1 2016-11-22 02:55:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15gmaxwell opened pull request #9199: Always drop the least preferred HB peer when adding a new one. (06master...06remove_high_bandwidth_zombies) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9199
  2 2016-11-22 03:04:31	0|vanishing-coins|hey guys, I believe I have found a rather serious issue with 0.13.1 but I am trying to figure out what is causing it
  3 2016-11-22 03:04:38	0|vanishing-coins|the symptom is that as coins are being sent through standard sendtoaddress RPC calls, overtime some change gets 'lost' until the wallet trends to 0, and the true balance is only restored when restarting Bitcoind. I am not speaking hyperbolically
  4 2016-11-22 03:04:44	0|vanishing-coins|coins are never 'lost' but bitcoind has to restart for the correct balance to be shown
  5 2016-11-22 03:05:01	0|vanishing-coins|I help multiple clients manage their nodes and this is the second time that I have seen this happen
  6 2016-11-22 03:05:18	0|vanishing-coins|both clients were running 0.12 before without issue, upgraded to 0.13.1 and HD wallets and both had the issue within 48 hours of upgrading
  7 2016-11-22 03:15:16	0|vanishing-coins|both are running on m1.smalls on Amazon EC2
  8 2016-11-22 03:15:40	0|vanishing-coins|1.7 gigs of ram, is it possible that unexpected behavior manifest due to low RAM? what would I be grepping for in the debug.log if so
  9 2016-11-22 03:17:14	0|vanishing-coins|the max memory pool is set to 300mb
 10 2016-11-22 03:29:39	0|instagibbs|vanishing-coins, do you have debug.log to share?
 11 2016-11-22 03:30:26	0|instagibbs|it sounds awfully similar to if you somehow chain too many transactions in mempool, it can throw an error and "lose" coins until restart
 12 2016-11-22 03:32:37	0|vanishing-coins|instagibbs i do
 13 2016-11-22 03:32:45	0|vanishing-coins|and that is definitely very possible -- can you elaborate on that chaining issue?
 14 2016-11-22 03:32:55	0|instagibbs|well a look at the debug log when this happens would be helpful
 15 2016-11-22 03:32:55	0|vanishing-coins|is that a product of having too small a memory pool? any link i can read up on?
 16 2016-11-22 03:33:20	0|instagibbs|no, sorry it's likely not the issue, just thinking out loud. debug.log sharing is best
 17 2016-11-22 03:56:21	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: that wouldn't be until restart, no, it would be until after some of the chain confirms and then the retransmit logic fires.
 18 2016-11-22 04:08:57	0|vanishing-coins|hey sorry got disconnected
 19 2016-11-22 04:09:01	0|vanishing-coins|I am uploading the debug.log now
 20 2016-11-22 04:10:30	0|vanishing-coins|I also dropped memorypool size to 150 mb, and dbcache to 80
 21 2016-11-22 04:10:54	0|vanishing-coins|but very strange all around that two completely separate instances on EC2 of the same type were running fine on 0.12 but both, within 72 hours of upgrading, had the same exact issue :/
 22 2016-11-22 06:21:40	0|luke-jr|cfields: ping
 23 2016-11-22 06:21:53	0|luke-jr|should we be doing UpdateUncommittedBlockStructures in GBT proposals? :x
 24 2016-11-22 06:22:53	0|cfields|luke-jr: are gbt proposals used?
 25 2016-11-22 06:23:07	0|luke-jr|cfields: that's currently how I'm trying to test :D
 26 2016-11-22 06:23:20	0|cfields|luke-jr: heh, i've been using #9000
 27 2016-11-22 06:23:22	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9000 | miner debugging: faux-mining by theuni · Pull Request #9000 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 28 2016-11-22 06:23:45	0|cfields|but, as long as they're there, yea, i suppose so
 29 2016-11-22 06:24:18	0|cfields|luke-jr: which reminds me, in the same vein, i think vbrequired needs some segwit love too?
 30 2016-11-22 06:24:31	0|luke-jr|?
 31 2016-11-22 06:25:36	0|cfields|luke-jr: i just glanced at it briefly tonight, vbrequired is hard-coded to 0 as far as i can tell?
 32 2016-11-22 06:25:44	0|luke-jr|cfields: as it should be right now
 33 2016-11-22 06:25:56	0|cfields|maybe i don't really understand what it's for, i just made a note to look deeper into it later
 34 2016-11-22 06:26:02	0|cfields|(or ping you :p )
 35 2016-11-22 06:26:25	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: I think the GUI should say "X blocks behind" instead of "X days/weeks/months/years" -- the latter seems to be frequently misunderstood as how long the sync is going to take. .. or perhaps we could do something smarter than that.
