1 2016-11-03 00:30:27	0|GitHub32|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #9071: Declare wallet.h functions inline (06master...06walletinline) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9071
  2 2016-11-03 01:11:56	0|luke-jr|hmm, CAddrMan::Unserialize is insane slow in valgrind
  3 2016-11-03 03:41:27	0|rebroad|I've enabled debugging and I'm seeing POTENTIAL DEADLOCK DETECTED messages... are these bad?
  4 2016-11-03 06:36:47	0|GitHub5|13bitcoin/06master 140fdf810 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: wallet: Change default confirm target from 2 to 6...
  5 2016-11-03 06:36:47	0|GitHub5|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c9bdf9a75f9f...ed0cc50afed1
  6 2016-11-03 06:36:48	0|GitHub5|13bitcoin/06master 14ed0cc50 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #9036: wallet: Change default confirm target from 2 to 6...
  7 2016-11-03 06:37:01	0|GitHub44|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #9036: wallet: Change default confirm target from 2 to 6 (06master...062016_10_txconfirmtarget) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9036
  8 2016-11-03 07:09:21	0|GitHub46|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ed0cc50afed1...508404de98a8
  9 2016-11-03 07:09:22	0|GitHub46|13bitcoin/06master 142082b55 15Gregory Maxwell: Remove GetTotalBlocksEstimate and checkpoint tests that test nothing....
 10 2016-11-03 07:09:22	0|GitHub46|13bitcoin/06master 14fd46136 15Gregory Maxwell: IBD check uses minimumchain work instead of checkpoints....
 11 2016-11-03 07:09:23	0|GitHub46|13bitcoin/06master 14e141beb 15Gregory Maxwell: IsInitialBlockDownload no longer uses header-only timestamps....
 12 2016-11-03 07:09:30	0|GitHub127|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #9053: IBD using chainwork instead of height and not using header timestamps (06master...06no_checkpoint_for_ibd) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9053
 13 2016-11-03 09:14:50	0|GitHub156|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9061: Ignore getheaders prior to passing all checkpoints. (06master...06FixGetheadersResponseWhenSyncing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9061
 14 2016-11-03 09:22:39	0|luke-jr|lol 2016-11-03 08:34:25 Flushed 65607 addresses to peers.dat  13896962ms
 15 2016-11-03 09:22:42	0|GitHub127|13bitcoin/06master 142ca882a 15Pieter Wuille: Declare wallet.h functions inline
 16 2016-11-03 09:22:42	0|GitHub127|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/508404de98a8...d1871da7fe63
 17 2016-11-03 09:22:43	0|GitHub127|13bitcoin/06master 14d1871da 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9071: Declare wallet.h functions inline...
 18 2016-11-03 09:22:51	0|GitHub139|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9071: Declare wallet.h functions inline (06master...06walletinline) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9071
 19 2016-11-03 09:45:43	0|GitHub52|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d1871da7fe63...fcf61b80fa2c
 20 2016-11-03 09:45:44	0|GitHub52|13bitcoin/06master 1459ac5c5 15Cory Fields: net: Use deterministic randomness for CNode's nonce, and make it const
 21 2016-11-03 09:45:44	0|GitHub52|13bitcoin/06master 14aff6584 15Cory Fields: net: constify a few CNode vars to indicate that they're threadsafe
 22 2016-11-03 09:45:45	0|GitHub52|13bitcoin/06master 14fcf61b8 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9050: net: make a few values immutable, and use deterministic randomness for the localnonce...
 23 2016-11-03 09:45:54	0|GitHub54|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9050: net: make a few values immutable, and use deterministic randomness for the localnonce (06master...06connman-const) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9050
 24 2016-11-03 13:58:03	0|GitHub2|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs opened pull request #9073: Trivial: Add common failure cases for rpc server connection failure (06master...06rpcnoconnectstring) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9073
 25 2016-11-03 14:30:02	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: any update on #8969? Should I solicit more review?
 26 2016-11-03 14:30:04	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8969 | Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connection-logic (#2) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #8969 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 27 2016-11-03 14:30:12	0|BlueMatt|thanks gribble!
 28 2016-11-03 14:33:45	0|wumpus|seems ok to me
 29 2016-11-03 14:46:26	0|BlueMatt|lol, go to test some latency issues i was observing on fibre network....realize i cant because all the chinese peering in tokyo is currently entirely fucked
 30 2016-11-03 14:46:27	0|BlueMatt|oh well, good thing i have other routes....
 31 2016-11-03 14:52:20	0|instagibbs|where is the rpc test cache directory by default?
