.1?
327 2016-10-17 16:14:37	0|BlueMatt|also need #8940
328 2016-10-17 16:14:59	0|wumpus|a script does help, it's easy to mistype pull numbers
329 2016-10-17 16:15:33	0|wumpus|they should have an error correcting digit :)
330 2016-10-17 16:16:13	0|btcdrak|wumpus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ereshkigal
331 2016-10-17 16:16:44	0|btcdrak|s/wumpus/sipa/
332 2016-10-17 16:17:04	0|sipa|btcdrak: i had found that myself, but didnt answer who was running the node :)
333 2016-10-17 16:17:24	0|btcdrak|pagans
334 2016-10-17 16:18:43	0|wumpus|releases are still too infrequent to warrant automating a lot of the things, though it would be good for consistency
335 2016-10-17 16:19:14	0|wumpus|btcdrak: :D
336 2016-10-17 16:19:24	0|sipa|we need wumpus.sh, though
337 2016-10-17 16:20:25	0|btcdrak|testnet is running 0.13 now
338 2016-10-17 16:20:43	0|btcdrak|^ mining with
339 2016-10-17 16:20:50	0|sipa|0.13.1?
340 2016-10-17 16:21:34	0|btcdrak|yes
341 2016-10-17 16:22:42	0|btcdrak|cfields_: any update on cgminer?
342 2016-10-17 16:39:31	0|btcdrak|proof reading appreciated please https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/235
343 2016-10-17 16:40:41	0|wumpus|wumpus.sh hah, could at least spawn a few instances in parallel then
344 2016-10-17 16:44:29	0|sipa|btcdrak: will read
345 2016-10-17 16:47:10	0|waxwing|btcdrak: "Despite the keyhash formula is same as" should be "Despite the fact that the .. is the same as"
346 2016-10-17 16:49:07	0|GitHub169|13bitcoin/060.13 147462125 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Fill in changelog and authors in release notes
347 2016-10-17 16:49:07	0|GitHub169|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/7462125724ed3b88de490ab1bc3a4c3bea65fe2d
348 2016-10-17 16:51:02	0|GitHub124|13bitcoin/060.13 14614ef85 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Properly sort authors list
349 2016-10-17 16:51:02	0|GitHub124|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/614ef85ff97602c31f471436004210a74f2d8946
350 2016-10-17 16:52:47	0|waxwing|btcdrak: i think you intended P2SH-P2WSH here: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/235/files#diff-6db9954f8386d196f3fcdc81537ced87R113
351 2016-10-17 16:53:42	0|waxwing|well, for some values of 'you'
352 2016-10-17 16:54:45	0|waxwing|scrip*t*PubKey here: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/235/files#diff-6db9954f8386d196f3fcdc81537ced87R119
353 2016-10-17 16:56:32	0|waxwing|lines 122-124 'permanent(ly)'
354 2016-10-17 16:57:21	0|jl2012|waxing: thanks for reviewing. Sorry for many typos. I'll fix later
355 2016-10-17 16:57:49	0|GitHub61|13bitcoin/06master 140941f55 15Pieter Wuille: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1
356 2016-10-17 16:57:49	0|GitHub61|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c6b959efcf2d...ef3402d9a8cb
357 2016-10-17 16:57:50	0|GitHub61|13bitcoin/06master 14ef3402d 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8939: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1...
358 2016-10-17 16:58:03	0|GitHub44|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8939: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1 (06master...06bips131) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8939
359 2016-10-17 16:58:37	0|waxwing|actually just s/scripPubKey/scriptPubKey/g
360 2016-10-17 17:01:14	0|BlueMatt|sipa: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8940#discussion_r83682480
361 2016-10-17 17:02:35	0|GitHub22|13bitcoin/060.13 1406d15fb 15Pieter Wuille: Update implemented bips for 0.13.1...
362 2016-10-17 17:02:35	0|GitHub22|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/06d15fbea6fafb714f9576664422615704ad05fb
363 2016-10-17 17:13:23	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.13/doc/release-notes.md#notable-changes I guess the segwit activation needs special mention? Is there any text we can take over from any of the FAQs for this?
364 2016-10-17 17:15:21	0|GitHub195|[13bitcoin] 15cdecker opened pull request #8941: Marking filter support for cdecker's DNS seed (06master...06dns-filter) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8941
365 2016-10-17 17:17:06	0|harding|wumpus: I can probably find and adapt something.
366 2016-10-17 17:17:27	0|wumpus|harding: that'd be awesome
367 2016-10-17 17:17:30	0|cdecker|sipa: DNS filtering support added :-)
368 2016-10-17 17:17:44	0|wumpus|cdecker: thanks
369 2016-10-17 17:17:47	0|sipa|cdecker vs BlueMatt: 1-0
370 2016-10-17 17:17:48	0|sipa|;)
371 2016-10-17 17:18:08	0|cdecker|Didn't know it was a competition
372 2016-10-17 17:18:09	0|sipa|(just kidding, i'm amazed you both started working on this immediately)
373 2016-10-17 17:18:16	0|cdecker|But I'll take the point ^^
374 2016-10-17 17:18:54	0|BlueMatt|wait, do you have your own seeder codebase cdecker?