 36 2016-11-22 06:26:47	0|luke-jr|cfields: it's a constraint on the miner, vbs they *must* signal
 37 2016-11-22 06:27:30	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: the master/0.14 GUI currently has a real ETA
 38 2016-11-22 06:27:58	0|cfields|luke-jr: ah, ok. I thought it was vbs they must understand. nm, then.
 39 2016-11-22 06:28:15	0|luke-jr|cfields: that's "rules", since when they must understand it, there is no bit assigned anymore ;)
 40 2016-11-22 06:29:00	0|cfields|luke-jr: yep, makes sense
 41 2016-11-22 06:29:08	0|luke-jr|huh, serializing CTransaction can modify it? :o
 42 2016-11-22 06:29:31	0|cfields|luke-jr: sorry, didn't mean to hijack. But we may as well fix up proposals if there's a use-case
 43 2016-11-22 06:29:39	0|luke-jr|(it resizes the witness vector to match the input vector)
 44 2016-11-22 06:30:09	0|luke-jr|cfields: well, I guess it's either that and/or make Eloipool submit witness-form gen tx
 45 2016-11-22 06:57:51	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: it used to say 'N blocks behind' a long time ago, was switched after lots of people complaining that blocks aren't a good indication of anything, though I'm not sure the time is that useful either...
 46 2016-11-22 06:58:01	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: there's been so much iteration on that damn progress bar at some point :p
 47 2016-11-22 06:58:34	0|gmaxwell|I was thinking that as I typed it...
 48 2016-11-22 06:58:51	0|wumpus|oh I remember now, that complaint was more like 'blocks are too technical!'
 49 2016-11-22 06:59:01	0|wumpus|'show only blocks count in the debug interface and hover' well okay
 50 2016-11-22 06:59:15	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I was just looking at gui in master... got 'n days behind'. which sounds like how long it will take.
 51 2016-11-22 06:59:18	0|wumpus|maybe things changed with the blockchains hype
 52 2016-11-22 07:00:11	0|gmaxwell|To be honest it might as well say "working hard at catching up! here is a spinner /-\_/-\..."
 53 2016-11-22 07:00:11	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: so the ETA doesn't distract enough from it, you're saying? :x
 54 2016-11-22 07:00:16	0|luke-jr|lol
 55 2016-11-22 07:00:22	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I didn't see it! :P
 56 2016-11-22 07:00:24	0|wumpus|here's dancing hamsters...
 57 2016-11-22 07:00:36	0|luke-jr|I wasn't even looking for it, yet saw and appreciated it :p
 58 2016-11-22 07:01:06	0|gmaxwell|but I've seen two reddit threads recently where they thought the x years behind was the catchup time, and one person on IRC. ... lemme go look
 59 2016-11-22 07:01:16	0|sipa|use this early in the chain when we don't have a good estimate yet: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 60 2016-11-22 07:01:18	0|wumpus|yes I believe you that people get confused about it
 61 2016-11-22 07:01:19	0|luke-jr|yeah, Core 0.13 doesn't have it yet
 62 2016-11-22 07:02:04	0|luke-jr|I once had a feature request for Knots to have a button to click to play an audible "to the moon" sound bite..
 63 2016-11-22 07:02:08	0|sipa|luke-jr: fixed in 8580
 64 2016-11-22 07:02:31	0|wumpus|it's not really telling what it is doing either, e.g. if it was more apparent that it was validating history then in that context 'X years behind' makes sense
 65 2016-11-22 07:03:04	0|luke-jr|someone want to make an animation of it checking the blocks? :p
 66 2016-11-22 07:03:22	0|gmaxwell|okay the progress popup box I just dismissed. maybe now that we have that we don't need the progress bar to say 'foo behind'?
 67 2016-11-22 07:03:29	0|wumpus|then again the new modal overlay with ETA and such is really nice and mitigates these concerns
 68 2016-11-22 07:03:51	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: I suggest change the progress bar to "Synchronising (ETA <x>)" ☺
 69 2016-11-22 07:03:58	0|wumpus|luke-jr: +1
 70 2016-11-22 07:04:02	0|fanquake|I agree, the new overlay is a good improvement.
 71 2016-11-22 07:04:26	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: that would be fine.
 72 2016-11-22 07:04:32	0|wumpus|luke-jr: haha an animation of someone retrieving books of transactions from a chain of blocks and checking them?
 73 2016-11-22 07:05:29	0|fanquake|wumpus or gmaxwell, have you seen any Boost related memory leaks during your testing?
 74 2016-11-22 07:05:43	0|gmaxwell|the popup is kind of a sea of grey on my screen.
 75 2016-11-22 07:05:52	0|fanquake|Sorry to change topic, but I seem to have fallen down some memory leaks rabbit holes.
 76 2016-11-22 07:05:58	0|gmaxwell|fanquake: no!
 77 2016-11-22 07:06:01	0|wumpus|fanquake: nope.
