1 2016-11-07 05:22:51	0|fanquake|Has anyone benched #9039 ? Sipa posted a 1% speedup, but I'm seeing nearly 10%. Wondering if I'm missing something..
  2 2016-11-07 05:22:53	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9039 | Various serialization simplifcations and optimizations by sipa · Pull Request #9039 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  3 2016-11-07 05:34:19	0|sipa|fanquake: highly dependent on your system
  4 2016-11-07 05:34:44	0|sipa|i saw 5% in cpu reduction in the disk flushing code
  5 2016-11-07 05:41:03	0|fanquake|Ok, I'll post some numbers shortly.
  6 2016-11-07 05:47:11	0|sipa|i would estimate that this effect is most visible if you havr fast disk, slow cou, and low dbcache
  7 2016-11-07 05:47:17	0|sipa|*slow cpu
  8 2016-11-07 05:47:28	0|sipa|but yes, please post numbers
  9 2016-11-07 05:47:35	0|sipa|and thank you
 10 2016-11-07 07:15:41	0|fanquake|If anyone want's to chime in on #8639 with any minimum required versions/more info it would be appreciated. When I get a chance I'll turn the tables into some proper documentation. Which will partially fix #8923
 11 2016-11-07 07:15:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8639 | CVEs in depends packages · Issue #8639 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 12 2016-11-07 07:15:43	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8923 | Need documentation on minimum supported dependency versions · Issue #8923 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 13 2016-11-07 07:35:24	0|fanquake|#8844 Could use some concept ACK/NACKs, been open for > a month now.
 14 2016-11-07 07:35:26	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8844 | Change sigops cost to sigops weight by jnewbery · Pull Request #8844 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 15 2016-11-07 08:21:49	0|GitHub70|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/05009935f9ac...7b22e5001a3d
 16 2016-11-07 08:21:50	0|GitHub70|13bitcoin/06master 140b59f80 15Kaz Wesley: LockedPool: fix explosion for illegal-sized alloc...
 17 2016-11-07 08:21:50	0|GitHub70|13bitcoin/06master 1421b8f3d 15Kaz Wesley: LockedPool: test handling of invalid allocations...
 18 2016-11-07 08:21:51	0|GitHub70|13bitcoin/06master 14b3ddc5e 15Kaz Wesley: LockedPool: avoid quadratic-time allocation...
 19 2016-11-07 08:22:03	0|GitHub111|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9070: Lockedpool fixes (06master...06lockedpool) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9070
 20 2016-11-07 09:36:30	0|GitHub190|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 8 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7b22e5001a3d...c8c572f8f1ea
 21 2016-11-07 09:36:31	0|GitHub190|13bitcoin/06master 143e32cd0 15Cory Fields: connman is in charge of pushing messages...
 22 2016-11-07 09:36:31	0|GitHub190|13bitcoin/06master 14b98c14c 15Cory Fields: serialization: teach serializers variadics...
 23 2016-11-07 09:36:32	0|GitHub190|13bitcoin/06master 14ea33268 15Cory Fields: net: switch all callers to connman for pushing messages...
 24 2016-11-07 09:37:17	0|GitHub0|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8708: net: have CConnman handle message sending (06master...06connman-send) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8708
 25 2016-11-07 09:40:07	0|MarcoFalke|I feel like we should change the releases to only contain a link to the release notes and not the full release notes copied: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases
 26 2016-11-07 09:40:42	0|wumpus|why? redundancy is pretty good for distributed projects? :-)
 27 2016-11-07 09:41:40	0|MarcoFalke|There is no redundancy when the link point to github as well.
 28 2016-11-07 09:41:41	0|wumpus|ah you mean linking to the release notes on github - yes that'd make sense
 29 2016-11-07 09:41:46	0|wumpus|true
 30 2016-11-07 09:42:09	0|MarcoFalke|It takes 10 minutes to scroll though the releases page
 31 2016-11-07 09:43:13	0|wumpus|I'm ok with replacing them with a link, on the other hand sipa did all this work to put them in in the first place, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble re-doing it another way
 32 2016-11-07 09:43:16	0|MarcoFalke|Also, no one will notice if they are changed by someone. They are not signed and can not be verified
 33 2016-11-07 09:43:58	0|MarcoFalke|Should be a matter of less than 10 minutes. I am happy to do it if sipa is ok with it.