 32 2016-11-03 14:52:48	0|sdaftuar|qa/
 33 2016-11-03 14:53:02	0|sdaftuar|qa/cache, i guess
 34 2016-11-03 14:53:31	0|wumpus|yes
 35 2016-11-03 14:54:26	0|BlueMatt|oh, cache, yea, qa/
 36 2016-11-03 14:54:26	0|BlueMatt|test runs are /tmp/thing
 37 2016-11-03 14:54:26	0|BlueMatt|/tmp/${shit}
 38 2016-11-03 14:54:45	0|instagibbs|ok, looking thanks
 39 2016-11-03 14:59:47	0|instagibbs|actually it appears to be top level directory
 40 2016-11-03 14:59:51	0|instagibbs|bitcoin/cache
 41 2016-11-03 15:02:03	0|sdaftuar|actually i think it depends on where you run the tests from, there are relative paths used in test_framework.py
 42 2016-11-03 15:03:46	0|instagibbs|Ah, I'm running individually from top-level
 43 2016-11-03 15:04:11	0|instagibbs|My cache somehow got corrupted and tests were failing due to this
 44 2016-11-03 15:04:36	0|instagibbs|and if it finds all the nodeX's directories, it never tries to rebuilt it
 45 2016-11-03 15:07:41	0|wumpus|sdaftuar: I'm fairly sure that was made consistent recently
 46 2016-11-03 15:32:06	0|GitHub173|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 6 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fcf61b80fa2c...3665483be7be
 47 2016-11-03 15:32:07	0|GitHub173|13bitcoin/06master 1465f35eb 15Matt Corallo: Move FlushStateToDisk call out of ProcessMessages::TX into ATMP
 48 2016-11-03 15:32:07	0|GitHub173|13bitcoin/06master 14fc0c24f 15Matt Corallo: Move MarkBlockAsReceived out of ProcessNewMessage
 49 2016-11-03 15:32:08	0|GitHub173|13bitcoin/06master 14d6ea737 15Matt Corallo: Remove network state wipe from UnloadBlockIndex....
 50 2016-11-03 15:32:21	0|GitHub146|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8969: Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connection-logic (#2) (06master...06net_processing_2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8969
 51 2016-11-03 17:01:18	0|jtimon|the meeting is in 2 hours, right?
 52 2016-11-03 17:01:24	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Yes
 53 2016-11-03 17:01:30	0|jtimon|thanks
 54 2016-11-03 17:01:37	0|sipa|indeed
 55 2016-11-03 17:08:45	0|cfields_|I won't make the meeting today, boarding a flight now
 56 2016-11-03 17:14:53	0|wumpus|cfields_: no problem, have a good flight
 57 2016-11-03 17:45:26	0|instagibbs|any tricks on attaching gdb to an rpc node instance?
 58 2016-11-03 17:45:35	0|instagibbs|rpc test*
 59 2016-11-03 17:47:42	0|jonasschnelli|instagibbs: i do that often... let me check...
 60 2016-11-03 17:49:34	0|jonasschnelli|instagibbs: this is my snipped:
 61 2016-11-03 17:49:35	0|jonasschnelli|http://0bin.net/paste/jZuj8LLRSDoQdNkJ#XXGoCkylN0Cjy3v1iDov9l6dzT-eaaQ/6xFz+gKmMBV
 62 2016-11-03 17:50:06	0|jonasschnelli|I start a node with my local IDE&debugger(lldb) and add it via self.nodes.append(proxy)
 63 2016-11-03 17:50:32	0|jonasschnelli|I guess you could also add a sleep or a readline and attach gdb and continue after a successfull attach
 64 2016-11-03 18:06:17	0|instagibbs|(after digging solution) I just set_trace like normal in python, then used gdb attach. Thanks jonasschnelli
 65 2016-11-03 18:20:35	0|GitHub83|13bitcoin/06master 148f329f9 15instagibbs: Add common failure cases for rpc server connection failure
 66 2016-11-03 18:20:35	0|GitHub83|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3665483be7be...82077ef6e49a
 67 2016-11-03 18:20:36	0|GitHub83|13bitcoin/06master 1482077ef 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9073: Trivial: Add common failure cases for rpc server connection failure...
 68 2016-11-03 18:20:47	0|GitHub32|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9073: Trivial: Add common failure cases for rpc server connection failure (06master...06rpcnoconnectstring) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9073
 69 2016-11-03 18:59:34	0|luke-jr|morning :p
 70 2016-11-03 19:00:20	0|achow101|meeting?
 71 2016-11-03 19:00:31	0|instagibbs|i believe so
 72 2016-11-03 19:00:33	0|Chris_Stewart_5|ding?
 73 2016-11-03 19:00:39	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
 74 2016-11-03 19:00:40	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Nov  3 19:00:39 2016 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
 75 2016-11-03 19:00:40	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
 76 2016-11-03 19:00:45	0|sipa|meeting!
 77 2016-11-03 19:00:53	0|wumpus|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012
 78 2016-11-03 19:01:02	0|gmaxwell|hi
 79 2016-11-03 19:01:03	0|jonasschnelli|here
 80 2016-11-03 19:01:09	0|jtimon|hello
 81 2016-11-03 19:01:17	0|GitHub136|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #9075: Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connection-logic (#3) (06master...06net_processing_4) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9075
 82 2016-11-03 19:01:19	0|BlueMatt|second to last one ^
 83 2016-11-03 19:01:39	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: you just keep reopening it after we merge it, isn't it :)
 84 2016-11-03 19:01:46	0|wumpus|proposed topics?
 85 2016-11-03 19:02:10	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: E_NO_PARSE, but, yes, all this stuff is pretty much queued up, once one gets merged another gets pr'd
 86 2016-11-03 19:02:59	0|wumpus|no topics at all for this meeting?
 87 2016-11-03 19:03:20	0|wumpus|did the pre-final alert go out gmaxwell?
 88 2016-11-03 19:03:24	0|achow101|it did
 89 2016-11-03 19:03:29	0|wumpus|ok, great
 90 2016-11-03 19:03:39	0|sipa|did anyone see it?