 78 2016-11-22 07:06:21	0|wumpus|fanquake: qt and ancillary GUI libs (Fontconfig etc) is the only thing leaking here
 79 2016-11-22 07:06:55	0|fanquake|Hmm ok you see leaks from leveldb as well?
 80 2016-11-22 07:06:55	0|wumpus|and all the leaks apparent in other libraries downstream seem to come from there
 81 2016-11-22 07:06:59	0|wumpus|no
 82 2016-11-22 07:07:13	0|luke-jr|wumpus: I was thinking more of a horizontal line of pages sized based on the block size, and a red line scanning over them ;)
 83 2016-11-22 07:07:14	0|wumpus|nothing in the core code
 84 2016-11-22 07:07:27	0|gmaxwell|No. There is a little bit from the openssl RNG.
 85 2016-11-22 07:07:28	0|wumpus|bitcoind is 100% leak clen
 86 2016-11-22 07:07:40	0|gmaxwell|but bitcoind itself is 100% leak clean for me.
 87 2016-11-22 07:07:42	0|luke-jr|wumpus: valgrind thinks the wallet code leaks
 88 2016-11-22 07:07:58	0|wumpus|(at least the normal exit path, I haven't tried all kinds of panic shutdown scenarios ofc)
 89 2016-11-22 07:08:08	0|luke-jr|it was around some BDB mess, so I didn't look far
 90 2016-11-22 07:08:23	0|luke-jr|(one time at startup)
 91 2016-11-22 07:08:37	0|wumpus|luke-jr: not seeing that here. But I use the system berkeleydb in Ubuntu 16.04
 92 2016-11-22 07:08:43	0|wumpus|not 4.8 or that shit :)
 93 2016-11-22 07:09:43	0|luke-jr|I use system 4.8 :P
 94 2016-11-22 07:09:59	0|fanquake|Ok, I'll post a few details in a sec.
 95 2016-11-22 07:10:38	0|wumpus|I honestly don't even know what version it is... lemme check. 5.3.
 96 2016-11-22 07:11:41	0|wumpus|in any case I don't think we can ever prevent all one-time leaks in the GUI code, too many moving parts
 97 2016-11-22 07:12:37	0|gmaxwell|they're mostly interesting to fix because sometimes they're actual bugs, and keeping down the inconsequential ones avoids hiding the actual bugs.
 98 2016-11-22 07:12:49	0|wumpus|the only reason they're annoying at all is that they clutter the overview, so you may miss repeated leaks
 99 2016-11-22 07:13:08	0|wumpus|right - I found an actual (minor) bug due to it with the rpc console thread
100 2016-11-22 07:14:11	0|fanquake|What I'm seeing seems to be Boost related, somewhere in CCoinsViewCache::FetchCoins()
101 2016-11-22 07:15:03	0|wumpus|do you see it with only the GUI, or with bitcoind too?
102 2016-11-22 07:15:41	0|wumpus|(not seeing them in any case but maybe an OSX thing?)
103 2016-11-22 07:17:00	0|fanquake|Have only tested with bitcoin-qt so far, I'll look at bitcoind now.
104 2016-11-22 07:23:31	0|fanquake|Here's a stack trace for the Boost leak, http://pastebin.com/V2QY8NT4 , not seeing anything on bitcoind so far (other than something related to berkely-db)
105 2016-11-22 07:23:33	0|wumpus|the most sneaky leak (and also most bytes wasted) I fixed in #9190 was the openssl certstore one (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9190/commits/4b2c2888868cb49806cd734ea36e7f5b032c3b00) . OpenSSL's documentation is somewhat fuzzy about it, but the assumption there was wrong, that X509_STORE_add_cert really tkaes ownership
106 2016-11-22 07:23:35	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9190 | qt: Plug many memory leaks by laanwj · Pull Request #9190 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
107 2016-11-22 07:25:10	0|wumpus|fanquake: what version of boost?
108 2016-11-22 07:25:21	0|sipa|fanquake: is that with a clean shutdown?
109 2016-11-22 07:25:59	0|fanquake|Boost 1.62.0
110 2016-11-22 07:26:09	0|fanquake|That is without shutting down, just while it's running.
111 2016-11-22 07:26:24	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: I'm also compiling against Qt 5.7
112 2016-11-22 07:26:47	0|wumpus|you can only see *leaks* after you've shut down
113 2016-11-22 07:26:56	0|jonasschnelli|though I don't see the CCoinsViewCache::FetchCoins() leak
114 2016-11-22 07:27:51	0|wumpus|profilers can't predict the future of what an application is going to do with some memory, so you can't be sure some memory won't be released until the end of the shutdown sequence
115 2016-11-22 07:28:30	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: I guess some leaks are detectable during runtime (when all pointers have lost the object)... not?