 34 2016-11-07 09:44:37	0|wumpus|also updating that page should probably be part of the release process
 35 2016-11-07 10:09:04	0|GitHub68|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #9093: [doc] release-process: Mention GitHub release and archived release notes (06master...06Mf1611-docRel) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9093
 36 2016-11-07 10:51:31	0|GitHub89|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c8c572f8f1ea...5fa7b07565d2
 37 2016-11-07 10:51:32	0|GitHub89|13bitcoin/06master 14159ed95 15Jiaxing Wang: base58: Improve DecodeBase58 performance....
 38 2016-11-07 10:51:32	0|GitHub89|13bitcoin/06master 14e892dc1 15Jiaxing Wang: Use prefix operator in for loop of DecodeBase58.
 39 2016-11-07 10:51:33	0|GitHub89|13bitcoin/06master 145fa7b07 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8736: base58: Improve DecodeBase58 performance....
 40 2016-11-07 10:51:38	0|GitHub141|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8736: base58: Improve DecodeBase58 performance. (06master...06speedup-decodebase58) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8736
 41 2016-11-07 11:15:39	0|GitHub10|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #9094: qt: Use correct conversion function for boost::path datadir (06master...062016_11_datadir_in_console) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9094
 42 2016-11-07 11:21:43	0|btcdrak|luke-jr: I think Andreas has a point https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/472#issuecomment-258794458
 43 2016-11-07 11:30:52	0|GitHub154|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8158: Simplify calls to retrieve credit and balance (06master...06enhancement/unification-wallet-balance) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8158
 44 2016-11-07 11:52:27	0|GitHub181|13bitcoin/06master 144b04e32 15isle2983: [copyright] copyright header style uniform...
 45 2016-11-07 11:52:27	0|GitHub181|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5fa7b07565d2...44f2df613f23
 46 2016-11-07 11:52:28	0|GitHub181|13bitcoin/06master 1444f2df6 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8675: Make copyright header lines uniform...
 47 2016-11-07 11:52:39	0|GitHub151|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8675: Make copyright header lines uniform (06master...06copyright-made-uniform) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8675
 48 2016-11-07 11:54:38	0|GitHub23|13bitcoin/06master 1466ca6cd 15S. Matthew English: Enforcing consistency, 'gitian' to 'Gitian'...
 49 2016-11-07 11:54:38	0|GitHub23|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/44f2df613f23...2b799ae9e1e0
 50 2016-11-07 11:54:39	0|GitHub23|13bitcoin/06master 142b799ae 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9083: Enforcing consistency, 'gitian' to 'Gitian'...
 51 2016-11-07 11:54:47	0|GitHub179|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9083: Enforcing consistency, 'gitian' to 'Gitian' (06master...06patch-9) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9083
 52 2016-11-07 12:03:54	0|GitHub3|13bitcoin/06master 14faead5e 15MarcoFalke: [doc] release-process: Mention GitHub release and archived release notes
 53 2016-11-07 12:03:54	0|GitHub3|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2b799ae9e1e0...2fae5b93468c
 54 2016-11-07 12:03:55	0|GitHub3|13bitcoin/06master 142fae5b9 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9093: [doc] release-process: Mention GitHub release and archived release notes...
 55 2016-11-07 12:04:07	0|GitHub31|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9093: [doc] release-process: Mention GitHub release and archived release notes (06master...06Mf1611-docRel) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9093
 56 2016-11-07 12:07:41	0|GitHub126|13bitcoin/06master 141ee6f91 15nomnombtc: new var DIST_CONTRIB adds useful things for packagers from contrib/ to EXTRA_DIST
 57 2016-11-07 12:07:41	0|GitHub126|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2fae5b93468c...078900df75f1
 58 2016-11-07 12:07:42	0|GitHub126|13bitcoin/06master 14078900d 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8568: new var DIST_CONTRIB adds useful things for packagers from contrib...
 59 2016-11-07 12:10:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8568: new var DIST_CONTRIB adds useful things for packagers from contrib (06master...06DIST_CONTRIB) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8568
 60 2016-11-07 12:10:03	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8568 | new var DIST_CONTRIB adds useful things for packagers from contrib by nomnombtc · Pull Request #8568 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 61 2016-11-07 12:14:31	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d32036a 15Gregory Maxwell: Use RelevantServices instead of node_network in AttemptToEvict....