375 2016-10-17 17:19:12	0|cdecker|Yep, I have implemented my own crawler + dns seed
376 2016-10-17 17:19:13	0|BlueMatt|sipa: also, have you seen my seeder codebase? good god its horendous
377 2016-10-17 17:19:27	0|sipa|BlueMatt: thankfully i don't need to
378 2016-10-17 17:19:29	0|cdecker|Same here, I'll have to rework it eventually
379 2016-10-17 17:19:55	0|BlueMatt|I mean I guess its better than the old one...which was based on magicaltux's php half-node and spawned a new process for each node it tested
380 2016-10-17 17:19:57	0|BlueMatt|:p
381 2016-10-17 17:20:10	0|sipa|i knew the php part
382 2016-10-17 17:20:19	0|sipa|i guess you've learned.
383 2016-10-17 17:20:20	0|BlueMatt|also, mysql
384 2016-10-17 17:20:27	0|BlueMatt|lol, not really, now its in java :p
385 2016-10-17 17:20:38	0|wumpus|at least not javascript...
386 2016-10-17 17:20:44	0|Lightsword|I hear javascript is the new big thing
387 2016-10-17 17:21:15	0|sipa|asmjs is almost a decent object format :p
388 2016-10-17 17:21:21	0|cdecker|Oh yeah we should do crypto in JS :D
389 2016-10-17 17:21:39	0|BlueMatt|Lightsword: no, you're thinking of BASIC
390 2016-10-17 17:22:03	0|cdecker|Visual Basic!
391 2016-10-17 17:22:16	0|BlueMatt|cdecker: no, that was never the new big thing
392 2016-10-17 17:22:16	0|Lightsword|BlueMatt, I suggest COBOL, I hear it’s what all the banks use so it must be good :P
393 2016-10-17 17:22:26	0|sipa|can we please not start a flamewar about programming languages? everybody knows that ALGOL was never beaten
394 2016-10-17 17:22:39	0|cdecker|You're right, it's the rock solid foundation we all built upon
395 2016-10-17 17:22:42	0|BlueMatt|sipa: its called a "religious" war
396 2016-10-17 17:23:08	0|sipa|BlueMatt: that'd be emacs vs vi :)
397 2016-10-17 17:23:31	0|BlueMatt|you forgot the m
398 2016-10-17 17:23:33	0|BlueMatt|in vim
399 2016-10-17 17:23:33	0|BlueMatt|:p
400 2016-10-17 17:24:15	0|sipa|BlueMatt: pff, vim == vi improved
401 2016-10-17 17:24:28	0|BlueMatt|sipa: ehh, i guess either is better than mcedit :p
402 2016-10-17 17:24:43	0|sipa|that's right.
403 2016-10-17 17:24:55	0|sipa|you misspelled "neither"
404 2016-10-17 17:25:15	0|Lightsword|why not ed? https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.en.html
405 2016-10-17 17:25:17	0|BlueMatt|cdecker: which flags do you support?
406 2016-10-17 17:25:24	0|sipa|Lightsword: edlin?
407 2016-10-17 17:25:41	0|cdecker|The 4 least significant bits
408 2016-10-17 17:25:48	0|cdecker|Any combination thereof
409 2016-10-17 17:26:00	0|BlueMatt|argh, you broke my scheme
410 2016-10-17 17:26:10	0|cdecker|So x5 and x13 are included
411 2016-10-17 17:26:24	0|BlueMatt|cdecker: so x1 - x13?
412 2016-10-17 17:26:31	0|sipa|x1-x15
413 2016-10-17 17:26:39	0|cdecker|Yep
414 2016-10-17 17:26:41	0|BlueMatt|yea, thats what i said
415 2016-10-17 17:26:43	0|BlueMatt|x1-x15
416 2016-10-17 17:27:05	0|GitHub15|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #8942: [doc] 0.13.1: Minor clarification to release notes (060.13...06Mf1610-131doc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8942
417 2016-10-17 17:27:09	0|cdecker|Well x0 actually also replies, but is equal to no filter
418 2016-10-17 17:27:31	0|sipa|i always require NODE_NETWORK, so nothing is equivalent to x1
419 2016-10-17 17:28:21	0|cdecker|Hm, haven't found a node without that bit set yet, I'm sure someone broke it somewhere xD
420 2016-10-17 17:28:40	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: ok, merged the two
421 2016-10-17 17:28:58	0|wumpus|thanks!
422 2016-10-17 17:29:06	0|GitHub157|13bitcoin/060.13 14fa161e8 15MarcoFalke: [doc] 0.13.1: Minor clarification to release notes
423 2016-10-17 17:29:06	0|GitHub157|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/06d15fbea6fa...498e950daaf3
424 2016-10-17 17:29:06	0|GitHub96|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8942: [doc] 0.13.1: Minor clarification to release notes (060.13...06Mf1610-131doc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8942
425 2016-10-17 17:29:07	0|GitHub157|13bitcoin/060.13 14498e950 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8942: [doc] 0.13.1: Minor clarification to release notes...
426 2016-10-17 17:29:16	0|BlueMatt|cdecker: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8940/commits/dc1edd8c93ec5b17f5de9bd48e3b2276866ec2b1
427 2016-10-17 17:29:30	0|GitHub85|[13bitcoin] 15cdecker closed pull request #8941: Marking filter support for cdecker's DNS seed (06master...06dns-filter) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8941
428 2016-10-17 17:30:02	0|wumpus|this leaves MarcoFalke's remark about sipa's seeder - any explanation why it wouldn't respond to x13?
429 2016-10-17 17:30:30	0|sipa|hmm
430 2016-10-17 17:30:31	0|cdecker|Does it reply to x8?
