1 2016-11-24 00:10:18	0|rusty|sipa: trying to find where the relayfeerate changes, other than manual configuration...
  2 2016-11-24 00:10:33	0|sipa|rusty: it doesn't
  3 2016-11-24 00:11:30	0|rusty|sipa: ah, right.  Indeed, I agree that nodes should be scaling their min output level by feerate.  But as long as they propagate that's a v1.1 problem.
  4 2016-11-24 00:12:35	0|sipa|rusty: maybe for DoS reasons it should be changed at some point, but even then i can't imagine that happens in core without making sure it's certain to be consistently higher than actual feerates
  5 2016-11-24 00:14:44	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ca8549d 15Gregory Maxwell: Always drop the least preferred HB peer when adding a new one....
  6 2016-11-24 00:14:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0de7fd36de57...407d9232ef5c
  7 2016-11-24 00:14:45	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14407d923 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #9199: Always drop the least preferred HB peer when adding a new one....
  8 2016-11-24 00:14:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed 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
  9 2016-11-24 00:15:03	0|rusty|gmaxwell: it's your fault I now have 'while sleep 10; do bitcoin-cli getblocktemplate | awk '/"fee"/ { FEES += $2 } /"height"/ { HEIGHT = $2 } END { print HEIGHT,FEES }'; done' running in a terminal here, BTW.
 10 2016-11-24 00:15:54	0|sipa|rusty: i have a patch that builds a max-size block, removes the included transactions from the mempool, then builds another max-size block, etc
 11 2016-11-24 00:16:06	0|sipa|rusty: and then store the min feerate of each of those built blocks
 12 2016-11-24 00:16:19	0|sipa|last entry:
 13 2016-11-24 00:16:20	0|sipa|1479946521 0.00098826 0.00081403 0.00067987 0.00065261 0.00065000 0.00062687 0.00061134 0.00060031 0.00058407 0.00055922
 14 2016-11-24 00:17:05	0|sipa|which means that it would take at least 5 blocks to get the feerate to get accepted down to 65sat/byte
 15 2016-11-24 00:17:25	0|rusty|sipa: nice!
 16 2016-11-24 00:20:23	0|rusty|So it stops when it can't make a full block?
 17 2016-11-24 00:20:34	0|sipa|no, it stops at 10
 18 2016-11-24 00:20:54	0|sipa|i can increase it, and probably should right now
 19 2016-11-24 00:27:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/407d9232ef5c...93566e0c37c5
 20 2016-11-24 00:27:42	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1497e2802 15Matt Corallo: Erase orphans per-transaction instead of per-block
 21 2016-11-24 00:27:42	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ec4525c 15Matt Corallo: Move orphan processing to ActivateBestChain...
 22 2016-11-24 00:27:43	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d2b88f9 15Matt Corallo: Move orphan-conflict removal from main logic into a callback...
 23 2016-11-24 01:15:04	0|fubu|;)
 24 2016-11-24 03:52:38	0|luke-jr|any objections to adding another line "Available without royalties under a free software license" or something?
 25 2016-11-24 03:58:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15luke-jr reopened pull request #8889: Qt/ModalOverlay: Use theme tooltip colours (06master...06overlay_theme) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8889
 26 2016-11-24 06:30:32	0|luke-jr|http://netpatterns.blogspot.de/2016/01/the-rising-sophistication-of-network.html
 27 2016-11-24 08:55:40	0|gmaxwell|http://igoro.com/archive/gallery-of-processor-cache-effects/ some nice examples.
 28 2016-11-24 08:58:11	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: interesting
 29 2016-11-24 09:00:54	0|bitcoin358|hey guys
 30 2016-11-24 09:01:06	0|bitcoin358|quick question, at what point does a .13 node start dropping tx from mem pool
 31 2016-11-24 09:01:18	0|bitcoin358|assuming default mem pool size of 300mb, when that is reached, what happens?
 32 2016-11-24 09:02:24	0|gmaxwell|the lowest feerate transaction is dropped.
 33 2016-11-24 09:02:46	0|bitcoin358|thanks greg
 34 2016-11-24 09:02:58	0|gmaxwell|and the fee filter is increased to tell peers to stop sending transactions with feerates below that-- until there is room again.