 91 2016-11-03 19:03:41	0|btcdrak|hi
 92 2016-11-03 19:03:42	0|sdaftuar|i did
 93 2016-11-03 19:03:50	0|achow101|I caught it on a 0.12.0 node I fired up just for it
 94 2016-11-03 19:04:25	0|sipa|gmaxwell and i were talking recently about some improvements to the block/header fetch logic
 95 2016-11-03 19:04:50	0|wumpus|#topic block header/fetch logic
 96 2016-11-03 19:05:04	0|sipa|there are a bunch of related points there
 97 2016-11-03 19:05:14	0|sipa|one is that we don't have a timeout for headers requests
 98 2016-11-03 19:05:36	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: is there a long branch where I can see the code movements you're planning?
 99 2016-11-03 19:05:59	0|sipa|and that we don't respond to headers requests while in IBD, which can cause stalls if nodes mistakenly believe they are in IBD
100 2016-11-03 19:06:22	0|sipa|bit it goes even further... the block fetch logic only disconnects peers who slow down the process
101 2016-11-03 19:06:41	0|sipa|we may just have a peer who has no blocks we can fetch at all from, and we never try, and we never disconnect them
102 2016-11-03 19:06:51	0|arubi|I have it on onlynet=onion
103 2016-11-03 19:06:52	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: working on an updated version now
104 2016-11-03 19:07:04	0|sdaftuar|sipa: eg non-NODE_WITNESS nodes?
105 2016-11-03 19:07:11	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: cool
106 2016-11-03 19:07:15	0|sipa|sdaftuar: or nodes who are legitimately behind
107 2016-11-03 19:07:18	0|sdaftuar|ah, right
108 2016-11-03 19:07:51	0|sipa|so it seems there is a simple solution: disconnect outgoing connections you're not downloading from while in IBD
109 2016-11-03 19:08:14	0|sipa|but remove the non-response to getheaders in IBD
110 2016-11-03 19:08:30	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: ack
111 2016-11-03 19:08:36	0|sipa|if the peer actually is behind, we won't fetch from them, and we'll disconnect them instead of stalling yhem
112 2016-11-03 19:09:30	0|sipa|gmaxwell suggested something even stronger: ever minute, disconnect the peer that is slowest to give you blocks overall (during IBD)
113 2016-11-03 19:09:36	0|sdaftuar|if we remove the non-response to getheaders in IBD, mightn't we disconnect people who are downloading from us?
114 2016-11-03 19:09:55	0|jonasschnelli|During IBD?
115 2016-11-03 19:10:05	0|sipa|sdaftuar: note that this is only for outgoing connections
116 2016-11-03 19:10:14	0|sdaftuar|ah
117 2016-11-03 19:10:48	0|sipa|i think serving blocks to someone who is even more behind than us, whike we are in IBD, is perfectly fine
118 2016-11-03 19:10:58	0|gmaxwell|I believe my suggestion went further, if you have MAX outbound, and it's been a minute since you disconnected anyone, and you're downloading blocks, disconnect the outbound peer you recieved the fewest blocks from in the last minute. (or, least recently recieved a block from). Presumably excempting -connect peers.
119 2016-11-03 19:11:06	0|gmaxwell|(ah pieter just said some of that)
120 2016-11-03 19:11:42	0|jonasschnelli|What about prioritize peers that can server "faster" (don't know if it's really measurable)
121 2016-11-03 19:12:05	0|sdaftuar|sipa: one complication with serving headers during IBD is that we might be on a bogus chain
122 2016-11-03 19:12:15	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: that's what we already do... the slowest ones get disconnected if they slow your overall sync speed down
123 2016-11-03 19:12:28	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: ah
124 2016-11-03 19:12:58	0|sipa|sdaftuar: that's something better IBD/chainpoint replacement is for, i guess?
125 2016-11-03 19:13:09	0|sipa|*checkpoint
126 2016-11-03 19:13:23	0|jonasschnelli|during my SPV work I encountered some stalling because of peers serving blocks each in a ~5min rhythm.
127 2016-11-03 19:13:31	0|sdaftuar|i thought gmaxwell's PR to replcae the checkpointed-height with a checkpointed work as a way to determine if you're in IBD makes sense
128 2016-11-03 19:14:07	0|sdaftuar|so if we eliminate the IBD restriction on serving headers, we'd still want to keep some version of that checkpointed-work requirement i think
129 2016-11-03 19:15:10	0|sdaftuar|which i guess would be fine?
130 2016-11-03 19:15:15	0|sdaftuar|and an improvement over the current situation
131 2016-11-03 19:15:18	0|sdaftuar|?
132 2016-11-03 19:15:21	0|kanzure|hi.
133 2016-11-03 19:15:23	0|sipa|i think so
134 2016-11-03 19:15:54	0|sipa|it's hard to reason about this. if you're truly sybilled during IBD, none of this will have an effect
135 2016-11-03 19:16:08	0|sipa|if not, you'll quickly learn about the real chain anyway
136 2016-11-03 19:17:22	0|Chris_St1|sipa: So that pull request does not help if you are fully sybilled? Won't you at least be able to determine if there was a lot of work expended in the sybil attack? (not sure how reassuring that is)
137 2016-11-03 19:17:41	0|gmaxwell|this is going offtopic. :)
138 2016-11-03 19:18:18	0|gmaxwell|sipa: sdaftuar is pointing out that if we're on a checkpoint invalid chain, and serve headers for it, our peers will ban us. So thats a complication with serving headers while below the top checkpoint.