431 2016-10-17 17:30:33	0|sipa|i just responded
432 2016-10-17 17:30:36	0|sipa|but i'm confused myself
433 2016-10-17 17:30:38	0|sipa|let me check
434 2016-10-17 17:31:03	0|sipa|sigh
435 2016-10-17 17:31:15	0|sipa|13 would xd.seed.bitcoin.sipa.be
436 2016-10-17 17:31:18	0|sipa|not x13
437 2016-10-17 17:32:02	0|sipa|BlueMatt: ^
438 2016-10-17 17:32:31	0|BlueMatt|cdecker: so you reply to 0x1 - 0xf, right?
439 2016-10-17 17:32:50	0|cdecker|Darn, I'm using the decimal representation
440 2016-10-17 17:33:04	0|sipa|cdecker: no worries, it works for x9 :)
441 2016-10-17 17:33:23	0|wumpus|heh, it would have been more clear if we had padded to 64 bits
442 2016-10-17 17:33:36	0|sipa|waste of bandwidth!!!!1
443 2016-10-17 17:33:39	0|cdecker|So wait, which one is the format to implement? Hex or decimal
444 2016-10-17 17:33:44	0|wumpus|hex
445 2016-10-17 17:33:54	0|cdecker|Ok, give me a minute
446 2016-10-17 17:34:11	0|sipa|^ not a blocker
447 2016-10-17 17:34:11	0|wumpus|sorry for the confusion, I had forgot too
448 2016-10-17 17:34:30	0|BlueMatt|ok, fixed the text to indicate hex everyhwere
449 2016-10-17 17:35:01	0|cdecker|Fixed and restarted
450 2016-10-17 17:38:19	0|GitHub190|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ef3402d9a8cb...763828df499f
451 2016-10-17 17:38:20	0|GitHub190|13bitcoin/06master 14504c72a 15Matt Corallo: Comment that most dnsseeds only support some service bits combos
452 2016-10-17 17:38:20	0|GitHub190|13bitcoin/06master 14ffb4713 15Matt Corallo: Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me
453 2016-10-17 17:38:21	0|GitHub190|13bitcoin/06master 142449e12 15Christian Decker: My DNS seed supports filtering...
454 2016-10-17 17:38:34	0|GitHub161|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8940: Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me (06master...062016-10-dnsseed) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8940
455 2016-10-17 17:38:52	0|BlueMatt|phew, back to 100% on 0.13.1
456 2016-10-17 17:44:28	0|GitHub87|13bitcoin/060.13 143d770a8 15Matt Corallo: Add x9 service bit support to dnsseed.bluematt.me...
457 2016-10-17 17:44:28	0|GitHub87|13bitcoin/060.13 149aa0c15 15Matt Corallo: Comment that most dnsseeds only support some service bits combos...
458 2016-10-17 17:44:28	0|GitHub87|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/498e950daaf3...5b4192bc4c40
459 2016-10-17 17:44:29	0|GitHub87|13bitcoin/060.13 145b4192b 15Christian Decker: My DNS seed supports filtering...
460 2016-10-17 17:51:25	0|GitHub171|13bitcoin/060.13 14e1169b0 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Update release notes for last-minute pulls
461 2016-10-17 17:51:25	0|GitHub171|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/e1169b052991671db1043f432a85b31f9245a4c2
462 2016-10-17 17:51:55	0|wumpus|time to tag 0.13.0rc1? would be a shame to hold it up on the release notes, those can be updates right until -final anyway
463 2016-10-17 17:52:01	0|wumpus|0.13.1rc1*
464 2016-10-17 17:52:04	0|btcdrak|do it!
465 2016-10-17 17:52:14	0|btcdrak|I just fired up my gitian VM in anticipation
466 2016-10-17 17:53:35	0|harding|I'll be done it about 5 minutes.
467 2016-10-17 17:54:05	0|wumpus|harding: then we'll wait for you, I need to run pre-release tests anyway
468 2016-10-17 17:54:17	0|MarcoFalke|Oh I should have started caching for gitian yesterday..
469 2016-10-17 17:56:01	0|wumpus|its not a competition :p
470 2016-10-17 17:57:59	0|GitHub18|[13bitcoin] 15harding opened pull request #8943: Release notes: add info about segwit and null dummy soft forks (060.13...06notable-change-segwit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8943
471 2016-10-17 18:08:39	0|btcdrak|MarcoFalke: for Travis?
472 2016-10-17 18:09:38	0|MarcoFalke|btcdrak: gitian will cache the depends dir, so it will run faster if you do it the day before rc1 :P
473 2016-10-17 18:20:48	0|achow101|MarcoFalke: doesn't the cache persist across builds? When I run the cacheing command again it doesn't actually do anything since everything is already there
474 2016-10-17 18:24:17	0|MarcoFalke|Yes, it does. But usually some of the depends are bumped, so the compiled and cached ones are no longer valid.
475 2016-10-17 18:24:45	0|achow101|did we bump any depends this time?
476 2016-10-17 18:25:32	0|achow101|nvm, we did with boost for windows waking
477 2016-10-17 18:26:16	0|wumpus|looks like travis is failing on 0.13 brnach
478 2016-10-17 18:27:40	0|wumpus|linux 64 bits, no clear error https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/168377467
479 2016-10-17 18:28:10	0|wumpus|"Running test/bitcoin-util-test.py..."
480 2016-10-17 18:28:47	0|MarcoFalke|Should we backport the "run prevector tests faster"
481 2016-10-17 18:28:50	0|MarcoFalke|?
482 2016-10-17 18:29:10	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: we'll need to do a lot of release note work for 0.13.1 in any case. It would be stupid to hold it now.