116 2016-11-22 07:28:31	0|wumpus|(although it could use some heuristic like "does the application retain any pointers to it" but that's horribly imprecise at most for C++)
117 2016-11-22 07:28:46	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: not in general for unmanaged languages
118 2016-11-22 07:29:12	0|wumpus|and managed languages tend to have garbage collectors anyway :-)
119 2016-11-22 07:29:20	0|jonasschnelli|I guess it often leads to wrong detected leaks... (maybe losts).
120 2016-11-22 07:29:28	0|luke-jr|wumpus: I think it can be done with sufficient accuracy that the alternative is undefined behaviour?
121 2016-11-22 07:29:36	0|luke-jr|or at least very bad code :p
122 2016-11-22 07:30:10	0|jonasschnelli|I also think the Leak detector fanquake and I are using (Apples "Instruments") are not really made for C++... It's perfect when analyzing objective-C code.
123 2016-11-22 07:30:35	0|fanquake|Ok, I'm probably using the wrong terminology here then. I don't have too much experience using these kind of tools.
124 2016-11-22 07:30:46	0|wumpus|luke-jr: well that depends on your definition of 'bad code' I suppose, I'm just talking about theoretic properties not judging any particular use of cpu cycles :p
125 2016-11-22 07:30:50	0|fanquake|jonas Yes, hat might also be a part of the problem.
126 2016-11-22 07:31:05	0|luke-jr|wumpus: by bad code, I mean serializing the pointer in a uint8_t array or something
127 2016-11-22 07:31:18	0|luke-jr|or XORing it
128 2016-11-22 07:31:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0c577f2638b7...e4dbeb94998d
129 2016-11-22 07:31:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144231032 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: [Qt] Clean up and fix coincontrol tree widget handling...
130 2016-11-22 07:31:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1476af4eb 15Jonas Schnelli: [Qt] fix coincontrol sort issue
131 2016-11-22 07:31:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e4dbeb9 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #9185: [Qt] fix coincontrol sort issue...
132 2016-11-22 07:31:36	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: But I was also surprised how many leaks I found with "Instruments" when writing pure C code.
133 2016-11-22 07:31:51	0|jonasschnelli|Though, you need a sleep(100) at the end of your application/unit-tests.
134 2016-11-22 07:32:01	0|jonasschnelli|Brews Valgrind is pretty broken on OSX:
135 2016-11-22 07:32:05	0|jonasschnelli|s/:/.
136 2016-11-22 07:32:22	0|luke-jr|LLVM also has a leak sanitizer
137 2016-11-22 07:32:30	0|fanquake|jonass As far as I know it won't work at all for a while https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365327
138 2016-11-22 07:32:43	0|fanquake|Neither does GDB
139 2016-11-22 07:32:48	0|wumpus|luke-jr: yes but I don't think e.g. pointer bit flipping tricks are by definition bad code, it just depends on the context, the resources available etc
140 2016-11-22 07:33:42	0|jonasschnelli|IMO all the CDB (BDB) leaks reported by "Instruments" are wrong reports...
141 2016-11-22 07:33:52	0|fanquake|jonasschnelli so when we're looking at anything CWallet related in instruments (which is all I see looking at bitcoind) what are we seeing exactly?
142 2016-11-22 07:34:10	0|fanquake|heh, just what I was wondering.
143 2016-11-22 07:34:17	0|jonasschnelli|fanquake: tons of BDB leaks...
144 2016-11-22 07:34:21	0|jonasschnelli|I guess >10MB
145 2016-11-22 07:34:28	0|jonasschnelli|(for a 300tx regtext wallet)
146 2016-11-22 07:34:29	0|wumpus|PSA: the macosx tools are wasting your time
147 2016-11-22 07:34:30	0|wumpus|:-)
148 2016-11-22 07:34:39	0|fanquake|:o
149 2016-11-22 07:34:53	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: there is also the time profiler in "Instrumenst"... this is really cool.
150 2016-11-22 07:34:59	0|jonasschnelli|gpref like
151 2016-11-22 07:35:08	0|jonasschnelli|gperf
152 2016-11-22 07:35:57	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: how did you detected the Qt leaks? IMO last time I used it on Bitcoin-Qt on Ubuntu I had to force shutdown my machine.. :)
153 2016-11-22 07:36:04	0|wumpus|luke-jr: yes - LLVM sanitizers that's what I used in #9190, built from latest LLVM git even, I have to track that anyhow for some GPU stuff
154 2016-11-22 07:36:06	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9190 | qt: Plug many memory leaks by laanwj · Pull Request #9190 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
155 2016-11-22 07:36:44	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: ^
156 2016-11-22 07:36:51	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Thanks...
157 2016-11-22 07:37:41	0|wumpus|CPPFLAGS="-ggdb -fsanitize=address -fno-omit-frame-pointer"   LDFLAGS="-fsanitize=address"
158 2016-11-22 07:38:25	0|fanquake|So we can ignore all of the certificate related Qt stuff as well?
159 2016-11-22 07:39:04	0|wumpus|it generates really nice rainbow console output, makes finding a use-after-free bug almost enjoyable
160 2016-11-22 07:39:48	0|wumpus|fanquake: not sure about ignoring anything, but please if you report leaks make sure that you are talking about the allocation residue after quitting the application
161 2016-11-22 07:40:47	0|fanquake|wumpus: Yep, have a bit better handle on this now. Looks like using some tools other than the native OS X stuff could be the way to go.
162 2016-11-22 07:43:26	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: but yes visual profilers can be really cool, at a previous employer for solaris we had one that showed exactly what an application was doing on each core in a timeline overview, that was really useful for checking efficiency of concurrency etc
163 2016-11-22 07:44:06	0|wumpus|I kind of miss that in the linux toolset but I may be missing something, so many different tools and instrumentations
164 2016-11-22 07:55:02	0|sipa|dtrace?
165 2016-11-22 07:58:46	0|wumpus|yes I think it was based on that
166 2016-11-22 08:00:32	0|wumpus|but without having to actaully write dtrace scripts :)
167 2016-11-22 08:13:09	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: when compiling with CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS +"-fsanitize=address", I get Undefined symbols during liking (___asan_stack_malloc_5, etc.)? Any ideas?
168 2016-11-22 08:21:30	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: it should try to link against the asan runtime library
169 2016-11-22 08:21:59	0|jonasschnelli|I passed -fasnitize=address as LDFLAGS ... hmm...
170 2016-11-22 08:22:10	0|jonasschnelli|*-fsanitize=address
171 2016-11-22 08:22:20	0|wumpus|things like "libclang_rt.asan_cxx-i686.a"
172 2016-11-22 08:23:01	0|wumpus|I had to put compiler-rt in my llvm/clang build to get them in the first place, but I'd expect distro-build versions to have that enabled by default
173 2016-11-22 08:23:24	0|wumpus|in any case yes passing that to the linker should try to link them automatically
174 2016-11-22 08:25:51	0|jonasschnelli|hmm... libclang_rt.asan_osx_dynamic is present...
175 2016-11-22 08:29:12	0|jonasschnelli|I guess OSX XCode clang uses a different linking approach in oder to support ASAN for all its supported platforms (iOS/ apple tv/ apple watch, etc.).
176 2016-11-22 08:29:29	0|jonasschnelli|Probably better to use a self-compiled clang (or though homebrew)
177 2016-11-22 08:31:11	0|fanquake|I know we already need documentation for lots of existing stuff, but this kind of debugging/configuration/dev tool type stuff would also be worth documenting. At least more than what we have now.
178 2016-11-22 08:31:45	0|fanquake|It'd be nice to have *lots* of people running the identical binary, and similar tools.
179 2016-11-22 08:32:22	0|jonasschnelli|I tried to add the ASAN to the cofigure.ac
180 2016-11-22 08:34:08	0|wumpus|agree that tooling documentation would be useful, though none of this is specific to bitcoin core
181 2016-11-22 08:35:11	0|wumpus|some projects have a wiki with this kind of auxiliary documentation
182 2016-11-22 08:36:03	0|fanquake|Yes I'm assuming there must be similar projects, maybe something like Tor, that would already have alot of this kind of stuff written/documented somewhere.
183 2016-11-22 08:40:18	0|paveljanik|fanquake, the documentation is generic for debugging tools...
184 2016-11-22 08:40:32	0|paveljanik|and there already is a lot of such documentation.
185 2016-11-22 08:49:50	0|wumpus|this can cause especially the 'min' time to be off
186 2016-11-22 08:55:42	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: darn. I thought I'd tested that fairly well.
187 2016-11-22 09:00:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #9200: bench: Fix subtle counting issue when rescaling iteration count (06master...062016_11_bench_fix) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9200
188 2016-11-22 09:08:15	0|gmaxwell|oh pfft.
189 2016-11-22 09:08:27	0|wumpus|yea :)
190 2016-11-22 09:28:35	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: I guess I'd reasoned it would be 0 mod n due to the initial count, oh well.
191 2016-11-22 09:29:33	0|wumpus|yes it's really subtle, I only discovered it because I was printing lots of debug info to debug the cycle counter, then saw the first run after a scale was off
192 2016-11-22 09:31:52	0|wumpus|the use of floating point arithmetic in the benchmarking loop isn't too great either but I'll leave that for another time
193 2016-11-22 09:32:24	0|gmaxwell|yea, esp on the kind of platforms that you really need to benchmark things on.
194 2016-11-22 09:33:32	0|gmaxwell|I wanted to eliminate that too when I last touched it but I thought it would be too much at once. :)
195 2016-11-22 09:47:02	0|wumpus|exactly
196 2016-11-22 09:56:33	0|jouke|re IRC meeting: we use the account system
197 2016-11-22 10:10:13	0|jouke|Basically the same use case as dooglus in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3816
198 2016-11-22 10:11:07	0|wumpus|yes there needs to be an explanation how to do that without accounts / with the new labels API
199 2016-11-22 10:11:45	0|jouke|Not something we can't do ourselves, but it was there, so why not use it :P
200 2016-11-22 10:12:24	0|wumpus|and for that specific use case you don't really need accounts, just a way to track/group incoming payments using a label
201 2016-11-22 10:16:13	0|jouke|And keep track of reorgs?
202 2016-11-22 10:27:36	0|jouke|Again, not something we can't do ourselves and we've known that accounts are deprecated for a while, but I was reading the IRC meeting summary and someone was wondering if anyone talking to the devs was using accounts, so I started talking :P
203 2016-11-22 10:29:42	0|Victorsueca|the whole accounts thing doesn't make a lot of sense
204 2016-11-22 10:30:36	0|jouke|What do you mean Victorsueca?
205 2016-11-22 10:30:44	0|Victorsueca|I received some bitcoins to a address labeled "Victor" and later spent them all
206 2016-11-22 10:31:10	0|Victorsueca|now the account "Victor" still has the balance and the default "" account is in negative
207 2016-11-22 10:31:28	0|Victorsueca|and I didn't use the move command
208 2016-11-22 10:31:53	0|jouke|Victorsueca: because you didn't use "senfrom"?
209 2016-11-22 10:32:22	0|Victorsueca|nope, didn't use that either
210 2016-11-22 10:32:41	0|thermoman|sdaftuar: we do import privkeys every 2 or 3 days
211 2016-11-22 10:32:50	0|jouke|That's why it's negative :).
212 2016-11-22 10:33:17	0|jouke|Victorsueca: but I get why it's confusing, that's one of the reasons it's deprecated :)
213 2016-11-22 10:36:00	0|Victorsueca|is it safe if I move all from bitcoin to "" or I would mess with the wallet balance calculation?
214 2016-11-22 10:36:07	0|Victorsueca|from Victor*
215 2016-11-22 10:37:29	0|jouke|Victorsueca: sendtoaddress only subtracts the amount from the default account, sendfrom subtracts the amount from a specific account. Victorsueca it's safe, but again, don't start using accounts, it will be removed in future versions.
216 2016-11-22 10:38:10	0|Victorsueca|ahh nice
217 2016-11-22 10:47:29	0|luke-jr|Victorsueca: it makes sense.
218 2016-11-22 10:48:02	0|luke-jr|jouke: unless you're willing to *maintain* the account system, your usage isn't likely to change its removal
219 2016-11-22 10:48:18	0|luke-jr|jouke: and even if you're willing to maintain it, I think the conclusion will be "please do it outside bitcoind"
220 2016-11-22 10:49:26	0|jouke|luke-jr: I know.
221 2016-11-22 10:49:32	0|Victorsueca|luke-jr: btw, I was wondering when will you be able to push segwit into bfgminer
222 2016-11-22 10:50:17	0|luke-jr|Victorsueca: you mean libblkmaker :P
223 2016-11-22 10:50:22	0|luke-jr|Victorsueca: testing would be helpful
224 2016-11-22 10:51:45	0|Victorsueca|luke-jr: I would, but my Antminer U3 seems to only work on windows and I didn't find any instructions on how to cross-compile
225 2016-11-22 10:52:10	0|luke-jr|review is helpful too
226 2016-11-22 10:52:26	0|Victorsueca|don't know coding C++
227 2016-11-22 10:54:04	0|luke-jr|https://github.com/bitcoin/libblkmaker/pull/6  https://github.com/luke-jr/eloipool/pull/15
228 2016-11-22 10:54:16	0|luke-jr|Eloipool is Python <.<
229 2016-11-22 10:54:31	0|luke-jr|will get you Windows bins for BFG in a min
230 2016-11-22 10:55:00	0|Victorsueca|nice thanks
231 2016-11-22 10:57:45	0|luke-jr|:| build failure, a few more min..
232 2016-11-22 10:58:15	0|Victorsueca|hehhehe
233 2016-11-22 10:58:44	0|Victorsueca|windoze will always be windoze
234 2016-11-22 11:03:00	0|luke-jr|in this case, it is libgcrypt's fault
235 2016-11-22 11:03:13	0|luke-jr|but that's okay because it shouldn't be using libgcrypt in the first place :P
236 2016-11-22 11:07:57	0|luke-jr|Victorsueca: http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/code/webisect/webisect.php?dobuild=segwit
237 2016-11-22 11:09:39	0|Victorsueca|nice, going to try it out
238 2016-11-22 11:10:30	0|thermoman|gmaxwell, sipa, sdaftuar: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9201
239 2016-11-22 11:16:56	0|luke-jr|Victorsueca: p.s. if you want to mine testnet with it, tmp.pool.bitcoin.dashjr.org port 3334 (stratum) or 8337 (GBT & getwork)
240 2016-11-22 11:17:22	0|luke-jr|Victorsueca: no promises I don't kill it in a few hours tho, it's eating CPU time
241 2016-11-22 11:17:37	0|luke-jr|besides, better to solo mine :P
242 2016-11-22 11:17:52	0|wumpus|jouke: no, with labels instead of accounts you don't have to manually keep track of reorgs, you can still check the total balance received to a label, for example. You just cannot do accounting, so move coins instead of addresses from one label to another
243 2016-11-22 11:18:41	0|luke-jr|can't send from labels either :p
244 2016-11-22 11:18:52	0|wumpus|right
245 2016-11-22 11:21:04	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e0a9cb2 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: bench: Fix subtle counting issue when rescaling iteration count...
246 2016-11-22 11:21:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e4dbeb94998d...55b2eddcc8fd
247 2016-11-22 11:21:05	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1455b2edd 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9200: bench: Fix subtle counting issue when rescaling iteration count...
248 2016-11-22 11:21:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9200: bench: Fix subtle counting issue when rescaling iteration count (06master...062016_11_bench_fix) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9200
249 2016-11-22 11:22:18	0|Victorsueca|luke-jr: thanks, I will try to solo-mine for a while too to see if it signals segwit properly
250 2016-11-22 11:23:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #9202: bench: Add support for measuring CPU cycles (06master...062016_11_bench_cpu_cycles) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9202
251 2016-11-22 11:57:03	0|Victorsueca|luke-jr: any tip on how to detect my Antminer U3? I've been following the instructions on README.ASIC ut it won't detect it
252 2016-11-22 11:57:11	0|Victorsueca|but*
253 2016-11-22 11:57:23	0|luke-jr|Victorsueca: the official drivers are installed? (not WinUSB/Zadig)
254 2016-11-22 11:59:29	0|Victorsueca|ahh, It needs to be with the default driver?
255 2016-11-22 11:59:42	0|Victorsueca|I have WinUSB
256 2016-11-22 12:02:11	0|luke-jr|yes
257 2016-11-22 12:27:22	0|Victorsueca|luke-jr: still not detecting it
258 2016-11-22 12:27:36	0|luke-jr|with the options in README.ASIC?
259 2016-11-22 12:28:02	0|Victorsueca|yep, and with the default sillabs driver
260 2016-11-22 12:28:09	0|wumpus|this is not related to bitcoin core development, can you move this to #bitcoin?
261 2016-11-22 12:28:16	0|Victorsueca|sure
262 2016-11-22 12:57:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #9203: [trivial] Fixes the RPC help text for waitforblockheight (06master...06waitforblockheightcomment) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9203
263 2016-11-22 13:12:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery closed pull request #9203: [trivial] Fixes the RPC help text for waitforblockheight (06master...06waitforblockheightcomment) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9203
264 2016-11-22 13:48:47	0|instagibbs|;;later tell vanishing-coins Looks like you are trying to make dust, aka too-small outputs, and your wallet is refusing to send them
265 2016-11-22 13:48:48	0|gribble|The operation succeeded.
266 2016-11-22 14:33:04	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141260c11 15Pavel Janík: Mention the new network toggle functionality in the tooltip.
267 2016-11-22 14:33:04	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/55b2eddcc8fd...ac489b24453c
268 2016-11-22 14:33:05	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ac489b2 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #9130: Mention the new network toggle functionality in the tooltip....
269 2016-11-22 14:33:18	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #9130: Mention the new network toggle functionality in the tooltip. (06master...0620161111_disable_network_tooltip) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9130
270 2016-11-22 14:42:19	0|nsh|toggles all network activity?
271 2016-11-22 14:42:22	0|nsh|handy i guess
272 2016-11-22 14:43:06	0|jonasschnelli|nsh: The PR above is just a cosmetic one.
273 2016-11-22 14:43:20	0|jonasschnelli|The actual toggle It's in master since some days
274 2016-11-22 14:43:31	0|jonasschnelli|Just press the network-icon on the top right in the status bar.
275 2016-11-22 14:43:39	0|jonasschnelli|(if you are using the GUI)
276 2016-11-22 14:50:21	0|wumpus|setnetworkactive through rpc
277 2016-11-22 18:22:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs opened pull request #9204: Clarify CreateTransaction error messages (06master...06nonneg) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9204
278 2016-11-22 19:06:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15in3rsha opened pull request #9205: Minor change to comment for consistency. (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9205
279 2016-11-22 19:45:04	0|adiabat|howdy, I've having trouble getting 0.13.1 synced up to testnet3
280 2016-11-22 19:45:09	0|adiabat|running on a raspi2
281 2016-11-22 19:45:36	0|adiabat|got a "EXCEPTION: St9bad_alloc" in debug.log
282 2016-11-22 19:45:50	0|sipa|how much ram does that have?
283 2016-11-22 19:45:58	0|adiabat|1G
284 2016-11-22 19:46:25	0|adiabat|I've gotten that exception in different places when deleting and starting over
285 2016-11-22 19:46:25	0|sipa|hmm, maybe you need a bit of tweaking to reduce dbcache/mempool, and limit the number of peers?
286 2016-11-22 19:46:36	0|sipa|it shouldn't be much
287 2016-11-22 19:46:50	0|adiabat|this is all with 1 peer via connect= in the conf
288 2016-11-22 19:47:00	0|adiabat|also I'm running txindex=1
289 2016-11-22 19:47:04	0|sipa|ah
290 2016-11-22 19:48:15	0|adiabat|it was working OK on 0.13.1 but that had been upgraded many times.  Then I broke my microSD card in half :(
291 2016-11-22 19:48:48	0|adiabat|IBD from scratch on .13.1 on the pi may need different settings?
292 2016-11-22 19:50:06	0|sipa|maybe... it clearly means OOM
293 2016-11-22 19:50:55	0|adiabat|I'll try dbcache=64
294 2016-11-22 20:02:43	0|adiabat|If this works (will know in ~24hrs) maybe we can put a readme or something.  With the arm binaries I think more people will try running on a pi2/pi3
295 2016-11-22 20:03:40	0|adiabat|also far be it from me to complain but trashing the who DB requiring re-index on an OOM error is... unfortunate.
296 2016-11-22 20:03:48	0|adiabat|(Not offering to fix that! heh)
297 2016-11-22 20:03:59	0|adiabat|who = *whole
298 2016-11-22 20:05:09	0|sipa|we should work on being able to dump the utxo set to a file and load it back
299 2016-11-22 20:07:51	0|adiabat|I've never had bitcoind get in trouble with RAM on a regular x86 computer, and I've run it on PCs with 2G of RAM
300 2016-11-22 20:15:21	0|gmaxwell|2GB is a lot more than 1GB. :)
301 2016-11-22 20:17:06	0|adiabat|heh... I wonder what the least powerful full node is.  raspi is getting close maybe, but I'm sure someone out there has it running with 512MB
302 2016-11-22 20:17:41	0|Victorsueca|adiabat: just download more ram ;)
303 2016-11-22 20:18:34	0|sipa|it's not cisco hardware
304 2016-11-22 20:18:55	0|pigeons|ramdoubler.exe
305 2016-11-22 20:31:23	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Is the serialization format described in BIP141 only used when calculating a wtxid, or is this serialization format also used when propogating a tx across the p2p network?
306 2016-11-22 20:31:25	0|Chris_Stewart_5|https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#transaction-id
307 2016-11-22 20:32:03	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: see bip144 for that
308 2016-11-22 20:32:55	0|Chris_Stewart_5|ahhh that makes a lot more sense :-)
309 2016-11-22 20:48:31	0|instagibbs|too-many-bips problem :P
310 2016-11-22 20:48:52	0|instagibbs|is there a zmq/rest test suite?
311 2016-11-22 21:38:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15btcdrak opened pull request #9206: Make test constant consistent with consensus.h (06master...06consistency) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9206
312 2016-11-22 22:06:38	0|jtimon|updated https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9177 's description
313 2016-11-22 22:15:16	0|jtimon|also if anyone is bored, you can fetch #8994 , grep and remove 'self.chain = "regtest"' and you should have 4 tests failing, ie p2p-comapctblocks.py,  segwit.py,  mempool_packages.py (extended) and  pruning.py (extended)
314 2016-11-22 22:15:18	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
315 2016-11-22 22:17:39	0|jtimon|also please review #8855 (takes +86 −81 out of review from #8994 's +360 −201 and #9177 's +866 −286)
316 2016-11-22 22:17:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8855 | Use a proper factory for creating chainparams by jtimon · Pull Request #8855 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
317 2016-11-22 22:17:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
318 2016-11-22 22:17:44	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9177 | NOMERGE: WIP: Support block signed custom testchains by jtimon · Pull Request #9177 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
319 2016-11-22 22:18:36	0|jtimon|plus I wouldn't need to rebase every time a new test uses Params(std::string)
320 2016-11-22 22:18:59	0|jtimon|</review begging>
321 2016-11-22 22:20:51	0|jtimon|final note (I believe #8994 could be merged as it is modulo squash)
322 2016-11-22 22:20:52	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8994 | Testchains: Introduce custom chain whose constructor... by jtimon · Pull Request #8994 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
323 2016-11-22 22:36:04	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8877#discussion_r89126900 <-- ?