139 2016-11-03 19:18:45	0|sipa|ah.
140 2016-11-03 19:19:17	0|sdaftuar|right, so assuming we are keeping the checkpoint-work-requirement (or some version of it) as a gate on responding to a getheaders, then which of the IBD checks are we trying to eliminate?
141 2016-11-03 19:19:42	0|sdaftuar|from past conversations i think the concern is that we might have some long headers chain that we can't access/download blocks towards, like on testnet or something
142 2016-11-03 19:19:46	0|sdaftuar|is that basicalyl right?
143 2016-11-03 19:20:15	0|gmaxwell|We'd like to eliminate all cases where we simply ignore a getheaders request (potentially replace it with hanging up on the peer)-- because it DOS attacks peers unlucky enough to select us for their initial headers fetch.
144 2016-11-03 19:20:27	0|sipa|we only serve headers for blocks in our main chain, no?
145 2016-11-03 19:20:35	0|sdaftuar|sipa: yes
146 2016-11-03 19:20:38	0|sipa|which indeed may contains dummy low difficulty blocks
147 2016-11-03 19:21:41	0|gmaxwell|In any case, the download part of this can be done first before any change to how we respond to getheaders.
148 2016-11-03 19:21:51	0|sipa|right
149 2016-11-03 19:21:59	0|morcos|gmaxwell: thanks, i think it was important to clearly delineate the problem.  i didn't know what we were trying to accomplish.  it doesn't seem that having a bunch of IBD nodes able to serve each other as much as they have is _that_ beneficial
150 2016-11-03 19:22:20	0|morcos|however freeing them up to ask someone else for headers withotu waiting for a long timeout seems valuable
151 2016-11-03 19:22:30	0|GitHub84|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt closed pull request #8930: Move orphan processing to ActivateBestChain (06master...06net_processing_3) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8930
152 2016-11-03 19:22:33	0|gmaxwell|morcos: yes, thats mostly irrelevant, the concern is primarily that we cause harm to peers by not responding.
153 2016-11-03 19:22:58	0|gmaxwell|morcos: My recollection is that currently we don't even have a timeout for the initial headers fetch! the 'timeout' is a new block being offered by some other peer.
154 2016-11-03 19:23:14	0|sdaftuar|so step 1: #9068?
155 2016-11-03 19:23:36	0|sipa|morcos: right... i think by using a "kick peers that aren't useful for sync" generic approach, we won't need the "don't serve headers while in IBD" anyway... less comllexity
156 2016-11-03 19:23:40	0|sipa|*complexity
157 2016-11-03 19:24:32	0|luke-jr|(suggested topic: when to halt changes to BIPs; 0.13.1 is no longer BIP 152-compatible I think)
158 2016-11-03 19:24:33	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9068 | Timeout for headers fetch · Issue #9068 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
159 2016-11-03 19:24:35	0|gmaxwell|That should be fixed as well, but even with it fixed it would be rude to make them wait.
160 2016-11-03 19:28:16	0|wumpus|0.13.1 is no longer BIP 152 compatible?
161 2016-11-03 19:28:25	0|sdaftuar|well, it seems to have some bugs
162 2016-11-03 19:28:52	0|sipa|switch topic?
163 2016-11-03 19:28:59	0|wumpus|#topic BIP 152 changes
164 2016-11-03 19:29:18	0|sipa|0.13.1 does not relayever before validating, right?
165 2016-11-03 19:29:21	0|wumpus|but if it has bugs, was it ever BIP 152 compatible?
166 2016-11-03 19:29:32	0|wumpus|or were the bugsin the BIP
167 2016-11-03 19:29:35	0|sdaftuar|sipa: correct
168 2016-11-03 19:29:44	0|BlueMatt|0.13.1 is bip 152 compatible after sdaftuar's proposed changes
169 2016-11-03 19:29:45	0|BlueMatt|sipa: the bip has been updated to say that you may no longer pre-relay unless there was a version bump
170 2016-11-03 19:29:45	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yes, but it can ban in response to a peer doing that
171 2016-11-03 19:29:45	0|BlueMatt|which was merged
172 2016-11-03 19:29:56	0|BlueMatt|which is #9026
173 2016-11-03 19:29:58	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9026 | Fix handling of invalid compact blocks by sdaftuar · Pull Request #9026 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
174 2016-11-03 19:30:05	0|sipa|so the issue is only when potential other bip152 implementations are oresent on the network
175 2016-11-03 19:30:11	0|sdaftuar|right
176 2016-11-03 19:30:27	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yes, but no such implementations exist, and if they do it now they must wait for the protocol version
177 2016-11-03 19:30:30	0|sipa|so i believe 0.13.1 is compliant with the updated bip152
178 2016-11-03 19:30:38	0|BlueMatt|yes
179 2016-11-03 19:30:40	0|sdaftuar|yes, i think so as well.
180 2016-11-03 19:30:46	0|gmaxwell|0.13.0 did too.
181 2016-11-03 19:30:46	0|gmaxwell|but lets think about that outside of the meeting.
182 2016-11-03 19:30:46	0|gmaxwell|sipa: unfortunately because of the checkpoint stupidity we may still. :(
183 2016-11-03 19:30:47	0|gmaxwell|But I think what luke was referring to is that BIP152 didn't originally document version 2 compact blocks that use the wtxid instead.
184 2016-11-03 19:30:57	0|luke-jr|wumpus: people are changing BIP 152 still
185 2016-11-03 19:31:14	0|gmaxwell|Luke's question was really about when should someone be told 'write a new BIP' rather than changing an existing one.
186 2016-11-03 19:31:27	0|sipa|yes, this is a good question
187 2016-11-03 19:32:04	0|luke-jr|I may be wrong about the current status of v0.13.1 and BIP 152, but yes, the general principle is what I think needs to be discussed
188 2016-11-03 19:32:30	0|gmaxwell|Not really much of a question for this meeting though, perhaps solicit input on the mailing list?
189 2016-11-03 19:32:42	0|luke-jr|I didn't realise v0.13.1 bumped the protocol version-number
190 2016-11-03 19:32:48	0|sdaftuar|it didn't
191 2016-11-03 19:32:50	0|luke-jr|hmm, ok
192 2016-11-03 19:33:10	0|morcos|i don't think its realistic to think we're going to not want to make small tweaks to complicated BIP's like this after releasing implementations of it.  and it seems much clearer in the future to just edit the original bip to reflect the fully thought out final design
193 2016-11-03 19:33:14	0|luke-jr|sdaftuar: then how is it BIP 152 compatible iwth your change?
194 2016-11-03 19:33:42	0|sdaftuar|luke-jr: it imposes a restriction on code to not do something (which no one is currently doing) unless the recipient is at-or-above the bumped version number
195 2016-11-03 19:33:54	0|sdaftuar|in this case, relay before full validation
196 2016-11-03 19:35:15	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: for the specifics here, 0.13.1 is compatible with BIP152 because it implements a new version number that the original bip152 was just silent on.
197 2016-11-03 19:35:31	0|luke-jr|it says "nodes SHOULD NOT ban a peer for announcing a new block with a CMPCTBLOCK message that is invalid, but has a valid header" unconditionally, and says nodes should bump the version number
198 2016-11-03 19:36:20	0|gmaxwell|and BIP152 already explained how versions were to be handled in a compatible way.
199 2016-11-03 19:36:43	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: re banning it's just a bug that all prior versions have as well.
200 2016-11-03 19:37:35	0|BlueMatt|by that language, indeed, 0.13.1 violates a SHOULD NOT
201 2016-11-03 19:37:35	0|BlueMatt|however, this wont effect functionality, as we're a) fixing this as if it were a bug, b) we say you SHOULD NOT announce without validation if the number is below
202 2016-11-03 19:37:35	0|BlueMatt|oh, well that is a language mistake
203 2016-11-03 19:37:55	0|luke-jr|ok
204 2016-11-03 19:39:02	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: with this change, as the author are you comfortable with a freeze to the BIP so we can move it forward to Final status?
205 2016-11-03 19:40:08	0|gmaxwell|is there a reason to rush?
206 2016-11-03 19:40:45	0|wumpus|is this about https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9058? there was also talk of a protocol change there
207 2016-11-03 19:40:47	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: after https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/469, yea, probably
208 2016-11-03 19:40:51	0|BlueMatt|but need to review tht
209 2016-11-03 19:40:52	0|BlueMatt|at
210 2016-11-03 19:41:21	0|wumpus|I thought it mentioned a BIP change, but doesn't seem to mention that anymore
211 2016-11-03 19:41:23	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: how will existing nodes react if they get a full block message there?
212 2016-11-03 19:41:45	0|morcos|i don't see why we should Finalize it at all until we've stopped changing it for 6-12 mos
213 2016-11-03 19:42:28	0|wumpus|morcos: makes sense to not finalize too soon, it's unrealistic to expect a bip to come into being completely perfect
214 2016-11-03 19:42:32	0|sipa|i think it depends
215 2016-11-03 19:42:34	0|gmaxwell|Agreed with Morcos. Though for things like consensus code, really being widely active on the network defines final.
216 2016-11-03 19:42:43	0|sipa|there shouldn't be material changes to ideas
217 2016-11-03 19:42:47	0|luke-jr|no particular reason to rush, I guess, just feels like a moving goal for anyone who wanted to be compatible with it
218 2016-11-03 19:43:07	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: at least they are minor alterations.
219 2016-11-03 19:43:10	0|wumpus|that's always the case. Others could also report problems encountered during implementing it
220 2016-11-03 19:43:14	0|sipa|but clarifications and elaborating on edge cases is something else
221 2016-11-03 19:43:22	0|morcos|gmaxwell: heh, even there, its a matter of whether we are confident that we've really understood what the consensus is.   but yeah i agree it shoudl depend on the changes we want to make.
222 2016-11-03 19:43:26	0|luke-jr|sipa: sure, we still make clarifications to Final BIPs even now I think
223 2016-11-03 19:43:30	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: agreed, it sucks that its still moving, but currently there are no other implementors (except XT, which I believe is still moving as well)
224 2016-11-03 19:43:53	0|wumpus|it could also move because of problems other implementors find
225 2016-11-03 19:44:53	0|luke-jr|since it's being used live on the network, changes also should probably address backwards compatibility, which they aren't in this case
226 2016-11-03 19:45:06	0|wumpus|it's just unrealsitic to expect not even small issues in wording/clarity/definitions, although I guess if it is in a release there should not be substantial incompatible changes anymore
227 2016-11-03 19:45:48	0|gmaxwell|If no one of consequence actually implemented BIP30 as specified in the doc, what use does keeping the old doc around (except in the git history) serve?