483 2016-10-17 18:29:14	0|wumpus|well if it's just a problem with the tests I don't care, can fix that at any time later
484 2016-10-17 18:29:39	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: for example, we need to have a section on miner software compatiblity... and I expect that some of the things we'd list won't be done until after rc1.
485 2016-10-17 18:29:47	0|MarcoFalke|But we should understand the failure, ideally.
486 2016-10-17 18:30:07	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: agreed
487 2016-10-17 18:30:58	0|wumpus|just going to tag now (before I go to bed), if there's any problems we'll just do another rc...
488 2016-10-17 18:31:09	0|gmaxwell|\O/
489 2016-10-17 18:31:21	0|gmaxwell|RC's are free, esp when we don't even put up binaries for them. :P
490 2016-10-17 18:31:41	0|wumpus|it will at least get people to actually test
491 2016-10-17 18:31:46	0|wumpus|yep
492 2016-10-17 18:33:28	0|wumpus|* [new tag]         v0.13.1rc1 -> v0.13.1rc1
493 2016-10-17 18:34:36	0|achow101|yay!
494 2016-10-17 18:37:29	0|gmaxwell|because of the preferential peering, y'all should upgrade your own nodes ASAP, if you're not on a very current master or on 0.13.1rc1
495 2016-10-17 18:40:21	0|wumpus|ah yes good point still need to update my own nodes post-f9c23de
496 2016-10-17 18:42:21	0|btcdrak|upgraded and building
497 2016-10-17 18:44:16	0|achow101|gmaxwell: cobra merged the alert announcement to bitcoin.org. The date for the alert is set to tomorrow. Should that still happen or should it be pushed back a bit?
498 2016-10-17 18:45:25	0|gmaxwell|achow101: with 0.13.1rc1 tagged now, I'd like to push it until after the 0.13.1release.
499 2016-10-17 18:46:32	0|achow101|I'll make another pr for that. Just set the date to "After 0.13.1 is released" instead of a hard date.
500 2016-10-17 18:47:48	0|gmaxwell|sorry for adding delays. :)
501 2016-10-17 18:49:55	0|wumpus|well at least I don't think anyone is waiting for that one :)
502 2016-10-17 18:50:10	0|wumpus|makes sense to prioritize 0.13.1
503 2016-10-17 18:51:21	0|gmaxwell|well I don't want to encourage a wave of updating to 0.13.0 now, since we've seen tolerance effects before (people update slower to a release if its sooner to their last upgrade)
504 2016-10-17 18:58:02	0|BlueMatt|^ while I get why, this is fucked up...if something comes out really quickly after the last its probably a) an easy, small, update, and b) liekly has security hotfixes
505 2016-10-17 19:03:53	0|btcdrak|achow101: the alert has actually gone live on the bitcoin.org RSS feeds....
506 2016-10-17 19:04:01	0|btcdrak|It's just pinged up in Slack for example...
507 2016-10-17 19:04:03	0|achow101|yes, it has
508 2016-10-17 19:04:20	0|achow101|that happens when it goes live on bitcoin.org.
509 2016-10-17 19:10:47	0|sipa|gmaxwell: yup, already upgraded my node, and seen it appear on my fikteree seed
510 2016-10-17 19:10:52	0|sipa|*filtered
511 2016-10-17 19:14:08	0|gmaxwell|I'm also seeing a lot of my connection slots eaten up by spynodes.  Here is the banlist I've created: http://0bin.net/paste/0Zo6iK2ZFLcryvGp#SQiUU268nld78Z1aMJG4GRwBjXpD4rasRP266adp7-+
512 2016-10-17 19:14:15	0|achow101|given that we don't want people to upgrade yet, it would probably be a good idea to take down the alert post for now, yes?
513 2016-10-17 19:14:46	0|gmaxwell|achow101: ugh. yea, I didn't want that with a banner up on bitcoin.org
514 2016-10-17 19:15:36	0|gmaxwell|achow101: crap.
515 2016-10-17 19:15:38	0|gmaxwell|damnit.
516 2016-10-17 19:16:02	0|achow101|wasn't expecting cobra to be so active today
517 2016-10-17 19:23:10	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: number of connections went from 54 to 14 after applying that banlist :)
518 2016-10-17 19:32:19	0|kanzure|oh crud, he merged because of the ACK probably
519 2016-10-17 19:32:56	0|achow101|he merged probably because of the multiple previous ACKs and then we didn't tell him not to merge today
520 2016-10-17 19:34:50	0|achow101|well it's gone now, so that's good (I guess)
521 2016-10-17 19:42:25	0|sipa|who merged what?
522 2016-10-17 19:42:49	0|Lauda|Alert key warning on Bitcoin.org
523 2016-10-17 19:43:10	0|achow101|cobra merged the post about the prefinal alert on bitcoin.org a few minutes after rc1 was tagged
524 2016-10-17 19:43:21	0|sipa|ah
525 2016-10-17 19:52:58	0|gmaxwell|hm. /r/bitcoin could set the automoderator to automatically hide posts from non verified submitters for moderator approval that contain the string "Bitcoin.*Core.*releas"
526 2016-10-17 19:59:44	0|wumpus|that's kind of smart
527 2016-10-17 20:00:46	0|wumpus|avoids the most straightforward attack of someone falsely announcing a release, at least
528 2016-10-17 20:19:16	0|BlueMatt|aaaaannnndddd segfault with 0.13.1
529 2016-10-17 20:19:44	0|achow101|oh?
530 2016-10-17 20:20:03	0|BlueMatt|lol, feelers broke addnode
531 2016-10-17 20:20:28	0|BlueMatt|excuse me, not segfault, assert
532 2016-10-17 20:21:34	0|sipa|BlueMatt: which is why we have rcs :)
533 2016-10-17 20:21:52	0|BlueMatt|net.cpp:        assert(nOutbound <= (MAX_OUTBOUND_CONNECTIONS + MAX_FEELER_CONNECTIONS)); is bogus if you use addnode
534 2016-10-17 20:29:00	0|wumpus|is that just on 0.13.1 or also on master?
535 2016-10-17 20:29:18	0|wumpus|please don't tell me that we have no tests for addnode, and no one tried it since feeler was merged :(
536 2016-10-17 20:29:41	0|sipa|i have addnodes
537 2016-10-17 20:29:44	0|GitHub67|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #8944: Remove bogus assert on number of oubound connections. (06master...062016-10-bad-assert) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8944
538 2016-10-17 20:29:56	0|sipa|and i've been running master for a long time
539 2016-10-17 20:30:00	0|sipa|i see no assert fail
540 2016-10-17 20:30:01	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: I dont know how anyone could have used addnode after their node has been running and not have hit this
541 2016-10-17 20:30:09	0|BlueMatt|if they have addnodes in bitcoin.conf they would likely not have
542 2016-10-17 20:30:11	0|sipa|oh, you mean addnode rpc?
543 2016-10-17 20:30:14	0|BlueMatt|yes
544 2016-10-17 20:30:22	0|sipa|yeah, i think you're the only user for that :)
545 2016-10-17 20:30:23	0|BlueMatt|or an addnode which was offline and then came up after running
546 2016-10-17 20:31:22	0|BlueMatt|i just wanted to addnode other segwit peers :(
547 2016-10-17 20:31:27	0|achow101|just tried it on master and I don't see a problem
548 2016-10-17 20:31:34	0|achow101|It just returns null
549 2016-10-17 20:31:37	0|BlueMatt|achow101: addnode onetry a few times
550 2016-10-17 20:31:39	0|BlueMatt|to different nodes
551 2016-10-17 20:32:01	0|wumpus|is that assertion new?
552 2016-10-17 20:32:05	0|BlueMatt|yes
553 2016-10-17 20:32:18	0|BlueMatt|blame on 0.13.1 shows it as from 2611ad79a5d53e2ce1535b342a9b72c2888a6c3f
554 2016-10-17 20:32:24	0|BlueMatt|which is feelers
555 2016-10-17 20:32:58	0|achow101|oh. I think I see now. It just crashed on me after I did it a few times
556 2016-10-17 20:33:01	0|sipa|i don't understand why addnode breaks that assertion
557 2016-10-17 20:33:15	0|sipa|i'd say something is broken with addnode then
558 2016-10-17 20:33:21	0|BlueMatt|because addnode will result in you having $ADDNODE_COUNT + $ORIGINAL_OUTBOUND_COUNT outbound peers
559 2016-10-17 20:33:34	0|BlueMatt|the addnode peers are not marked fInbound (because they are not inbound0
560 2016-10-17 20:33:35	0|BlueMatt|)
561 2016-10-17 20:33:50	0|wumpus|I think it used to be the case that addnode wouldn't allow you to create more outbound connections than allowed
562 2016-10-17 20:33:55	0|sipa|addnode doesn't respect the max outgoing connection count?
563 2016-10-17 20:34:05	0|BlueMatt|sipa: no it doesnt
564 2016-10-17 20:34:07	0|BlueMatt|why would it
565 2016-10-17 20:34:09	0|wumpus|I don't think an assertion is the right way to enforce that, though
566 2016-10-17 20:34:11	0|sipa|didn't we fix that?
567 2016-10-17 20:34:13	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: im rather confident that is not the case
568 2016-10-17 20:34:33	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: so addnode allowes you to create, say, 100 outgoing connections?
569 2016-10-17 20:34:37	0|BlueMatt|yes
570 2016-10-17 20:34:40	0|wumpus|blegh
571 2016-10-17 20:34:49	0|BlueMatt|it would be massively surprising behavior for it not to
572 2016-10-17 20:34:53	0|wumpus|that limit exists for a reason
573 2016-10-17 20:34:57	0|BlueMatt|what if I want to peer with the 10 other nodes that I run?
574 2016-10-17 20:35:03	0|sipa|ThreadOpenAddedConnections uses semOutbound
575 2016-10-17 20:35:14	0|sipa|ah, no
576 2016-10-17 20:35:22	0|sipa|it does, but doesn't check the result
577 2016-10-17 20:35:53	0|sipa|i remember
578 2016-10-17 20:36:52	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: yes with that reasoning it makes some sense
579 2016-10-17 20:37:06	0|wumpus|though I don't htink anyone but you was understanding this implication
580 2016-10-17 20:37:18	0|BlueMatt|addnode does, however, result in your node making fewer other outbound connections, which i think is (mostly) reasonable
581 2016-10-17 20:37:28	0|BlueMatt|though it might be nice to lower-bound that (to, say, 2 or 3)
582 2016-10-17 20:37:39	0|BlueMatt|because you might addnode yourself into a sybil
583 2016-10-17 20:37:48	0|BlueMatt|where you only connect outbound to yourself
584 2016-10-17 20:38:06	0|sipa|or always treat the outgoing connections as using a connection slot, unless the peer knows you specifically (whitelist/bip150/...)
585 2016-10-17 20:38:46	0|BlueMatt|hey, my node found a segwit peer of its own volition
586 2016-10-17 20:38:50	0|BlueMatt|well, unless that person addnode'd me
587 2016-10-17 20:39:13	0|sipa|addnode=192.99.46.190
588 2016-10-17 20:39:13	0|sipa|addnode=eu.ng.bitcoinrelaynetwork.org
589 2016-10-17 20:39:13	0|sipa|addnode=nns4r54x3lfbrkq5.onion
590 2016-10-17 20:39:13	0|sipa|addnode=t3x2266jvxpwwwzq.onion
591 2016-10-17 20:39:21	0|sipa|are you any of those?
592 2016-10-17 20:39:38	0|BlueMatt|198.251.83.19
593 2016-10-17 20:39:38	0|BlueMatt|dig +short public-seed.bluematt.me
594 2016-10-17 20:39:39	0|BlueMatt|no
595 2016-10-17 20:40:48	0|Lightsword|is there any way to do “bitcoin-cli getblocktemplate” with segwit active?
596 2016-10-17 20:43:41	0|sipa|Lightsword: you need to pass some extra parameter to indicate the miner supports segwit
597 2016-10-17 20:43:56	0|Lightsword|sipa, how do I do that with bitcoin-cli?
598 2016-10-17 20:45:27	0|sipa|$ ./bitcoin-cli -testnet getblocktemplate '{"rules":["segwit"]}'
599 2016-10-17 20:46:18	0|wumpus|seems that's not documented in the help for the request
600 2016-10-17 20:46:44	0|wumpus|just 'capabilities' and 'mode'; 'rules' is only shown as a reply field
601 2016-10-17 20:46:58	0|sipa|indeed
602 2016-10-17 20:47:07	0|sipa|though the help text does refer to https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki#getblocktemplate_changes
603 2016-10-17 20:47:15	0|Lightsword|would it make sense to just have bitcoin-cli pass the segwit rules by default?
604 2016-10-17 20:47:20	0|Lightsword|so that scripts don’t get broken
605 2016-10-17 20:47:30	0|Lightsword|since nobody is actually going to mine using bitcoin-cli
606 2016-10-17 20:47:34	0|sipa|Lightsword: it's intended to break things
607 2016-10-17 20:47:46	0|sipa|as clients need to explicitly make changes to support segwit
608 2016-10-17 20:48:01	0|Lightsword|intended to break bitcoin-cli? yes I know it breaks clients intentionally
609 2016-10-17 20:48:48	0|btcdrak|wumpus: I see your asserts in the gitian.sigs repo but not signatures.
610 2016-10-17 20:49:00	0|sipa|well it should equally break those scripts, right? even if they're not used for mining directly, if they're not modified, some things may silently break when segwit activates
611 2016-10-17 20:49:35	0|sipa|but we should update the help output
612 2016-10-17 20:50:26	0|wumpus|btcdrak: eh yes, added
613 2016-10-17 20:50:27	0|Lightsword|sipa, I assume most would just use it for checking if a transaction is going to be mined next block
614 2016-10-17 21:01:03	0|BlueMatt|I complained about this months ago
615 2016-10-17 21:03:04	0|BlueMatt|well, a month ago
616 2016-10-17 21:04:05	0|wumpus|connected to four witness nodes already
617 2016-10-17 21:04:34	0|BlueMatt|7
618 2016-10-17 21:04:34	0|BlueMatt|dig +short x9.dnsseed.bluematt.me | wc -l
619 2016-10-17 21:06:54	0|GitHub170|[13bitcoin] 15Michagogo opened pull request #8947: Add historical release notes for v0.13.0 (060.13...060.13) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8947
620 2016-10-17 21:07:38	0|michagogo|Er, wait a sec
621 2016-10-17 21:07:56	0|michagogo|master's historical release notes for 0.13.0 don't match release-notes.md in the v0.13.0 tag
622 2016-10-17 21:08:08	0|michagogo|+- #8072 `1b87e5b` Travis: 'make check' in parallel and verbose (MarcoFalke)
623 2016-10-17 21:08:08	0|michagogo|-- #8072 `1b87e5b` Travis: 'make check' in parallel and verbose (theuni)
624 2016-10-17 21:08:19	0|BlueMatt|heh
625 2016-10-17 21:09:12	0|wumpus|that happens, some people update the release notes on master
626 2016-10-17 21:09:32	0|wumpus|it's too late to update them on the tag so they update the historical release notes, I also find that curious, but meh
627 2016-10-17 21:10:12	0|BlueMatt|clearly MarcoFalke and cfields_ are in a commit-count feud
628 2016-10-17 21:10:30	0|cfields_|eh?
629 2016-10-17 21:11:20	0|btcdrak|ha
630 2016-10-17 21:11:20	0|gmaxwell|Lightsword: there is some risk that some genius is mining using system('bitcoin-cli getblocktemplate').
631 2016-10-17 21:11:55	0|gmaxwell|I don't know how great that risk is... but one thing I've learned is to not underestimate the liklyhood of someone doing something crazy, so long as it works.
632 2016-10-17 21:12:36	0|cfields_|gmaxwell: agreed. That sounds like exactly something someone might do as a quick hack, then forgets to clean up and it ends up in production
633 2016-10-17 21:12:53	0|wumpus|also passing arguments automatically from -cli is going to confuse people
634 2016-10-17 21:13:06	0|MarcoFalke|michagogo: The diff should be inversed :P
635 2016-10-17 21:13:09	0|Lightsword|gmaxwell, that sounds very unlikely since most pools are based off of open source software and none does that
636 2016-10-17 21:14:00	0|sipa|Lightsword: how about we add an RPC to just list what txids would be mined?
637 2016-10-17 21:14:08	0|wumpus|the bitcoin-cli API has been kept as close to the RPC API as used by other languages as possible, the only difference is the 'parse this as string or not' bit
638 2016-10-17 21:14:09	0|sipa|BlueMatt: complained about what?
639 2016-10-17 21:14:11	0|gmaxwell|Lightsword: most hashpower has previously been doing things that no open source software does...
640 2016-10-17 21:14:21	0|cfields_|Lightsword: i haven't had a single pool willing to let me poke at their production code...
641 2016-10-17 21:14:59	0|Lightsword|sipa, that would be better since full transactions aren’t needed most of the time when using cli
642 2016-10-17 21:15:08	0|BlueMatt|sipa: lack of getblocktemplate documentation in rpc help
643 2016-10-17 21:15:37	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: you should have created an issue like I just did
644 2016-10-17 21:15:43	0|BlueMatt|this is true
645 2016-10-17 21:15:44	0|gmaxwell|I'd love an RPC that would let me ask for a block of an arbritary weight limit. ... and also only returns the ids, and some extra fields like the total amount of fees.
646 2016-10-17 21:16:12	0|Lightsword|cfields_, kano.is is essentially the open source stock ckpool, mine is a minor patchset(most of my changes are webif related)
647 2016-10-17 21:16:40	0|Lightsword|cfields_, btc.com should be open source
648 2016-10-17 21:16:50	0|Lightsword|https://github.com/btccom/btcpool
649 2016-10-17 21:18:01	0|Lightsword|gmaxwell, btc.com pool software there is a public example of a how the stratum based validationless mining software works
650 2016-10-17 21:18:11	0|Lightsword|https://github.com/btccom/btcpool/tree/master/src/poolwatcher
651 2016-10-17 21:19:13	0|sipa|wumpus, MarcoFalke: ha, 3 identical issues simultabeously
652 2016-10-17 21:19:29	0|MarcoFalke|heh
653 2016-10-17 21:19:43	0|Lightsword|btw the btc.com pool software is based off of bitcoin core(an old version 0.8.something)
654 2016-10-17 21:20:22	0|wumpus|lol
655 2016-10-17 21:20:46	0|sipa|Lightsword: wah
656 2016-10-17 21:21:10	0|BlueMatt|whyyyyy
657 2016-10-17 21:21:10	0|Lightsword|very heavially modified of course
658 2016-10-17 21:21:49	0|achow101_|I wonder how that will react to an alert..
659 2016-10-17 21:22:11	0|gmaxwell|achow101_: 0.8 didn't do anything with the alerts except display them and relay them.
660 2016-10-17 21:22:21	0|Lightsword|that part was all stripped out
661 2016-10-17 21:22:35	0|Lightsword|I think it’s mostly just the serialization stuff that was kept
662 2016-10-17 21:22:48	0|sipa|ah, ok
663 2016-10-17 21:23:10	0|Lightsword|by based off of I mean, took lots of code from 0.8 and built a real pool around it
664 2016-10-17 21:25:16	0|michagogo|MarcoFalke: is this better?
665 2016-10-17 21:25:36	0|michagogo|(fixed it myself, then went to the PR page and saw something about you requesting changes... what does that mean?)
666 2016-10-17 21:26:24	0|michagogo|Oh, this is that upgraded review thing GH launched a while back
667 2016-10-17 21:26:36	0|michagogo|I forgot about that, haven't seen it in action yet
668 2016-10-17 21:26:48	0|michagogo|Looks like I broke it with my --amend :-/
669 2016-10-17 21:41:18	0|michagogo|Can someone remind me: was there a process for trivial PRs?
670 2016-10-17 21:41:26	0|michagogo|Some other branch/fork or something?
671 2016-10-17 21:41:46	0|michagogo|(I feel like there was, but I don't remember where/what)
672 2016-10-17 21:42:09	0|wumpus|there was in the past, but there is no longer
673 2016-10-17 21:42:40	0|sipa|gmaxwell: sounds useful
674 2016-10-17 21:57:27	0|gmaxwell|why is my 0.13.1rc checkout claiming to be Bitcoin version v0.13.0.0-e1169b0  ? did we not bump the version?
675 2016-10-17 22:00:56	0|BlueMatt|yes
676 2016-10-17 22:02:20	0|gmaxwell|I wonder if we need to add a 'witnessconnections" to getnetworkinfo?
677 2016-10-17 22:02:43	0|gmaxwell|it's going to be a pita to support people who are witness partitioned when right not checking for it requires inspecting all of the getpeerinfo output.
678 2016-10-17 22:06:15	0|michagogo|wumpus: so just a regular PR?
679 2016-10-17 22:06:58	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: if you do, at least add a connection # per service bit, instead of special-casing witness
680 2016-10-17 22:08:09	0|wumpus|michagogo: sure
681 2016-10-17 22:08:28	0|wumpus|yes, we forgot to bump the version
682 2016-10-17 22:09:51	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: okay, though witness is special due to preferential connection and block fetching restrictions.
683 2016-10-17 22:10:11	0|gmaxwell|With segwit active, a node with witness connection 0 is really no less partitioned from the network than one with connections 0.
684 2016-10-17 22:10:12	0|wumpus|yes, many more may be special in the future
685 2016-10-17 22:10:16	0|gmaxwell|True.
686 2016-10-17 22:10:52	0|wumpus|it will look like a bad design decision in the future to special-case anything now, no matter how important it looks, trust me
687 2016-10-17 22:11:00	0|michagogo|Okay, sigs up: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gitian.sigs/pull/407
688 2016-10-17 22:11:01	0|gmaxwell|uh hm. so another peer that I updated, shows Bitcoin version v0.13.1rc1
689 2016-10-17 22:11:06	0|gmaxwell|s/peer/node/
690 2016-10-17 22:11:41	0|gmaxwell|now I am mystifie.d
691 2016-10-17 22:11:46	0|wumpus|just a map of {version_bit: count} histogram would work, you could leave out those that are 0
692 2016-10-17 22:12:12	0|gmaxwell|alternatively letting getpeerinfo take a mask like the dnsseeds would also work.
693 2016-10-17 22:12:40	0|wumpus|yes
694 2016-10-17 22:17:08	0|GitHub131|[13bitcoin] 15Michagogo opened pull request #8948: [TRIVIAL] reorder Windows gitian build order to match Linux (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8948
695 2016-10-17 22:17:12	0|GitHub81|13bitcoin/060.13 14a5cef7b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Bump version to 0.13.1
696 2016-10-17 22:17:12	0|GitHub81|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a5cef7b0777f13ac83312759ebf576c9d773599f
697 2016-10-17 22:19:32	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: if it reports v0.13.1rc1 it must hav gotten the tag version from git, there is no other way it can know it is an rc
698 2016-10-17 22:19:52	0|wumpus|(or that it is 0.13.1 without ^)
699 2016-10-17 22:20:03	0|gmaxwell|yea, it must have gotten it from git.
700 2016-10-17 22:21:11	0|michagogo|(Release notes are still in flux, right? I see there are references to it being 0.13.x...)
701 2016-10-17 22:21:28	0|wumpus|michagogo: release notes can be updated until -final
702 2016-10-17 22:21:52	0|wumpus|michagogo: (or, according to some people, even after that as 'historical release notes' in master...)
703 2016-10-17 22:22:35	0|michagogo|Should I assume the .x in the header will be fixed as part of a cleanup before final tag? Or should I PR that myself?
704 2016-10-17 22:22:55	0|wumpus|probably better to not assume anything and just do it yourself
705 2016-10-17 22:23:35	0|wumpus|although you should check harding 's pull, he may have already changed some things
706 2016-10-17 22:25:03	0|michagogo|Ah, yep
707 2016-10-17 22:25:04	0|michagogo|He got it
708 2016-10-17 22:25:13	0|michagogo|Good call
709 2016-10-17 22:26:34	0|gmaxwell|Found another tidbit for SW deployment guide:  do not addnode= or connect= yourself to only non-witness peers...
710 2016-10-17 22:27:25	0|BlueMatt|oh, yea, that'd be bad
711 2016-10-17 22:28:40	0|GitHub152|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/a5cef7b0777f...c418c0550db3
712 2016-10-17 22:28:41	0|GitHub152|13bitcoin/060.13 142de93f0 15David A. Harding: Relase notes: correct segwit activation point
713 2016-10-17 22:28:41	0|GitHub152|13bitcoin/060.13 145f9c7b0 15David A. Harding: Release notes: add info about segwit and null dummy soft forks...
714 2016-10-17 22:28:41	0|GitHub47|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8943: Release notes: add info about segwit and null dummy soft forks (060.13...06notable-change-segwit) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8943
715 2016-10-17 22:28:42	0|GitHub152|13bitcoin/060.13 14bf86073 15David A. Harding: Release notes: correct segwit signalling period start conditions...
716 2016-10-17 22:31:30	0|wumpus|would it make sense to add a alert condition when only connected to non-witness peers?
717 2016-10-17 22:31:47	0|BlueMatt|yes
718 2016-10-17 22:31:57	0|BlueMatt|though this is default for most nodes until the network upgrades
719 2016-10-17 22:32:00	0|BlueMatt|so that would suck :/
720 2016-10-17 22:32:31	0|wumpus|I guess it should only trigger when it actually becomes a concern, e.g. segwit about to activate
721 2016-10-17 22:33:04	0|wumpus|not right after installing 0.13.1
722 2016-10-17 22:33:05	0|BlueMatt|yea, i mean gate it on locked-in state
723 2016-10-17 22:34:01	0|wumpus|though I wonder if it'll still be a common problem at that point
724 2016-10-17 22:34:38	0|wumpus|if people haven't upgraded to 0.13.1+ en masse by then there's another problem
725 2016-10-17 22:41:14	0|BlueMatt|i would not be surprised if we see increasing sybil attacks over the coming month(s)
726 2016-10-17 22:48:08	0|gmaxwell|right now its very easy to end up in this state. I'm going to open a PR to improve it some for discussion.
727 2016-10-17 22:48:23	0|gmaxwell|(just waiting for tests to run before opening it)
728 2016-10-17 22:53:54	0|michagogo|achow101: Interesting. I have LXC set up and it seems to work for me
729 2016-10-17 22:54:06	0|michagogo|In what way does it fail for you?
730 2016-10-17 23:19:35	0|GitHub89|[13bitcoin] 15gmaxwell opened pull request #8949: Be more agressive in getting connections to peers with relevant services. (06master...06more_agressive_witness_connect) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8949
731 2016-10-17 23:33:18	0|tulip|the v0.13.1rc1 tag doesn't have the subver updated, but the 0.13 branch does; confused me for a second.