 62 2016-11-07 12:14:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/078900df75f1...c113a651f1f5
 63 2016-11-07 12:14:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c113a65 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9052: Use RelevantServices instead of node_network in AttemptToEvict....
 64 2016-11-07 12:14:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9052 | Use RelevantServices instead of node_network in AttemptToEvict. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9052 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 65 2016-11-07 12:14:40	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9052: Use RelevantServices instead of node_network in AttemptToEvict. (06master...06prefer_relevant2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9052
 66 2016-11-07 12:14:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9052 | Use RelevantServices instead of node_network in AttemptToEvict. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9052 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 67 2016-11-07 12:20:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141f951c6 15R E Broadley: Allow filterclear messages for enabling TX relay only....
 68 2016-11-07 12:20:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c113a651f1f5...1e50d22ed2df
 69 2016-11-07 12:20:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141e50d22 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8709: Allow filterclear messages for enabling TX relay only....
 70 2016-11-07 12:20:25	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8709 | Allow filterclear messages for enabling TX relay only. by rebroad · Pull Request #8709 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 71 2016-11-07 12:20:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8709: Allow filterclear messages for enabling TX relay only. (06master...06AllowFilterclear) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8709
 72 2016-11-07 12:20:36	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8709 | Allow filterclear messages for enabling TX relay only. by rebroad · Pull Request #8709 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 73 2016-11-07 12:33:37	0|wumpus|can whoever is in charge of gribble please make it ignore user 'bitcoin-git'?
 74 2016-11-07 12:34:40	0|wumpus|nanotube ^^
 75 2016-11-07 12:38:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1e50d22ed2df...3c03dc2cfc07
 76 2016-11-07 12:38:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140bd581a 15Alex Morcos: add release notes for removal of priority estimation
 77 2016-11-07 12:38:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b2322e0 15Alex Morcos: Remove priority estimation
 78 2016-11-07 12:38:11	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143c03dc2 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #7730: Remove priority estimation...
 79 2016-11-07 12:38:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7730 | Remove priority estimation by morcos · Pull Request #7730 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 80 2016-11-07 12:38:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #7730: Remove priority estimation (06master...06removePriEst) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7730
 81 2016-11-07 12:38:48	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7730 | Remove priority estimation by morcos · Pull Request #7730 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 82 2016-11-07 12:43:06	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145ca8ef2 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: libconsensus: Add input validation of flags...
 83 2016-11-07 12:43:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3c03dc2cfc07...8c6218a28ae8
 84 2016-11-07 12:43:07	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148c6218a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8976: libconsensus: Add input validation of flags...
 85 2016-11-07 12:43:08	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8976 | libconsensus: Add input validation of flags by laanwj · Pull Request #8976 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 86 2016-11-07 12:43:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8976: libconsensus: Add input validation of flags (06master...062016_10_bitcoinconsensus_input_checking) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8976
 87 2016-11-07 12:43:16	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8976 | libconsensus: Add input validation of flags by laanwj · Pull Request #8976 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 88 2016-11-07 12:44:29	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ff6639b 15Pavel Janík: Do not shadow local variable
 89 2016-11-07 12:44:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8c6218a28ae8...0b2322b144a0
 90 2016-11-07 12:44:30	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140b2322b 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8981: Wshadow: Do not shadow argument with a local variable...
 91 2016-11-07 12:44:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8981 | Wshadow: Do not shadow argument with a local variable by paveljanik · Pull Request #8981 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 92 2016-11-07 12:44:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8981: Wshadow: Do not shadow argument with a local variable (06master...0620161020_Wshadow_rpcdump) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8981
 93 2016-11-07 12:44:38	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8981 | Wshadow: Do not shadow argument with a local variable by paveljanik · Pull Request #8981 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 94 2016-11-07 13:17:42	0|nanotube|wumpus: done
 95 2016-11-07 13:20:37	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e760b30 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Use correct conversion function for boost::path datadir...
 96 2016-11-07 13:20:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0b2322b144a0...78cdd643d317
 97 2016-11-07 13:20:38	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1478cdd64 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #9094: qt: Use correct conversion function for boost::path datadir...
 98 2016-11-07 13:20:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #9094: qt: Use correct conversion function for boost::path datadir (06master...062016_11_datadir_in_console) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9094
 99 2016-11-07 13:24:32	0|MarcoFalke|jonasschnelli: Can you check if test_random.h is on your gitian machine?