228 2016-11-03 19:45:48	0|gmaxwell|mber the original number.
229 2016-11-03 19:45:48	0|gmaxwell|morcos: so interesting point, say we discovered that BIP30 was implemented differently from the BIP tomorrow. What should we do?   IETF way would be to attach an erratum to the document right away. But I find that this often confuses people who manage to read the document without an erratum. Then later a new document is published that reflects reality.  Though this has a problem that people reme
230 2016-11-03 19:45:49	0|wumpus|yes, those at least will need to address backwards compatibilty
231 2016-11-03 19:46:29	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: I *think* we've fixed such issues in Final BIPs already
232 2016-11-03 19:46:45	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: we're not plaintext, lets highlight it in red! :p
233 2016-11-03 19:46:51	0|luke-jr|>_<
234 2016-11-03 19:46:53	0|morcos|yes, BIP 34 for example
235 2016-11-03 19:47:34	0|morcos|ehh, i guess that was just wrong explanation
236 2016-11-03 19:47:50	0|luke-jr|BIP 16
237 2016-11-03 19:48:01	0|luke-jr|https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0016.mediawiki#520byte_limitation_on_serialized_script_size
238 2016-11-03 19:48:03	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: the erratum link on the ietf website is red, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6716
239 2016-11-03 19:48:21	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/520 | log low-level network messages only when fDebug is set by tcatm · Pull Request #520 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
240 2016-11-03 19:49:20	0|gmaxwell|I warned about that!
241 2016-11-03 19:49:56	0|gmaxwell|In any case, I still think that the BIP discussion belongs elsewhere. :)
242 2016-11-03 19:50:47	0|morcos|well you come up with something else to talk about for 11 more minutes then!
243 2016-11-03 19:51:03	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: sipa: thanks for merging lots of stuff!
244 2016-11-03 19:51:12	0|BlueMatt|<3
245 2016-11-03 19:51:13	0|sdaftuar|+1
246 2016-11-03 19:51:16	0|wumpus|I think there was some pull where we wondered whether to backport to 0.13.2
247 2016-11-03 19:51:27	0|wumpus|np :)
248 2016-11-03 19:51:48	0|BlueMatt|making 0.14 great again!
249 2016-11-03 19:51:50	0|wumpus|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9053
250 2016-11-03 19:51:57	0|jtimon|topic potential backports to 0.13.2 ?
251 2016-11-03 19:52:39	0|wumpus|I don't think there's time enough to discuss all potential backports to 0.13.2, but that one would do
252 2016-11-03 19:53:18	0|gmaxwell|I think it would be harmless to backport, and helpful for testnet nodes.  But I don't have a strong opinion.
253 2016-11-03 19:53:23	0|gmaxwell|oh I see sipa mentioned testnet.
254 2016-11-03 19:54:14	0|wumpus|so I guess in practice it fixes testnet issues only on 0.13.2, so the question would be is that worth it to potential regressions?
255 2016-11-03 19:54:41	0|sdaftuar|it's not that much of a fix for testnet right, it just allows you to reorg out the non-segwit chain?
256 2016-11-03 19:55:10	0|gmaxwell|it does actually fix a misbehavior that we see on testnet. <famous last words>I can't see it causing a regression.</famous last words>
257 2016-11-03 19:55:50	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: because of the 20 minute rule in general it's very easy to get testnet nodes into a state where they just stop mining. Trivial vulnerablity, the active issue is that the non-segwit chain there unintentionally triggers it from time to time.
258 2016-11-03 19:56:17	0|gmaxwell|('stop mining' is ambigious, they won't mine after they're restarted)
259 2016-11-03 19:56:48	0|sdaftuar|fwiw i have a few bridges of my own back up now that i hope will keep that from happening again
260 2016-11-03 19:56:59	0|sdaftuar|can you elaborate on the 20 minute rule though?
261 2016-11-03 19:57:08	0|sdaftuar|oh
262 2016-11-03 19:57:23	0|wumpus|I think personally I'd prefer to keep it for 0.14, so the new rule/logic can prove itself a while
263 2016-11-03 19:57:44	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: the issue is that if anyone produces a lot of headers beyond your current tip which you accept (made computationally easy by the diff1 blocks) then you'll not leave IBD.
264 2016-11-03 19:58:29	0|sdaftuar|got it
265 2016-11-03 19:58:40	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: the non-segwit chain does this by accident through a confluence of other behaviors (the not fetching blocks from non-witness peers). But the real bug is just using forward header count to cause you to not leave ibd.
266 2016-11-03 19:58:49	0|gmaxwell|which that PR fixes.
267 2016-11-03 19:58:59	0|sipa|wumpus: ok, we can of course later decide to backport to whatever 0.13.x at that time
268 2016-11-03 19:59:07	0|wumpus|sipa: yes
269 2016-11-03 19:59:17	0|gmaxwell|sounds fine to me.
270 2016-11-03 19:59:19	0|wumpus|that doesn't prohibit backporting it later
271 2016-11-03 19:59:36	0|gmaxwell|because of the latching in IBD this code is pretty robust against mistbehavior to begin with.
272 2016-11-03 20:00:06	0|sipa|$-+(#(_+$+ PC LOAD LETTER
273 2016-11-03 20:00:22	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
274 2016-11-03 20:00:23	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-11-03-19.00.log.html
275 2016-11-03 20:00:23	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Nov  3 20:00:22 2016 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
276 2016-11-03 20:00:23	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-11-03-19.00.html
277 2016-11-03 20:00:23	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2016/bitcoin-core-dev.2016-11-03-19.00.txt
278 2016-11-03 20:00:45	0|gmaxwell|Thanks all!
279 2016-11-03 20:03:04	0|BakSAj|hi
280 2016-11-03 20:03:48	0|BakSAj|meeting in progress?
281 2016-11-03 20:04:05	0|BlueMatt|over :/
282 2016-11-03 20:04:07	0|jtimon|BakSAj: no, it just finished
283 2016-11-03 20:04:08	0|GitHub16|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #9076: [WIP][Experimental] Add Hybrid full block SPV mode (06master...062016/10/spv) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9076
284 2016-11-03 20:05:10	0|BakSAj|oh, moved to 8pm or ...smth to do with daylight saving change?
285 2016-11-03 20:05:51	0|jtimon|BakSAj: it's fixed to UTC, so yes its because your time zone changed
286 2016-11-03 20:06:01	0|gmaxwell|The meeting time is in GMT, otherwise it moves 6 times a year (for different people).
287 2016-11-03 20:06:44	0|BakSAj|makes sense :-)
288 2016-11-03 20:06:51	0|BakSAj|i will reread the log
289 2016-11-03 20:06:54	0|wumpus|you should put it in your calendar in Reykjavik time, which is a city in an awesome country in UTC+0 that has no DST nonsense
290 2016-11-03 20:07:06	0|BakSAj|btw, do we have feature list for 0.14 yet?
291 2016-11-03 20:07:26	0|sipa|BakSAj: whatever makes it before the feature freeze :)
292 2016-11-03 20:07:30	0|wumpus|master is always the most up to date branch, everything in there will make it into 0.14
293 2016-11-03 20:07:33	0|jtimon|wumpus: I heard the country is governed by pirates
294 2016-11-03 20:07:36	0|BlueMatt|BakSAj: rainbows and unicorns and ponies and shit
295 2016-11-03 20:07:38	0|wumpus|unless reverted ofcourse but that's rare
296 2016-11-03 20:07:45	0|BakSAj|:-D
297 2016-11-03 20:08:05	0|sipa|wumpus: they have no need for DST... they either have 24 hour daylight or 24 hiur darkness :p
298 2016-11-03 20:08:13	0|BakSAj|even my wife laughts at this :-)
299 2016-11-03 20:08:26	0|wumpus|of the 125 PRs currently open, a few will likely make it too, you can help by testing and reviewing and posting your results
300 2016-11-03 20:08:32	0|wumpus|sipa: hehe, good point :p
301 2016-11-03 20:09:18	0|GitHub96|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #9077: [qa] Increase wallet-dump RPC timeout (06master...06fix-wallet-dump-timeout) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9077
302 2016-11-03 20:09:40	0|BakSAj|can I get just one feature which 0.14 will be remembered for? like 0.13 was for compact blocks, 0.13.1 segwit etc..
303 2016-11-03 20:10:18	0|BlueMatt|happen at process-time, that is
304 2016-11-03 20:10:40	0|wumpus|I wonder if we have any contributors from Iceland
305 2016-11-03 20:10:57	0|BakSAj|polar bears?
306 2016-11-03 20:11:11	0|sipa|BakSAj: seems there is a lot of focus on refactorings and performance imorovememts... so not necessarily user visiable changes
307 2016-11-03 20:11:26	0|sipa|BakSAj: i prefer cartesian bears
308 2016-11-03 20:11:51	0|BakSAj|i will have to google that :-)
309 2016-11-03 20:11:55	0|wumpus|polar bears don't live in iceland
310 2016-11-03 20:12:12	0|sipa|iceland isn't even above the polar circle
311 2016-11-03 20:12:13	0|BakSAj|not even in the zoo?
312 2016-11-03 20:13:02	0|BakSAj|http://i.imgur.com/z0Sl2XP.jpg
313 2016-11-03 20:14:14	0|BakSAj|sipa: ok thanks, thats also good, i guess schnorr is longrun task
314 2016-11-03 20:14:38	0|BlueMatt|BakSAj: 0.14 has been a lot of fixes/refactoring/cleanups/optimizations/etc/etc...due to a focus on segwit some of these things got put off and/or big features werent something that was a major focus for lots of people
315 2016-11-03 20:15:01	0|luke-jr|BakSAj: does that one on the right really exist? :O
316 2016-11-03 20:15:12	0|sipa|luke-jr: no, it's a math joke
317 2016-11-03 20:16:11	0|BakSAj|luke-jr: only after you forget your bear in the box for some time
318 2016-11-03 20:16:15	0|luke-jr|someone made a fake bear for a math joke? XD
319 2016-11-03 20:16:59	0|jtimon|luke-jr: photoshop or something, yeah
320 2016-11-03 20:17:13	0|luke-jr|o.o
321 2016-11-03 20:17:20	0|BlueMatt|oh, sipa said that
322 2016-11-03 20:17:22	0|BlueMatt|BakSAj: bumpfee might make it in though, so that would be cool
323 2016-11-03 20:17:35	0|jtimon|luke-jr: I'm actually surprised that you are surprised
324 2016-11-03 20:18:04	0|luke-jr|jtimon: I would have tried to get bear skin and paste it on a set of boxes :p
325 2016-11-03 20:18:16	0|luke-jr|didn't even occur to me to try to make such an image with a computer
326 2016-11-03 20:19:02	0|jtimon|not an expert, but I would bet that one is actually not that hard
327 2016-11-03 20:19:29	0|BakSAj|yeah like segwit :-)
328 2016-11-03 20:19:56	0|BakSAj|btw i really wonder how ecosystem will change once sw activates and LN will come to existence
329 2016-11-03 20:21:55	0|BakSAj|lol rereading the log: this is really a good one :-)) BlueMatt making 0.14 great again!
330 2016-11-03 20:22:04	0|BakSAj|i vote it for comic relief
331 2016-11-03 20:43:35	0|luke-jr|hum, after taking forever to start in valgrind, I got a segfault. fun
332 2016-11-03 20:45:13	0|luke-jr|not sure how to interpret the stack trace however
333 2016-11-03 20:45:31	0|luke-jr|http://0bin.net/paste/-EkiuN3jdVtwRd0v#3NfjE9HJqmxNwuiil0FZXv+9QgmQr0Fv+VAp9Qzrd3H
334 2016-11-03 20:46:06	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3 | Encrypt wallet · Issue #3 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
335 2016-11-03 20:47:16	0|sipa|nanotube: ^ gribble is a bit too trigger happy... maybe make the regexp only work when it's not surrounded by alphanumeric characters?
336 2016-11-03 20:48:04	0|gmaxwell|I was suggesting before that it only do PR#[0-9]+
337 2016-11-03 20:48:19	0|sipa|that sounds good as well
338 2016-11-03 20:48:42	0|wumpus|though that wouldn't handle issues
339 2016-11-03 20:49:39	0|gmaxwell|hm.  \w[PIG]#[0-9]+\w  ?
340 2016-11-03 20:50:19	0|gmaxwell|(PR, Issue, 'github' for when you don't know/care)
341 2016-11-03 20:56:29	0|wumpus|PIG#1234 sgtm :p
342 2016-11-03 20:56:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/1234 | During initial sync, chain download pauses if peer goes away · Issue #1234 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
343 2016-11-03 20:58:27	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: that won't work for PR# :P
344 2016-11-03 21:03:59	0|nanotube|heh well, so let's go over this... you want PR#\d+\W to go to github pr, I#\d+\W to go to github issues, and just #\d+\W to just assume issue?
345 2016-11-03 21:06:14	0|luke-jr|(^|\s)(PR|I)#\d+\b I think
346 2016-11-03 21:06:28	0|luke-jr|explicitly *not* #\d+
347 2016-11-03 21:06:34	0|BlueMatt|lol
348 2016-11-03 21:18:04	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: the main.cpp split is my net_processing_file branch, which includes #9026, #9075, #8930 in rebased form, 4 more commits to form a future pr, and then -2990 +3085 LOC in a single code-move commit
349 2016-11-03 21:18:06	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9026 | Fix handling of invalid compact blocks by sdaftuar · Pull Request #9026 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
350 2016-11-03 21:18:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9075 | Decouple peer-processing-logic from block-connection-logic (#3) by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9075 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
351 2016-11-03 21:18:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8930 | Move orphan processing to ActivateBestChain by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #8930 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
352 2016-11-03 21:21:45	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: awesome thanks!
353 2016-11-03 21:39:54	0|jouke|What does it mean when a wallet says: "Transaction commit failed" I blieve it's a .12 wallet
354 2016-11-03 21:45:39	0|jouke|Hmm, corrupt /win 109
355 2016-11-03 21:45:42	0|jouke|whoops
356 2016-11-03 21:47:11	0|jouke|Hmm, but the specific transaction seems to be broadcasted though?
357 2016-11-03 21:49:39	0|sipa|i believe it means it wasn't accepted by your own mempool, but still broadcast
358 2016-11-03 21:49:44	0|sipa|that shouldn't happen
359 2016-11-03 21:50:03	0|sipa|if it confirms, it will show up in the wallet fine, though
360 2016-11-03 21:50:34	0|jouke|Hmm, rpc doesn't give a tx-id back, so I am not sure if it's absolutely the same
361 2016-11-03 21:50:55	0|jouke|but the outputs match, so I guess so
362 2016-11-03 21:51:44	0|jouke|Other transaction from the same wallet: "Error: The transaction was rejected! This might happen if some of the coins in your wallet were already spent, such as if you used a copy of wallet.dat and coins were spent in the copy but not marked as spent here."
363 2016-11-03 21:51:48	0|jouke|also broadcasted
364 2016-11-03 21:51:54	0|jouke|and confirmed
365 2016-11-03 21:54:22	0|jouke|gettransaction shows the account
366 2016-11-03 21:59:31	0|jtimon|rebased https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8855
367 2016-11-03 22:07:28	0|jouke|sipa: that wallet node is connected to an other node on the same host via 127.0.0.1. Could that be a reason why it's broadcasted even though the wallet itself says it's not valid?
368 2016-11-03 22:08:17	0|sipa|i don't think so
369 2016-11-03 22:41:09	0|jtimon|rebased #8994 and jtimon/0.13-blocksign branch too for the curious (the latter still needs more work)
370 2016-11-03 22:41:10	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub