1 2016-12-21 00:06:20	0|sipa|15:46:28 < achow101> would a getdata message with the segwit flags (msg_witness_tx, etc) cause that right now since segwit is not activated?
  2 2016-12-21 00:06:23	0|sipa|i don't think so
  3 2016-12-21 00:06:34	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: yea, well I think that improvement is boring.
  4 2016-12-21 00:06:36	0|sipa|if it's an incoming connection, it may just be evicted
  5 2016-12-21 00:06:50	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: I really do not believe anyone has ever had a tx they created fail due to excessive sigops.
  6 2016-12-21 00:07:16	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: yes, thats pretty much my point
  7 2016-12-21 00:07:19	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: in fact, I suspect it's not even possible without modifying the software.
  8 2016-12-21 00:07:22	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: the api refactor, though, needs to happen
  9 2016-12-21 00:07:26	0|instagibbs|achow101, I doubt it as well, since usually banning is done for things that are always false, theoretically segwit could have activated and you're partitioned off or something
 10 2016-12-21 00:07:35	0|instagibbs|at least, I'd hope not
 11 2016-12-21 00:08:05	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: I think we should consider changing the behavior so that violation of sigops in a package has no effect on relay, merely prevents a txn from getting package aggregated in the block creation.
 12 2016-12-21 00:55:40	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #9393: build: Include cuckoocache header in Makefile (06master...06Mf1612-makeHeader) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9393
 13 2016-12-21 01:27:30	0|achow101|any idea what a packet of length 8 would be? I'm trying to debug something in armory and it is receiving data from core that has a length of 8
 14 2016-12-21 01:28:13	0|sipa|pong?
 15 2016-12-21 01:28:19	0|sipa|or ping
 16 2016-12-21 01:29:48	0|achow101|maybe.. I think the data size should also include the message header
 17 2016-12-21 01:30:14	0|sipa|the message header is 24 bytes
 18 2016-12-21 01:30:27	0|sipa|(magic + command + checksum)
 19 2016-12-21 01:30:43	0|achow101|right. well something is coming in from the socket that is 8 bytes
 20 2016-12-21 01:30:50	0|sipa|that's possible
 21 2016-12-21 01:30:57	0|sipa|you should wait for more data to arrive :)
 22 2016-12-21 01:31:10	0|sipa|tcp does not guarantee message boundaries
 23 2016-12-21 01:32:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15morcos opened pull request #9395: Actually calculate mempool ancestors (06master...06fixmovedtx) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9395
 24 2016-12-21 01:32:38	0|morcos|sipa: ok i made the fix
 25 2016-12-21 01:33:54	0|morcos|i guess one could argue we don't NEED to fix that for 0.13.2, if you're sure that the behavior is guaranteed to be what you said (vin is empty).  Why is that safe to assume?
 26 2016-12-21 01:39:05	0|sipa|morcos: the vector move constructor in practice (though not defined by the standard) leaves the argument empty
 27 2016-12-21 01:39:21	0|sipa|the standard just says that it needs to be in a valid but unspecified state
 28 2016-12-21 01:39:45	0|sipa|but there really is nothing that can be done efficiently that isn't leaving it empty
 29 2016-12-21 01:40:00	0|morcos|sipa: but what does a valid state mean?  could the entries in the vector be such that it crashed your node when you tried to look at it?
 30 2016-12-21 01:40:08	0|sipa|nope
 31 2016-12-21 01:40:31	0|sipa|that would not be a valid state
 32 2016-12-21 01:40:33	0|morcos|i think its fine if -walletrejectlongchains doesn't work for 0.13.2, as long as you can't crash
 33 2016-12-21 01:40:52	0|sipa|well perhaps that code somehow assuming a non-empty vin?
 34 2016-12-21 01:41:34	0|morcos|well its not just the vin vector right, its the whole tx
 35 2016-12-21 01:42:53	0|sipa|right, but CTransaction is move-constructed from CMutableTransaction, which move-constructs vin and vout from the old vectors
 36 2016-12-21 01:43:00	0|sipa|which leaves txNew.vin and txNew.vout empty
 37 2016-12-21 01:43:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15accraze opened pull request #9396: Updated listsinceblock rpc documentation (06master...06docs-listsinceblock-rpc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9396
 38 2016-12-21 01:44:13	0|gmaxwell|well it's not like we don't have to do an rc2 considering we missed the version bump.