100 2016-11-07 13:24:40	0|MarcoFalke|the builds are broken since https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/cdfb7755a6af2e95e8598ca8e8d6896c745bcd72/src/test/test_random.h is merged
101 2016-11-07 13:26:01	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: the first errored build was on 19th of october https://bitcoin.jonasschnelli.ch/nightlybuilds/2016-10-19/
102 2016-11-07 13:26:30	0|jonasschnelli|Matches ~PR8914
103 2016-11-07 13:30:09	0|MarcoFalke|Jup, I am assuming the file is locally corrupted on your machine
104 2016-11-07 13:35:15	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: hmm... rm inputs/bitcoin and do a fresh local heckout?
105 2016-11-07 13:36:09	0|jonasschnelli|File looks good:
106 2016-11-07 13:36:09	0|jonasschnelli|openssl dgst -sha256 src/test/test_random.h
107 2016-11-07 13:36:09	0|jonasschnelli|SHA256(src/test/test_random.h)= a118ebaa4c62ee05eddd516a819d8311613140abd8fda70fa9ec62e20b2bd83b
108 2016-11-07 13:37:01	0|sipa|wumpus, MarcoFalke: it wasn't much work, and i was a bit surprised there was no way to collapse the notes in the releases page, so of anyone cares, i'm fine with changing it to links (but i hope it doesn't cause mass mails again)
109 2016-11-07 14:02:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #9095: test: Fix test_random includes (06master...06Mf1611-testRand) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9095
110 2016-11-07 14:08:27	0|MarcoFalke|Did anyone receive a email for the edit of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.13.1?
111 2016-11-07 14:10:33	0|wumpus|I didn't
112 2016-11-07 14:11:49	0|jonasschnelli|No email
113 2016-11-07 14:11:57	0|wumpus|looks like you're safe, or maybe gh is queing them all up to send them at once once you finish editing all the tags :)
114 2016-11-07 14:44:38	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: compiling 9095 over gitian still gives me: test/coins_tests.cpp:10:30: fatal error: test/test_random.h: No such file or directory
115 2016-11-07 14:44:57	0|MarcoFalke|:/
116 2016-11-07 14:45:06	0|MarcoFalke|Trying local gitian build
117 2016-11-07 14:45:35	0|jonasschnelli|I don't understand why we don't have the test headers in the Makefile.test.include
118 2016-11-07 14:45:48	0|jonasschnelli|I know it can't be the reason.. but still
119 2016-11-07 14:48:47	0|wumpus|I don't understand it either
120 2016-11-07 14:49:31	0|wumpus|the .h files should be in SOURCES too
121 2016-11-07 14:49:45	0|wumpus|maybe just try adding them?
122 2016-11-07 14:53:30	0|sdaftuar|MarcoFalke: regarding the wallet-dump.py test issues i've been seeing, here's an example of a test failure on the machine in question: https://0bin.net/paste/iL+SYGPlmsW0E4DH#
123 2016-11-07 14:53:59	0|sdaftuar|MarcoFalke: and the associated debug.log: https://0bin.net/paste/MB8ipmBEQ9WgjMYS#
124 2016-11-07 14:54:36	0|sdaftuar|i don't really have any idea why it's so slow on this machine that i use to run all the tests.  i agree with your observation that on other hardware, like the machine i do most of my work on, the test is very fast.
125 2016-11-07 14:54:40	0|jtimon|jonasschnelli: any thoughts on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...jtimon:0.13-wallet-less-global ?
126 2016-11-07 14:55:47	0|jonasschnelli|jtimon: Yes. Why not. But I think there are more important global stuff to get rid of first.
127 2016-11-07 14:56:00	0|jonasschnelli|But your change makes sense
128 2016-11-07 14:56:49	0|jonasschnelli|But stuff like "nTxConfirmTarget" and "payTxFee" should be removed from the global scope
129 2016-11-07 14:56:56	0|jtimon|yeah, besides I didn't noticed the use of SoftSetBoolArg() when I wrote it though, I would like to do something about that first
130 2016-11-07 14:57:21	0|jonasschnelli|Also, there is no reason for declaring fWalletRbf in the header IMO.
131 2016-11-07 14:57:33	0|jtimon|just wanted to hear about the const versions of GetArg in general,
132 2016-11-07 14:57:37	0|jtimon|thanks
133 2016-11-07 14:57:39	0|jonasschnelli|SetSoft is kinda magical. :)
134 2016-11-07 14:57:59	0|jtimon|mhmm, more kind of cheating :p
135 2016-11-07 14:58:10	0|MarcoFalke|sdaftuar: Can't decrypt the content in the link
136 2016-11-07 14:58:17	0|MarcoFalke|Is there a password after the hash#
137 2016-11-07 14:58:26	0|MarcoFalke|missing
138 2016-11-07 14:58:52	0|wumpus|overhauling argument handling is kind of a project in itself, I wouldn't confound it with other refactors
139 2016-11-07 14:59:42	0|sdaftuar|MarcoFalke: oops.  here are the links again: https://0bin.net/paste/iL+SYGPlmsW0E4DH#mK-4hZ5Lc535os5rJ7Cr6MtHsqRaIOt7PIXpHN82qcX
140 2016-11-07 14:59:56	0|sdaftuar|https://0bin.net/paste/MB8ipmBEQ9WgjMYS#xGW8WnlIgwDGqWv9-6bbqtV5lvYXTt2jIDPohSVvfgR
141 2016-11-07 15:04:06	0|MarcoFalke|Maybe you are out of randomness
142 2016-11-07 15:04:47	0|MarcoFalke|Hmm, iirc we are using urandom, so it should not be the cause...
143 2016-11-07 15:06:14	0|MarcoFalke|Basically the refill key pool method "sleeps" for 8-9 seconds after generating a couple of keys
144 2016-11-07 15:06:29	0|sdaftuar|yeah i see that
145 2016-11-07 15:10:37	0|MarcoFalke|Would you mind benchmarking around that?
146 2016-11-07 15:10:41	0|MarcoFalke|Maybe around here: https://dev.visucore.com/bitcoin/doxygen/wallet_8cpp_source.html#l00098
147 2016-11-07 15:10:56	0|MarcoFalke|jonasschnelli: gitian fails locally
148 2016-11-07 15:11:07	0|MarcoFalke|for me as well
149 2016-11-07 15:11:17	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: Okay. Thats good.
150 2016-11-07 15:11:21	0|sdaftuar|sure, i'll give it a shot.
151 2016-11-07 15:22:01	0|MarcoFalke|jtimon: Wouldn't it make sense to create a separate class for parsing instead.
152 2016-11-07 15:22:24	0|MarcoFalke|I mean not passing the global is a trivial improvement, but it won't help us in the long term goal
153 2016-11-07 15:23:53	0|jtimon|not sure, maybe, so far it would be just those 3 getarg methods, maybe getAmountArg too
154 2016-11-07 15:24:43	0|jtimon|I don't really see much diferrence on passing the map as it is as const or pass it as a class (also as const)
155 2016-11-07 15:24:59	0|MarcoFalke|I mean why would the wallet need to know that mapArgs is of such type? Why would the wallet need to know mapArgs exists at all?
156 2016-11-07 15:25:32	0|jtimon|why would it need to know about the new class? it's the same, no?
157 2016-11-07 15:26:49	0|MarcoFalke|Imo you are exposing too much internal details with the new interface.
158 2016-11-07 15:30:08	0|MarcoFalke|It is similar, but not the same. I think a new class could help to rework the arg handling.
159 2016-11-07 15:31:00	0|MarcoFalke|First, you instanciate CArgParse with the args provided by each module. Then you can parse the args and finally each module can ask the instance for the value of each arg...
160 2016-11-07 15:31:57	0|MarcoFalke|If there are args present in the map which are not provided by any module you can warn the user
161 2016-11-07 15:45:35	0|jtimon|MarcoFalke: oh, I see, yeah I guess for extra checks it may make sense, not sure it's worth it to parse a different mapArgs for each module and sounds like nasty work
162 2016-11-07 15:46:40	0|jtimon|regarding "exposing too much details" maybe a typedef for the map will help? or you just want to encapsulate the map? in that case you will definitely need more methods, like getAmountArg
163 2016-11-07 15:48:39	0|MarcoFalke|It is a single mapArgs internally and each module provides all valid parameter names to the arg parse class somwehere in init.cpp
164 2016-11-07 15:50:23	0|MarcoFalke|In a second step you actually parse. And thereafter, the modules can query their values by providing a the corresponding parameter name
165 2016-11-07 15:57:27	0|MarcoFalke|jonasschnelli: amended your suggestion. #9095 should pass now
166 2016-11-07 15:57:29	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9095 | test: Fix test_random includes by MarcoFalke · Pull Request #9095 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
167 2016-11-07 15:57:40	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: okay. Building again
168 2016-11-07 16:11:09	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: still got: test/coins_tests.cpp:10:30: fatal error: test/test_random.h: No such file or directory
169 2016-11-07 16:11:18	0|jonasschnelli|Do i need to flush/remove something?
170 2016-11-07 16:11:27	0|jonasschnelli|Ah.. shit..
171 2016-11-07 16:11:40	0|jonasschnelli|checked wrong log... still compiling. False alarm.
172 2016-11-07 16:17:02	0|MarcoFalke|Heh, the fact that it didn't fail until now probably means it will pass.
173 2016-11-07 16:18:28	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Seems to be passing... qt stuff is now compiling
174 2016-11-07 16:48:19	0|sdaftuar|MarcoFalke: i tried adding some instrumentation to GenerateNewKey.  It looks like the disk-related calls (WriteHDChain, AddKeyPubKey) are what can be slow, but aren't always
175 2016-11-07 16:49:47	0|sdaftuar|MarcoFalke: i'm guessing it's just an issue with my disk being a bottleneck when the machine gets loaded.  it's a spinning disk, and i have a lot of jobs running on this machine potentially at the same time
176 2016-11-07 16:55:35	0|sdaftuar|MarcoFalke: i'll probably migrate my test-running to a new machine that's less loaded but i think bumping timeouts to avoid transient errors is still something we might as well do, not really any downside right?
177 2016-11-07 16:56:55	0|MarcoFalke|Yeah, a minute should do it, though. No need to wait for a quarter hour to see something timed out.
178 2016-11-07 16:57:23	0|sdaftuar|yeah
179 2016-11-07 17:22:20	0|andytoshi|is there a simple or linkable reason that segwit blocks need to commit to witness data at all? this is hard to google for, seems like this is always a background assumption, but it's coming up in context of mimblewimble..
180 2016-11-07 17:24:59	0|sipa|the most important reason is DoS protection
181 2016-11-07 17:25:55	0|sipa|usually, we can assume that a high frequency of incoming blocks (which pass PoW) is impossible, because PoW prevents that
182 2016-11-07 17:27:09	0|sipa|but if witness data is not committed to, you cannot distinguish between the case where a miner simply created an invalid block, or your relay peer damaged the witness in flight, and thus you can no longer make validation failure result in the block being marked permanently invalid
183 2016-11-07 17:27:42	0|andytoshi|ok, cool, that's what i had thought
184 2016-11-07 17:28:25	0|andytoshi|there is a related DoS vector with in-flight transactions though, and they don't have PoW
185 2016-11-07 17:28:35	0|andytoshi|i guess that is dealt with by just banning peers?
186 2016-11-07 17:29:37	0|sipa|right
187 2016-11-07 17:29:48	0|sipa|the issue does exist for transactions
188 2016-11-07 17:30:04	0|sipa|but the cost of a transaction for validation is much lower
189 2016-11-07 17:30:26	0|andytoshi|ok, great, thanks
190 2016-11-07 17:30:38	0|sipa|and failure to process a transaction in a short time does not result in network convergence being hurt
191 2016-11-07 17:30:47	0|andytoshi|yeah, that just occured to me
192 2016-11-07 17:31:06	0|sipa|... though after compact blocks, they sort of do, in a weaker way
193 2016-11-07 17:31:57	0|andytoshi|well, peer banning on bad blocks (that aren't actually bad) could lead to a sybil attack being amplified to a permanent fork i suspect
194 2016-11-07 17:32:03	0|andytoshi|the risk with CB is that things will be slower
195 2016-11-07 17:32:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/78cdd643d317...1253f8692fc3
196 2016-11-07 17:32:28	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148463aaa 15Russell Yanofsky: [qa] Increase wallet-dump RPC timeout...
197 2016-11-07 17:32:28	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e89614b 15Russell Yanofsky: [qa] Add more helpful RPC timeout message...
198 2016-11-07 17:32:29	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141253f86 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9077: [qa] Increase wallet-dump RPC timeout...
199 2016-11-07 17:32:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9077: [qa] Increase wallet-dump RPC timeout (06master...06fix-wallet-dump-timeout) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9077
200 2016-11-07 18:19:10	0|instagibbs|So I noticed that AcceptBlock attempts to validate various amounts of the genesisblock upon reindexing. Is this desired behavior? For example, it checks for height in coinbase if bip34height is set to <= 0
201 2016-11-07 18:20:12	0|instagibbs|I don't know the validation flow very well, so perhaps this is ok, but I've been told Core doesn't validate the genesis block.
202 2016-11-07 18:20:35	0|BlueMatt|reminder: the first round of public 33c3 tickets go on sale in ~40 minutes
203 2016-11-07 18:21:02	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: ^ :p
204 2016-11-07 18:30:41	0|instagibbs|I now understand that this won't fork anyone off, but it might make sense to special case the genesis block again for this case.
205 2016-11-07 18:30:49	0|instagibbs|(this meaning current behavior)
206 2016-11-07 18:32:24	0|sipa|instagibbs: imho, we should not apply any tests to genssis
207 2016-11-07 18:32:51	0|instagibbs|Ok, I can PR something
208 2016-11-07 18:49:43	0|instagibbs|sipa, ConnectBlock calls CheckBlock on genesis right before it short-circuits the rest of the logic. Comment above said CheckBlock is "// Check it again in case a previous version let a bad block in"
209 2016-11-07 18:52:24	0|sipa|instagibbs: that's a very old comment
210 2016-11-07 18:53:12	0|instagibbs|Could you elaborate on what a newer comment explaining the line would entail :)
211 2016-11-07 18:54:04	0|instagibbs|From a naive reviewer I'd say it's a bunch of cheap checks to run before loading coins, validating everything else.
212 2016-11-07 18:57:43	0|cfields|sipa / wumpus: thanks for helping out on #8708. Just catching up after being out of town for the weekend. I was expecting to fix it up today, but finding it already merged is even better :)
213 2016-11-07 18:57:53	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8708 | net: have CConnman handle message sending by theuni · Pull Request #8708 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
214 2016-11-07 19:39:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #9097: [qa] Rework sync_* and preciousblock.py (06master...06Mf1611-qaSyncAndPrecious) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9097
215 2016-11-07 19:59:50	0|jtimon|how can the same test pass when make check but not with test_bitcoin --run_test=MyTest ?
216 2016-11-07 20:00:20	0|sipa|it means you're leaving some state around and not cleaning it up
217 2016-11-07 20:06:07	0|jtimon|within the test?
218 2016-11-07 20:07:00	0|MarcoFalke|In a previous test. So MyTest depends on a previous test, which it should not.
219 2016-11-07 20:09:55	0|jtimon|oh, I see
220 2016-11-07 20:10:09	0|jtimon|may be, let me comment the previous test
221 2016-11-07 20:10:12	0|jtimon|thanks
222 2016-11-07 20:10:20	0|sipa|or _any_ previous test
223 2016-11-07 20:21:42	0|jtimon|yes, it is my own previous test in the same file, but I still don't understand why, thanks again
224 2016-11-07 20:42:52	0|satosh-777-xl_|I asked this on bitcoin-dev and was told to check the developer notes and then post on here if I couldn't find anything.. Anyways as core is moving away from boost and BOOST_FOREACH loops in favor of standard C++ (11), is the following for loop syntax acceptable?
225 2016-11-07 20:42:53	0|satosh-777-xl_|for (Class c : vClass) { c.nonce++ }
226 2016-11-07 20:48:01	0|sipa|that won't work. that syntax will make c into a copy of the item being iterator over
227 2016-11-07 20:50:31	0|satosh-777-xl_|I'm sorry, that loop is broken. I was just wondering if that code style (if it didn't have the error of copying c) is okay or if for (size_t i = 0; i < 10; i++) should be the only style used
228 2016-11-07 20:52:01	0|sipa|(Class c& : vClass) {
229 2016-11-07 20:52:03	0|sipa|for (Class c& : vClass) {
230 2016-11-07 20:54:33	0|satosh-777-xl_|Okay, so if used correctly that style of for loop is okay to use in a new pull request?
231 2016-11-07 20:54:56	0|sipa|yes
232 2016-11-07 20:56:55	0|satosh-777-xl_|Thanks you I was curious, thats all :)
233 2016-11-07 20:57:01	0|satosh-777-xl_|*thank you
234 2016-11-07 21:25:33	0|cfields|morcos: re yesterday's ping, it should be fixed in master now. The fix (8708) was PR'd a long time ago, it just took a while to get merged.
235 2016-11-07 21:27:06	0|morcos|cfields: thanks! i did try scanning open PR's but not thoroughly enough I guess and missed it.
236 2016-11-07 21:39:04	0|btcdrak|wumpus: looks like jgarzik merged that JSON whitespace issue upstream, what is the next step - once that is merged into core we'll need to remove the white space from a couple of fixtures in src/test/data/*.json files.
237 2016-11-07 22:04:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #9098: [qa] Handle zombies and cluttered tmpdirs (06master...06Mf1611-qaZombies) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9098
238 2016-11-07 22:20:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fe1dc62 15Matt Corallo: Hash P2P messages as they are received instead of at process-time
239 2016-11-07 22:20:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1253f8692fc3...9f554e03ebe5
240 2016-11-07 22:20:16	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149f554e0 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #9045: Hash P2P messages as they are received instead of at process-time...
241 2016-11-07 22:20:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #9045: Hash P2P messages as they are received instead of at process-time (06master...062016-10-p2p-hash) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9045
242 2016-11-07 22:34:47	0|BlueMatt|lol, sipa, did you go through all my pulls just to tell me that i need to rebase all of them? :p
243 2016-11-07 22:34:54	0|BlueMatt|fucking cfields and his refactors....
244 2016-11-07 22:35:16	0|cfields|BlueMatt: i could say the same about you :)
245 2016-11-07 22:35:49	0|BlueMatt|heh, true
246 2016-11-07 22:35:56	0|sipa|BlueMatt: yes
247 2016-11-07 22:36:21	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i didn't expect they'd all need rebasing
248 2016-11-07 22:37:32	0|BlueMatt|heh, all good
249 2016-11-07 22:38:06	0|cfields|BlueMatt: I'm getting ready to PR the layer violation fix you requested (avoiding having CConnman do the serializing). It'll touch all PushMessage one last time. Would you like me to hold off until some of yours go in?
250 2016-11-07 22:38:46	0|cfields|not sure if that disrupts you at all
251 2016-11-07 22:39:12	0|BlueMatt|naa, all good, those are trivial rebaes
252 2016-11-07 22:39:13	0|BlueMatt|rebases
253 2016-11-07 22:39:27	0|cfields|ok
254 2016-11-07 22:39:42	0|gmaxwell|sipa: "an unintentionally strong preference for witness peers" < well it was as strong as I intend it to be, after SW activates I was planning on merging the NODE_WITNESS preference into the node-network one and making it absolute and not a preference. In releases post sw I think we shouldn't connect out at all to non sw peers.
255 2016-11-07 22:40:25	0|cfields|sipa: i think i've decided against the refcounted messages altogether. I just can't see a clean way to make it happen. And you pretty much convinced me it wouldn't be effective anyway.
256 2016-11-07 22:41:05	0|cfields|gmaxwell: heh, sorry, apparently i type too slowly :)
257 2016-11-07 22:41:49	0|sipa|gmaxwell: it seems arbitrary to base it on the number of connections, and not the number of witness connections
258 2016-11-07 22:42:05	0|sipa|maybe it was what you intended, but then i misunderstood the intention
259 2016-11-07 22:44:46	0|gmaxwell|sipa: the intention was "don't leave ourselves totally disconnected because we're insisting on witness peers"-- which is a reasonable thing to do before segwit is activated and when the number of witness peers is low.
260 2016-11-07 22:45:34	0|gmaxwell|I would much rather prefer that all of a node's outbound were witness peers, even now. But that was unrealistic in 0.13.1 due to the chicken/egg problem. :)
261 2016-11-07 22:45:44	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i see
262 2016-11-07 22:46:06	0|phantomcircuit|rebased #8831
263 2016-11-07 22:46:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8831 | Replace CWalletDB::ReadKeyValue with CWallet::LoadKeyValue by pstratem · Pull Request #8831 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
264 2016-11-07 22:58:13	0|BlueMatt|rebased all the things
265 2016-11-07 23:00:49	0|phantomcircuit|BlueMatt: indeed
266 2016-11-07 23:00:56	0|phantomcircuit|this one is my own fault though
267 2016-11-07 23:01:01	0|phantomcircuit|so i dont get to blame anybody else
268 2016-11-07 23:59:56	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: btw I read the last commit of TheBlueMatt/net_processing_file and I like the movement at the end