 35 2016-11-24 09:03:13	0|bitcoin358|so as a counterpoint
 36 2016-11-24 09:03:23	0|bitcoin358|is there any decent way to tell how many mempools still have your transaction in them
 37 2016-11-24 09:03:44	0|bitcoin358|basically i'm thinking of a business case where you are sending coins to someone, but it doesn't confirm, and the mempool explodes, and they request that you resend
 38 2016-11-24 09:04:16	0|gmaxwell|No. 'how many' isn't particularly important either, what is important is being in the mempools of miners.
 39 2016-11-24 09:04:20	0|bitcoin358|is there a decent way to get a feel for what % of the network or mining pools have still in their mempool, so as to alleviate the risk of double payment
 40 2016-11-24 09:04:52	0|gmaxwell|Then you resend and conflict with the original transaction, it would _never_ be safe to repay without conflicting, regardless of what some mempool in a forrest of nodes is doing.
 41 2016-11-24 09:05:12	0|bitcoin358|I hear you
 42 2016-11-24 09:05:18	0|bitcoin358|what about, in the event, that you have chained unconfirmed inputs
 43 2016-11-24 09:05:19	0|gmaxwell|A miner could happily include any valid transaction they liked... and some miners have APIs to pay them out of band to poke fees into their blocks.
 44 2016-11-24 09:05:47	0|bitcoin358|so customer A wants a manual resend, you do a doublespend with a bigger fee
 45 2016-11-24 09:05:59	0|gmaxwell|bitcoin358: add more fees later in the chain and enjoy giving them to miners running Bitcoin Core, since it will happily notice those fees later in the chain.
 46 2016-11-24 09:06:00	0|bitcoin358|but customer B also received coins that came after A, and are relying on his inputs
 47 2016-11-24 09:06:08	0|bitcoin358|right so
 48 2016-11-24 09:06:13	0|bitcoin358|I am actually trying to do just that, right now!
 49 2016-11-24 09:06:21	0|bitcoin358|however, the issue is I run into the 64 error, mempool chain too long
 50 2016-11-24 09:06:35	0|bitcoin358|I have actually been taking advantage of CPFP the last 48 hours with great success
 51 2016-11-24 09:06:54	0|bitcoin358|but I have this one monster transaction I received and I am trying to get it confirmed by spending it forward with a higher fee, and I get the 64 error
 52 2016-11-24 09:07:41	0|gmaxwell|welp, --- error means what it says, nodes won't handle more than depth 25 for that fee analysis. You can't add more fees on a chain that deep until part of it confirms.
 53 2016-11-24 09:07:53	0|bitcoin358|dang
 54 2016-11-24 09:08:04	0|gmaxwell|is there change on a shorter part of the chain you could potentially add fee via?
 55 2016-11-24 09:08:32	0|bitcoin358|I think so but unfortunately I'm not the node operator, I just received a payment from them
 56 2016-11-24 09:08:38	0|gmaxwell|e.g. A -> B -> D, D'  D -> E -> f ...  but D' is still unspent early in the chain?
 57 2016-11-24 09:08:56	0|bitcoin358|I was hoping I could bump their whole cluster of transactions by being generous on my own but yeah
 58 2016-11-24 09:09:21	0|bitcoin358|they are running .11.... and causing all sorts of problems
 59 2016-11-24 09:09:25	0|gmaxwell|you could if not for the depth limit, unfortunately there had to be a cutoff there to avoid the CPFP analysis taking unbounded cpu.
 60 2016-11-24 09:09:36	0|bitcoin358|i hear you 100%, oh well
 61 2016-11-24 09:09:47	0|bitcoin358|hopefully the mempool subsides tomorrow on the holiday and we get a little relief
 62 2016-11-24 09:10:18	0|gmaxwell|well a luckly run of blocks will happen at some point and clear things out.
 63 2016-11-24 09:10:30	0|bitcoin358|*fingers crossed* lol
 64 2016-11-24 09:10:44	0|bitcoin358|I have like 1.5 BTC from this guy stuck in limbo because he paid $2 on a 25 kb transaction ..
 65 2016-11-24 09:11:10	0|bitcoin358|CPFP is working great otherwise
 66 2016-11-24 09:11:11	0|bitcoin358|:)
 67 2016-11-24 09:11:29	0|gmaxwell|yea, I've seen a fair amount of it.
 68 2016-11-24 09:11:29	0|Lightsword|bitcoin358, if you get stuck for too long I can probably mine it for you
 69 2016-11-24 09:11:56	0|bitcoin358|thanks man, I will ping you if it doesn't clear in the next day or so
 70 2016-11-24 09:12:15	0|bitcoin358|I would honestly be down to pay $10 or whatever but the issue is probably that the entire chain it's relying on is maybe ... 100kb? who knows
 71 2016-11-24 09:12:31	0|gmaxwell|bitcoin358: if you're running modern (0.13+) bitcoind it's easy to find out.
 72 2016-11-24 09:12:39	0|Lightsword|bitcoin358, what’s the txid?
 73 2016-11-24 09:12:42	0|bitcoin358|gmaxwell: what's the command?
 74 2016-11-24 09:13:02	0|bitcoin358|e5a24368c0a68f0b7f6eba48dc0824c265a67300bd486e7b98c2f246c2fb9ce3
 75 2016-11-24 09:13:25	0|gmaxwell|bitcoin358: getmempoolentry <txid>
 76 2016-11-24 09:13:58	0|gmaxwell|looks like the whole collection is 58276 bytes.
 77 2016-11-24 09:14:00	0|bitcoin358|ohh nice
 78 2016-11-24 09:14:03	0|bitcoin358|I see that :)
 79 2016-11-24 09:14:04	0|bitcoin358|very cool
 80 2016-11-24 09:14:33	0|bitcoin358|495d71e30565278827e4ba0930f1ca939db9e05df2c95b39dc7a81befefb2858 this is the other one
 81 2016-11-24 09:14:36	0|gmaxwell|that one isn't too deep.. says there are currently 3 ancestors.
 82 2016-11-24 09:14:50	0|gmaxwell|I don't have that one locally.
 83 2016-11-24 09:15:00	0|bitcoin358|right, I don't have this one locally in my node either
 84 2016-11-24 09:15:02	0|bitcoin358|not sure why
 85 2016-11-24 09:15:20	0|gmaxwell|something could be in its history that doesn't even meet the minrelay fee...
 86 2016-11-24 09:15:35	0|gmaxwell|CPFP doesn't influence passing the minrelayfee.
 87 2016-11-24 09:16:13	0|Lightsword|yeah, I get 64: too-long-mempool-chain when trying to sendrawtransaction that one
 88 2016-11-24 09:16:26	0|Lightsword|https://blockchain.info/tx/495d71e30565278827e4ba0930f1ca939db9e05df2c95b39dc7a81befefb2858?format=hex
 89 2016-11-24 09:16:42	0|gmaxwell|Whats a txid of one of its parents?
 90 2016-11-24 09:17:04	0|bitcoin358|I am going to try to raw transact the first one to myself with a higher fee
 91 2016-11-24 09:17:52	0|bitcoin358|my math seems to suggest if I want it to confirm in 1-2 blocks I need to pay about 0.0392
 92 2016-11-24 09:17:55	0|bitcoin358|is that math right
 93 2016-11-24 09:18:05	0|bitcoin358|56kb paying 7 satoshi/byte
 94 2016-11-24 09:18:46	0|Lightsword|0b34a5f31f6bc1ecad957a3af2a927b454992b565a8786c21e8d7f9e7743a6d1 looks like
 95 2016-11-24 09:19:20	0|gmaxwell|21inc's estimator is saying, about 70 to get in 2 blocks-- though there are at least a few miners that don't CPFP. so.. it would be longer than two blocks perhaps. Nothing you can do about that.
 96 2016-11-24 09:19:53	0|bitcoin358|ah right, glossed over there's 6 zeros here so you're right
 97 2016-11-24 09:19:57	0|bitcoin358|70 satoshi
 98 2016-11-24 09:20:08	0|bitcoin358|.039 btc alright
 99 2016-11-24 09:20:12	0|bitcoin358|I'm going to yolo it
100 2016-11-24 09:20:26	0|bitcoin358|and tell this dude to upgrade his node and stop making 25 kb transactions
101 2016-11-24 09:20:33	0|gmaxwell|Lightsword: yea, I get a count of 25 on that one.
102 2016-11-24 09:21:10	0|bitcoin358|weird okay so
103 2016-11-24 09:21:19	0|bitcoin358|I just did a rawtx spending the one that's 56kb that only has 2 ancestors
104 2016-11-24 09:21:27	0|bitcoin358|and when push I get same 64 error
105 2016-11-24 09:21:37	0|bitcoin358|(this one: e5a24368c0a68f0b7f6eba48dc0824c265a67300bd486e7b98c2f246c2fb9ce3)
106 2016-11-24 09:21:49	0|Lightsword|well I went ahead and manually prioritized those transactions
107 2016-11-24 09:21:52	0|gmaxwell|well it would have gone nowhere.. pastebin it?
108 2016-11-24 09:22:06	0|bitcoin358|thanks Lightsword!
109 2016-11-24 09:22:18	0|bitcoin358|http://pastebin.com/Na3KrbUJ here's the raw
110 2016-11-24 09:23:13	0|Lightsword|gmaxwell, btw you can just put ?format=hex at the end of the url on a blockchain.info transaction page to get the raw hex
111 2016-11-24 09:23:30	0|gmaxwell|yea, if it has it, but something his own node rejected...
112 2016-11-24 09:23:35	0|bitcoin358|Lightsword: I didn't know that either, thank you for heads up
113 2016-11-24 09:23:46	0|gmaxwell|Lightsword: FWIW, Piuk added that at my request in this channel a couple years ago. :)
114 2016-11-24 09:24:18	0|bitcoin358|definitely helpful feature
115 2016-11-24 09:25:32	0|Lightsword|yeah, I can’t add that to mempool due to chain being too long…but the inputs should at least get mined I think
116 2016-11-24 09:26:01	0|bitcoin358|thanks man I really appreciate it
117 2016-11-24 09:26:21	0|gmaxwell|hm. there are limits other than count...there is a limit of size of 101k... but that shouldn't be exceeded either.
118 2016-11-24 09:26:27	0|bitcoin358|alright, appreciate the help gmaxwell/lightsword
119 2016-11-24 09:26:31	0|bitcoin358|I am off to bed
120 2016-11-24 09:26:37	0|bitcoin358|happy holidays to all
121 2016-11-24 09:26:42	0|gmaxwell|bitcoin358: goodnight, hopefully you'll wake to confirmed txn.
122 2016-11-24 09:26:46	0|gmaxwell|Cheers.
123 2016-11-24 09:26:50	0|bitcoin358|gmaxwell: fingers crossed :)
124 2016-11-24 09:27:44	0|Lightsword|gmaxwell, pushed that transaction to blockchain.info https://blockchain.info/tx/4db1a95e339193ad2faac2e9d02ad59d014d88ee387ad0617885c528ff664e21
125 2016-11-24 09:28:50	0|gmaxwell|bitcoin358: (in case you're watching logs) if you do nag the author of this chain of unconfirmed txn, they should really be encouraged to sendmany. This whole graph of unconfirmed txn could have been reduced down to a fraction of its size as a single sendmany.
126 2016-11-24 10:07:01	0|fanquake|Just experienced #9212, running master on mainnet
127 2016-11-24 10:07:02	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9212 | Assertion failed: (nSendVersion != 0), function GetSendVersion, file ./net.h, line 775. · Issue #9212 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
128 2016-11-24 10:27:54	0|paveljanik|fanquake, do you have more lines in the log before this_
129 2016-11-24 10:27:56	0|paveljanik|?
130 2016-11-24 10:29:58	0|fanquake|paveljanik Added to the issue, pretty sure these were the preceeding lines.
131 2016-11-24 10:33:41	0|Arid|Hello, a site that double your bitcoins in 48h is a scam?
132 2016-11-24 11:14:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15paveljanik opened pull request #9216: Doc: Fix copypasted comment (06master...0620161124_commentfix_banmap) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9216
133 2016-11-24 11:18:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 6 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/93566e0c37c5...db5e22e0537a
134 2016-11-24 11:18:17	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1447db075 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Plug many memory leaks...
135 2016-11-24 11:18:17	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14693384e 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Prevent thread/memory leak on exiting RPCConsole...
136 2016-11-24 11:18:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e4f126a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: Avoid splash-screen related memory leak...
137 2016-11-24 11:18:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9190: qt: Plug many memory leaks (06master...062016_11_plug_leaks) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9190
138 2016-11-24 11:45:56	0|fanquake|paveljanik re #9144. You want all instances of Result:: changed to Result: ?
139 2016-11-24 11:45:58	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9144 | [Trivial] Correct waitforblockheight example help text by fanquake · Pull Request #9144 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
140 2016-11-24 11:46:59	0|paveljanik|fanquake, yes please. :: looks strange.
141 2016-11-24 11:47:14	0|paveljanik|but this is supermicronit, when we are there...
142 2016-11-24 11:47:18	0|paveljanik|thank you!
143 2016-11-24 12:14:53	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e3c4f7e 15fanquake: Correct help output for waitfor RPC commands
144 2016-11-24 12:14:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/db5e22e0537a...c98f6b3d93a2
145 2016-11-24 12:14:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c98f6b3 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9144: [Trivial] Correct waitforblockheight example help text...
146 2016-11-24 12:15:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9144: [Trivial] Correct waitforblockheight example help text (06master...06rpc-commands) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9144
147 2016-11-24 12:56:47	0|fanquake|Have solved the afl-fuzz issue on osx by setting AFL_NO_FORKSRV=1
148 2016-11-24 13:01:22	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f26da35 15Pavel Janík: Fix copypasted comment.
149 2016-11-24 13:01:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c98f6b3d93a2...bc121b0eb197
150 2016-11-24 13:01:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14bc121b0 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9216: Doc: Fix copypasted comment...
151 2016-11-24 13:01:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9216: Doc: Fix copypasted comment (06master...0620161124_commentfix_banmap) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9216
152 2016-11-24 13:35:33	0|arevutsky|Hi. I updated bitcoind to version	130100. Now I see message "Warning: unknown new rules activated (versionbit 28)". Should I do something?
153 2016-11-24 13:40:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #9218: qt: Show progress overlay when clicking spinner icon (06master...062016_11_overlay_when_clicking_sync_icon) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9218
154 2016-11-24 13:45:41	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: re #9218, .. I mean additionally to the spinner option.
155 2016-11-24 13:45:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9218 | qt: Show progress overlay when clicking spinner icon by laanwj · Pull Request #9218 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
156 2016-11-24 14:31:34	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: yes, makes sense
157 2016-11-24 20:14:29	0|paveljanik|Looks like more people need fork to eat the dinner today. My son just gave me one to eat the desert...
158 2016-11-24 20:26:46	0|Victorsueca|y u no spoon?
159 2016-11-24 20:53:41	0|gmaxwell|Can some people other than me run #9188 and report testing results (ideally on testnet) just so I'm not the only person who has tested it...
160 2016-11-24 20:53:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9188 | Make orphan parent fetching ask for witnesses. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9188 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
161 2016-11-24 20:53:56	0|gmaxwell|I'd like to see it merged soon, since I think we'll want it in a 0.13.2 backport.
162 2016-11-24 20:55:13	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: I think #9189 is ready for merge.
163 2016-11-24 20:55:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9189 | Always add default_witness_commitment with GBT client support by sipa · Pull Request #9189 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
164 2016-11-24 21:20:56	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: could that bug be potentially forking if segwit activates? :/
165 2016-11-24 21:21:39	0|gmaxwell|9188? no.
166 2016-11-24 21:22:20	0|gmaxwell|just would result in orphan segwit txn not propagating so well.
167 2016-11-24 21:25:15	0|luke-jr|is there any way to tell if it's working, once I have it running?
168 2016-11-24 21:27:06	0|gmaxwell|debug net will no longer show it making non-witness tx fetches towards witness peers.
169 2016-11-24 21:28:46	0|luke-jr|going to run 0.13 with this backported
170 2016-11-24 21:29:34	0|luke-jr|(minor conflict on the shadowing stuff, but no big deal just a var rename)
171 2016-11-24 21:33:49	0|luke-jr|ok, node is up
172 2016-11-24 21:34:08	0|instagibbs|can someone briefly explain the use/life cycle of CReserveKey?
173 2016-11-24 21:35:19	0|luke-jr|instagibbs: it removes it from the memory keypool immediately, but only from disk when you keep it
174 2016-11-24 21:43:50	0|instagibbs|ok thanks
175 2016-11-24 22:43:31	0|bitcoin308|hey guys just wanted to thank everyone for the help last night, the massive unconf chain / backlog finally cleared out for us :)
176 2016-11-24 22:49:47	0|gmaxwell|sictransitgloria: good to hear that!
177 2016-11-24 23:14:01	0|midnightmagic|God dammit.
178 2016-11-24 23:33:01	0|oddcomet|midnightmagic: ?
179 2016-11-24 23:37:31	0|midnightmagic|oddcomet: wrong channel. I was about to ask someone to help me remember something stupid I forgot. :(