 39 2016-12-21 01:45:00	0|morcos|well if we're doing one anyway, i think we should probably include 9395..  will save us at least explaining that the option doesn't actually work
 40 2016-12-21 01:45:55	0|gmaxwell|right.
 41 2016-12-21 01:46:11	0|sipa|i'm confused
 42 2016-12-21 01:46:43	0|sipa|the CTransaction(CMutableTransaction&& x) constructor is not in 0.13 afaik
 43 2016-12-21 01:47:55	0|sipa|nor is MakeTransactionRef
 44 2016-12-21 01:48:54	0|morcos|sipa: oh.. oops. i confess i didn't look too closely at 0.13
 45 2016-12-21 01:49:23	0|sipa|so the backport is correct
 46 2016-12-21 01:49:27	0|sipa|but the version in master is not
 47 2016-12-21 01:49:31	0|sipa|irony.
 48 2016-12-21 01:50:28	0|morcos|thats nice!
 49 2016-12-21 02:33:58	0|instagibbs|oops, I likely wrote the pr with working tests for:*static_cast<CTransaction*>(&wtxNew) = CTransaction(txNew); then it was changed while rebasing
 50 2016-12-21 02:36:25	0|instagibbs|yeah timeline for that looks right, my bad
 51 2016-12-21 02:36:51	0|instagibbs|Some kind of irony :)
 52 2016-12-21 02:57:52	0|morcos|instagibbs: yeah i was pretty sure we had tested -walletrejectlongchains
 53 2016-12-21 03:01:00	0|luke-jr|0.13.2: should doc/release-notes/ include the 0.13.1 notes?
 54 2016-12-21 03:01:20	0|luke-jr|nm ^, had the wrong branch checkout out
 55 2016-12-21 03:06:46	0|instagibbs|morcos, we did and I got cyberbullied into removing it (jk, your tests are better)
 56 2016-12-21 03:16:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15droark closed pull request #9373: Linearize script update (hash byte reversal and Python 3 support) (06master...06linearize-update) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9373
 57 2016-12-21 03:30:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15droark reopened pull request #9373: Linearize script update (hash byte reversal and Python 3 support) (06master...06linearize-update) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9373
 58 2016-12-21 06:22:38	0|luke-jr|- #9293 `e591c10` [0.13 Backport #9053] IBD using chainwork instead of height and not using header timestamp (gmaxwell)
 59 2016-12-21 06:22:40	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9293 | [0.13 Backport] IBD using chainwork instead of height and not using header timestamp (#9053) by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9293 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 60 2016-12-21 06:22:40	0|luke-jr|- #9053 `5b93eee` IBD using chainwork instead of height and not using header timestamps (gmaxwell)
 61 2016-12-21 06:22:41	0|luke-jr|^ redundant?
 62 2016-12-21 06:22:42	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9053 | IBD using chainwork instead of height and not using header timestamps by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9053 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 63 2016-12-21 06:22:43	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9053 | IBD using chainwork instead of height and not using header timestamps by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9053 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 64 2016-12-21 06:23:19	0|gmaxwell|gribble is just demonstrating redundancy.
 65 2016-12-21 06:27:06	0|luke-jr|haha
 66 2016-12-21 06:27:17	0|mannu|How do I see the incoming transaction in a service
 67 2016-12-21 06:27:37	0|mannu|I want to separate out the components !
 68 2016-12-21 06:27:40	0|luke-jr|mannu: using -walletnotify, discuss/ask on #bitcoin
 69 2016-12-21 06:30:16	0|mannu|Can I write a blockchain app
 70 2016-12-21 06:30:30	0|mannu|rather than developing the bitcore further
 71 2016-12-21 06:31:00	0|luke-jr|Bitcore is not the same as Bitcoin Core, and while you can certainly develop other applications, this channel is for developing Bitcoin Core.
 72 2016-12-21 06:31:21	0|mannu|Ok !
 73 2016-12-21 06:31:39	0|mannu|Can you help me get started with writing the .js code for txns
 74 2016-12-21 06:31:41	0|luke-jr|Myself and many others are in #bitcoin and willing to help when we can.
 75 2016-12-21 06:32:06	0|mannu|I have put up the node running !
 76 2016-12-21 06:32:35	0|mannu|luke-jr: How do I get started with writing a service basics
 77 2016-12-21 06:32:43	0|mannu|Like how to catch txns
 78 2016-12-21 06:32:53	0|mannu|and separate out its components
 79 2016-12-21 06:33:04	0|luke-jr|I answered your first question here to be polite, but I will not continue to answer questions here that are off-topic. Move to #bitcoin for asking them.
 80 2016-12-21 06:34:18	0|luke-jr|(to do that, type: /join #bitcoin
 81 2016-12-21 06:34:50	0|mannu|Ok Thanks
 82 2016-12-21 07:05:02	0|BlueMatt|achow101: earlier you mentioned 5-byte sendcmpct messages.....were they coming from digitalocean-frankfurt?
 83 2016-12-21 07:05:26	0|BlueMatt|(not me, but I've been seeing them recently too on something claiming to be /Satoshi:0.13.1/ so curious who the fuck it is)
 84 2016-12-21 07:06:53	0|BlueMatt|whoever it is they bothered to set up their shit with the public fibre network (ie put their ip in the whitelist)
 85 2016-12-21 07:33:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 5 new commits to 060.13: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8e707e868d60...b31e13eeb6d9
 86 2016-12-21 07:33:31	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.13 1420817ce 15MarcoFalke: Bump version to 0.13.2
 87 2016-12-21 07:33:31	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.13 147a26a34 15MarcoFalke: Bump nMinimumChainWork
 88 2016-12-21 07:33:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.13 143882c05 15MarcoFalke: [qt] Bump BLOCK_CHAIN_SIZE
 89 2016-12-21 07:38:49	0|wumpus|luke-jr wonders if it would make sense to have a GUI option for "API Key" that sets up a rpcauth <- being able to enable RPC through the GUI would make sense, but with the automatic auth cookie stuff I wouldn't like to add another authentication method
 90 2016-12-21 07:39:11	0|luke-jr|oh, good point.
 91 2016-12-21 07:39:30	0|luke-jr|arguably no purpose to a key if cookies are usable :D
 92 2016-12-21 07:40:23	0|paveljanik|cookies works perfectly!
 93 2016-12-21 07:40:35	0|paveljanik|It would be nice to have "read-only" cookies though.
 94 2016-12-21 07:41:50	0|wumpus|you mean multiple authentication levels or something?
 95 2016-12-21 07:43:01	0|wumpus|the idea is to add everything that only inspects public data to the REST interface
 96 2016-12-21 07:43:12	0|wumpus|that is already a "read-only" interface
 97 2016-12-21 07:44:47	0|sipa|we could even have sendrawtransaction and submitblock to the REST interface as well
 98 2016-12-21 07:44:57	0|sipa|the read-only part isn't what matters - the public data is
 99 2016-12-21 07:45:06	0|sipa|though i guess it's also an avenue for DoS
100 2016-12-21 07:45:10	0|wumpus|meh.
101 2016-12-21 07:46:10	0|wumpus|well I guess that's true, those two can be done over the P2P interface just as well, so in principle no extra authentication should be necessary for them
102 2016-12-21 07:46:19	0|wumpus|but I find a read-only REST interface much easier to reason about
103 2016-12-21 07:46:25	0|wumpus|so I'd prefer to keep it that way
104 2016-12-21 07:51:28	0|wumpus|being able to affect state opens a whole new can of worms of DoSes and attack surface. The whole REST thing has never really sit very well with me. But we have it, so if you need something like that you should use it, instead of adding more fluff to RPC auth.
105 2016-12-21 07:53:06	0|wumpus|(and an option to enable the REST interface in the GUI options would also make sense)
106 2016-12-21 08:14:43	0|luke-jr|not sure the point of read-only cookies if the program could just as easily access the read-write one
107 2016-12-21 08:18:11	0|wumpus|eh, good point. Cookies are mostly useful for when the daemon and the program using it run as the same user. In which case there's full access anyway.
108 2016-12-21 08:19:41	0|wumpus|though you could set up file permissions and such to use cookies cross-user. Though if you go through that trouble, why not set up actual RPC username/passwords while you're at it.
109 2016-12-21 08:20:16	0|luke-jr|or just use REST like you said ☺
110 2016-12-21 08:20:21	0|wumpus|yes
111 2016-12-21 08:26:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5a70572049d0...8dfe9fcb9016
112 2016-12-21 08:26:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1423208ac 15BtcDrak: Remove unused test files and references
113 2016-12-21 08:26:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149cb6624 15BtcDrak: Fix testfile reference
114 2016-12-21 08:26:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148dfe9fc 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9376: Remove unused test files and references...
115 2016-12-21 08:26:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9376: Remove unused test files and references (06master...06fixmissing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9376
116 2016-12-21 08:27:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9393: build: Include cuckoocache header in Makefile (06master...06Mf1612-makeHeader) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9393
117 2016-12-21 08:44:25	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: you should have asked for optional email addresses.
118 2016-12-21 08:44:40	0|BlueMatt|yea, oh well
119 2016-12-21 10:14:53	0|wumpus|bitcoin core 0.13.2rc1 executables uploaded: https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.2/test.rc1/ **KNOWN ISSUE** they report as 0.13.1, will be fixed in next rc
120 2016-12-21 10:25:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/03d85f6644cc...8b4127fd4eb3
121 2016-12-21 10:25:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148b4127f 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9390: travis: make distdir...
122 2016-12-21 10:25:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fad632e 15MarcoFalke: travis: make distdir
123 2016-12-21 10:25:09	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fad896d 15MarcoFalke: gitignore: Wipe line after java comp tool removal
124 2016-12-21 10:25:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9390: travis: make distdir (06master...06Mf1612-travisDistDir) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9390
125 2016-12-21 10:30:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8b4127fd4eb3...38e4887b461b
126 2016-12-21 10:30:29	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a560378 15Spencer Lievens: [WALLET] Addition of ImmatureCreditCached to MarkDirty()...
127 2016-12-21 10:30:30	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1438e4887 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8717: [WALLET] Addition of ImmatureCreditCached to MarkDirty()...
128 2016-12-21 11:23:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1407df40b 15Russell Yanofsky: [test] Add CCoinsViewCache Access/Modify/Write tests...
129 2016-12-21 11:23:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/38e4887b461b...0698639a3806
130 2016-12-21 11:23:58	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140698639 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9308: [test] Add CCoinsViewCache Access/Modify/Write tests...
131 2016-12-21 11:24:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9308: [test] Add CCoinsViewCache Access/Modify/Write tests (06master...06pr/coins-test) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9308
132 2016-12-21 12:39:18	0|dex__|hello?
133 2016-12-21 12:39:52	0|dex__|???
134 2016-12-21 13:04:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f6fb7ac 15Pieter Wuille: Move CTxInWitness inside CTxIn
135 2016-12-21 13:04:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0698639a3806...e8cfe1ee2d01
136 2016-12-21 13:04:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e8cfe1e 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #8589: Inline CTxInWitness inside CTxIn...
137 2016-12-21 13:04:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #8589: Inline CTxInWitness inside CTxIn (06master...06segwitinlinepain) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8589
138 2016-12-21 13:18:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #9399: travis: make distdir before make (06master...06Mf1612-travisDistDirCheck) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9399
139 2016-12-21 13:27:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9399: travis: make distdir before make (06master...06Mf1612-travisDistDirCheck) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9399
140 2016-12-21 14:02:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs opened pull request #9400: Set peers as HB peers upon full block validation (06master...06maybesetfullblock) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9400
141 2016-12-21 14:57:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs opened pull request #9401: Make rpcauth help message clearer, add example in example .conf (06master...06rpcauthnotes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9401
142 2016-12-21 15:16:31	0|instagibbs|is it just me or is master taking forever to shut down
143 2016-12-21 15:16:53	0|instagibbs|a bunch of thread interrupt messages, then hanging for quite a while
144 2016-12-21 15:21:59	0|wumpus|instagibbs: this perhaps? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9398
145 2016-12-21 15:22:26	0|instagibbs|looks similar. thanks
146 2016-12-21 15:30:53	0|instagibbs|achow101, BlueMatt I'm also getting these short sendcmpct message, germany digital ocean
147 2016-12-21 15:42:58	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: mempool load needs to be made interruptable by shutdown-- was that what you were seeing?
148 2016-12-21 15:43:08	0|gmaxwell|it takes several minutes to complete.
149 2016-12-21 15:43:47	0|instagibbs|yes, exactly that
150 2016-12-21 15:43:55	0|instagibbs|why does it take so long?
151 2016-12-21 15:45:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15rebroad opened pull request #9402: Allow per network bitcoin.conf (06master...06PerNetworkConfig) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9402
152 2016-12-21 15:55:19	0|gmaxwell|because verifying transactions takes a long time, especially single threaded.
153 2016-12-21 15:57:47	0|gmaxwell|I've been noticing "/home/gmaxwell/.bitcoin: No such file or directory" show up on my console during node shutdown. Just saw it in 0.13.2rc-- I'd thought it was a new behavior in 0.14. anyone know what causes it?
154 2016-12-21 16:09:15	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: A slight complexity in interrupting it, is that it should probably also skip writting it out (so as to not rewrite it with half its content).
155 2016-12-21 16:09:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15rebroad opened pull request #9403: Don't ask for TX relay from feeler connections (06master...06NoRelayForFeelers) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9403
156 2016-12-21 16:19:09	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: Any opinions on announcing rc1 to /r/bitcoin or should I wait for rc2/release?
157 2016-12-21 16:52:26	0|gmaxwell|do we intend the elipses in the 0.13.2 release notes: "This is a new minor version release, including ..., various bugfixes and performance improvements, "
158 2016-12-21 16:59:31	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: I seem to recall that we have some hack to avoid disconnecting peers that send invalid HB blocks that works by nulling out the nodeid on the recieved block.
159 2016-12-21 16:59:49	0|gmaxwell|If so, you'll need to fix that for your announce patch.
160 2016-12-21 17:01:10	0|instagibbs|at BlockChecked time it should have been valid?
161 2016-12-21 17:01:31	0|instagibbs|Might need a pointer to line that does that so I can trace, thanks
162 2016-12-21 17:01:35	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i assume it was to be filled in later, before 0.13.2 final
163 2016-12-21 17:07:10	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs: I might be remembering a WIP patch.
164 2016-12-21 17:16:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15morcos opened pull request #9404: Make a second pass with same coins in CreateTransaction. (06master...06smartChange) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9404
165 2016-12-21 17:21:28	0|gmaxwell|morcos: what prevents the change from becoming dust in that?
166 2016-12-21 17:22:33	0|morcos|gmaxwell: it picks new coins (as before) if the change would be less than CENT/2
167 2016-12-21 17:24:09	0|morcos|if you had a large transaction, such that your fee was on the order of a CENT anyway, this would still be a good change to have but it would just kick in on the second set of coins you pick, once you've tried to pay for the first pass fee
168 2016-12-21 17:25:01	0|morcos|in that case it would still be vulnerable to the way overpay for fee bug, but in most cases that won't happen now
169 2016-12-21 17:25:43	0|morcos|the bug is that you try to pay X, you select many coins N to pay for X.  discover you need some large fee Y.  and when selecting coins to pay X+Y you end up with just a couple.
170 2016-12-21 17:25:58	0|morcos|so your new fee required is much lower but you still pay Y fee
171 2016-12-21 17:26:46	0|gmaxwell|Makes sense, so long as dust>cent/2  (perhaps we should have a comment so if the target amount gets reduced people will make sure it hasn't bumped into dust)
172 2016-12-21 17:28:13	0|gmaxwell|should it also consider the case where the change is removed?  E.g. if the initial selection was unable to achieve target+0.01 it might have given us target+0.00024 (say) which would might be a reasonable fee.
173 2016-12-21 17:28:17	0|morcos|didn't follow that last part...  whats the target amount?
174 2016-12-21 17:28:53	0|morcos|hmm.. yes that might be a simple enough case to add
175 2016-12-21 17:29:34	0|morcos|i don't think the way the code works now the target amount (the amount of coins you select for) can ever be reduced
176 2016-12-21 17:29:50	0|gmaxwell|it should be okay to overpay the fee by a little (at the very least by the amount saved from removing the change).
177 2016-12-21 17:30:21	0|gmaxwell|morcos: I thought (could be wrong) that selectcoins tries to select for +cent and if that fails it falls back to just the target.
178 2016-12-21 17:31:21	0|morcos|yes i think thats true... but thats before this loop...  but i guess its possible you could make +cent originally, but then not when you add in fee
179 2016-12-21 17:32:36	0|morcos|anyway, there are gazillions of possible improvements..  but i was hoping if we weren't too ambitious we could get something done in time for 0.14
180 2016-12-21 17:32:53	0|gmaxwell|Yes, I support that, I wasn't trying to send you down a rabbit hole. :)
181 2016-12-21 17:34:11	0|morcos|I think the key thing to think about is whether there is any way this could be worse..  my thought process was if anything goes wrong, it just obviously falls back to preexisting behavior.
182 2016-12-21 17:35:27	0|gmaxwell|I do wonder about what the right behavior is with respect to slightly overpaying fee to avoid a change output.
183 2016-12-21 17:35:52	0|morcos|gmaxwell: yeah actually i just realized  your suggested case of eliminating a change output isn't trivial
184 2016-12-21 17:36:24	0|morcos|unless the change is really really close to the fee needed
185 2016-12-21 17:36:58	0|gmaxwell|I believe the only non-trivial part is just the threshold. I think it's clearly okay to 'throw away' fees equal to the amount of weight saved (at targetfeerate) for the removed output.
186 2016-12-21 17:37:09	0|morcos|b/c if you eliminate it, and then test, and its not enough...  then you will have calculated a rough fee needed for your tx without a change output when you go back to your next loop, and kind of doomed yourself to failure on that loop
187 2016-12-21 17:38:13	0|morcos|yeah but thats such a small buffer, its hard to have change that is between (feeneeded - delta, feeneeded) by random chance
188 2016-12-21 17:39:07	0|morcos|off to lunch
189 2016-12-21 18:45:42	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Is there any test cases inside of core for the commitment structure inside of coinbase scriptPubkeys?
190 2016-12-21 18:45:46	0|Chris_Stewart_5|https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#commitment-structure
191 2016-12-21 18:49:16	0|sipa|p2p-segwit.py
192 2016-12-21 20:02:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15djp3 opened pull request #9405: Contrib: Mac: Two changes to python bytes and string management to get the mac deploy to work (06master...06macPythonTweak) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9405
193 2016-12-21 21:07:11	0|Chris_Stewart_5|When calling 'GetWitnessHash' on a non witness tx, does it just return the normal txid?
194 2016-12-21 21:07:26	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Specifically here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/7490ae8b699d2955b665cf849d86ff5bb5245c28/src/consensus/merkle.cpp#L174
195 2016-12-21 21:33:49	0|instagibbs|Chris_Stewart_5, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#transaction-id
196 2016-12-21 21:34:14	0|instagibbs|"f all txins are not witness program, a transaction's wtxid is equal to its txid"
197 2016-12-21 21:43:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15droark opened pull request #9406: Re-enable a blank v1 Tx JSON test (06master...06testupdate) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9406
198 2016-12-21 21:47:56	0|phantomcircuit|#8695 needs final review
199 2016-12-21 21:47:58	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8695 | [Net] Retry feeler connection if OpenNetworkConnection fails in under 1ms. by pstratem · Pull Request #8695 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub