1 2017-01-10 02:25:20	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15achow101 opened pull request #9500: [Qt][RPC] Autocomplete commands for 'help' command in debug console (06master...06help-rpc-autocomplete) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9500
  2 2017-01-10 05:11:53	0|Lightsword|what conditions would cause me to hit this inconclusive for submitblock? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.13/src/rpc/mining.cpp#L776
  3 2017-01-10 05:21:25	0|luke-jr|Lightsword: block submitted is not on the longest chain, and therefore was not fully verified
  4 2017-01-10 05:21:41	0|luke-jr|eg, stale block
  5 2017-01-10 05:24:50	0|Lightsword|luke-jr, so it’s possible to hit that when doing a duplicate submit right?
  6 2017-01-10 05:25:22	0|luke-jr|shouldn't be. duplicate is explicitly detected
  7 2017-01-10 05:25:46	0|Lightsword|luke-jr, that’s what I thought…but seems you can get that from a duplicate…probably timing dependent
  8 2017-01-10 05:26:03	0|luke-jr|oh, maybe if the duplicate is of an inconclusive block?
  9 2017-01-10 05:26:09	0|luke-jr|eg, the first submit was inconclusive
 10 2017-01-10 05:26:42	0|Lightsword|actually in this case the block first came in over p2p and was then submitted over the RPC at almost the exact same time
 11 2017-01-10 05:27:30	0|luke-jr|that doesn't change much
 12 2017-01-10 05:27:56	0|Lightsword|hmm, looks like the block came in over p2p in the middle of submitblock actually
 13 2017-01-10 05:29:28	0|phantomcircuit|Lightsword, duplicate-inconclusive is a thing
 14 2017-01-10 05:30:13	0|Lightsword|phantomcircuit, well duplicate-inconclusive was not what submit block returned, it returned a plain “inconclusive”
 15 2017-01-10 05:31:33	0|phantomcircuit|that means the block wasn't already seen was accepted but is not in the main chain
 16 2017-01-10 05:34:02	0|Lightsword|phantomcircuit, so that response is given after being accepted but before updatetip?
 17 2017-01-10 05:36:34	0|phantomcircuit|Lightsword, a block can be accepted even if it doesn't update the tip iirc
 18 2017-01-10 05:37:26	0|profall|I have an issue where my bitcoin core daemon goes out of sync for no reason at all. Plenty of peers and in a proper datacenter. It's a server with an E3 processor and 16GB of Ram, not a resource isssue.
 19 2017-01-10 05:38:21	0|profall|It'll run for 24 or 36 hours on the correct block if you compare it in real-time to blockchain.info or wherever, then randomly it'll just stop syncing.
 20 2017-01-10 05:39:53	0|phantomcircuit|profall, what version?
 21 2017-01-10 05:40:26	0|profall|bitcoin-0.13.2-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz right off the website.
 22 2017-01-10 05:41:01	0|profall|(obviously extracted it...)
 23 2017-01-10 05:41:47	0|phantomcircuit|bitcoin-cli getinfo how many peers?
 24 2017-01-10 05:42:13	0|profall|69
 25 2017-01-10 05:47:11	0|phantomcircuit|profall, how far behind?
 26 2017-01-10 05:47:41	0|profall|It'll go 50 blocks behind sometimes until I manually intervene. I simply stop bitcoind and start it again.
 27 2017-01-10 05:47:49	0|profall|It'll resync right away.
 28 2017-01-10 05:48:27	0|phantomcircuit|hmm
 29 2017-01-10 05:48:52	0|profall|I mean, maybe the datacenter is having connection issues? It's like the only thing I can think of I guess ill put in a ticket.
 30 2017-01-10 05:49:24	0|profall|Everything else works fine though on that server, so I feel like it's not related to the internet connection.
 31 2017-01-10 05:52:03	0|phantomcircuit|uh
 32 2017-01-10 05:52:09	0|phantomcircuit|is this by chance in the bay area
 33 2017-01-10 05:52:13	0|profall|No
 34 2017-01-10 05:55:01	0|phantomcircuit|BlueMatt, ^
 35 2017-01-10 05:56:30	0|phantomcircuit|profall, if you run getpeerinfo is there one peer with a bunch of blocks in flight?
 36 2017-01-10 06:12:37	0|Lightsword|phantomcircuit, so I guess when parsing submitblock responses inconclusive can potentially mean duplicate and that the tip just hasn’t updated yet?
 37 2017-01-10 06:22:25	0|gmaxwell|profall: that is very interesting and unusual. Can you check the time on that host (including timezone)?  Do you have a debug log covering one of these events?
 38 2017-01-10 09:15:46	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147df5e38 15Pavel Janík: Rename lambda argument name to prevent shadowing.
 39 2017-01-10 09:15:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/07fd147b9f12...98c80e374b84
 40 2017-01-10 09:15:47	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1498c80e3 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9496: Rename lambda argument name to prevent shadowing...
 41 2017-01-10 09:16:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9496: Rename lambda argument name to prevent shadowing (06master...0620170109_Wshadow_rpcconsole_lambda) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9496
 42 2017-01-10 12:35:12	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1468eb562 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: periodic translations update
 43 2017-01-10 12:35:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/68eb56203be17066af4e37837703490af4d4f40c
 44 2017-01-10 13:15:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 14 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/68eb56203be1...5754e0341b7c
 45 2017-01-10 13:15:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14495eb44 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: rpc: Named arguments for blockchain calls
 46 2017-01-10 13:15:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145865d41 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: authproxy: Add support for RPC named arguments
 47 2017-01-10 13:15:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 146f1c76a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: rpc: Support named arguments...
 48 2017-01-10 15:33:33	0|jonasschnelli|instagibbs: can you help me parsing your comment... :)
 49 2017-01-10 15:33:34	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9294/files#r95169601
 50 2017-01-10 15:33:36	0|jonasschnelli|(or anyone)
 51 2017-01-10 15:33:45	0|jonasschnelli|I don't understand it
 52 2017-01-10 15:35:10	0|instagibbs|jonasschnelli, in one commit you go from 0 internal to 50/50 external/internal, to 100/20
 53 2017-01-10 15:35:14	0|instagibbs|in the next
 54 2017-01-10 15:35:23	0|instagibbs|I just find that a bit odd
 55 2017-01-10 15:35:32	0|jonasschnelli|Ah. The commit order...
 56 2017-01-10 15:35:47	0|instagibbs|yeah, not blocking, I just got confused when reviewing commit by commit
 57 2017-01-10 15:35:47	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. I force pushed it in a confusing way.
 58 2017-01-10 15:36:07	0|instagibbs|I think logically it's not broken at any point
 59 2017-01-10 15:39:24	0|jonasschnelli|I think I squash the commits.
 60 2017-01-10 15:39:33	0|jonasschnelli|It's one single change
 61 2017-01-10 15:51:05	0|instagibbs|is #9400 reasonable for 0.14? It's gotten decent amount of review, and is a pretty small change
 62 2017-01-10 15:51:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9400 | Set peers as HB peers upon full block validation by instagibbs · Pull Request #9400 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 63 2017-01-10 15:54:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9294 | Use internal HD chain for change outputs (hd split) by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #9294 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 64 2017-01-10 16:00:23	0|instagibbs|well since you asked nicely
 65 2017-01-10 16:08:45	0|jonasschnelli|Thanks for the review instagibbs: I owe you a review now!
 66 2017-01-10 16:27:58	0|xinxi|cfields: ping. I have a question about codesigning binaries using gitian.
 67 2017-01-10 16:28:51	0|cfields|xinxi: hi, shoot
 68 2017-01-10 16:29:51	0|xinxi|./bin/gbuild -i --commit signature=master ../litecoin/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-win-signer.yml
 69 2017-01-10 16:29:52	0|xinxi|--- Building for trusty amd64 ---
 70 2017-01-10 16:29:52	0|xinxi|Stopping target if it is up
 71 2017-01-10 16:29:53	0|xinxi|Starting target
 72 2017-01-10 16:29:55	0|xinxi|Checking if target is up..............................
 73 2017-01-10 16:29:57	0|xinxi|sudo: unknown user: ubuntu
 74 2017-01-10 16:29:59	0|xinxi|sudo: unable to initialize policy plugin
 75 2017-01-10 16:30:01	0|xinxi|./bin/gbuild:21:in `system!': failed to run on-target true (RuntimeError)
 76 2017-01-10 16:30:03	0|xinxi|from ./bin/gbuild:73:in `build_one_configuration'
 77 2017-01-10 16:30:05	0|xinxi|from ./bin/gbuild:285:in `block (2 levels) in <main>'
 78 2017-01-10 16:30:07	0|xinxi|from ./bin/gbuild:280:in `each'
 79 2017-01-10 16:30:09	0|xinxi|from ./bin/gbuild:280:in `block in <main>'
 80 2017-01-10 16:30:11	0|xinxi|from ./bin/gbuild:278:in `each'
 81 2017-01-10 16:30:13	0|xinxi|from ./bin/gbuild:278:in `<main>'
 82 2017-01-10 16:30:15	0|xinxi|[11:43]
 83 2017-01-10 16:30:17	0|xinxi|I changed ubuntu -> debian
 84 2017-01-10 16:30:20	0|xinxi|I got the above error when I was compiling Litecoin.
 85 2017-01-10 16:30:21	0|cfields|xinxi: ahh, paste somewhere please!
 86 2017-01-10 16:30:31	0|xinxi|oops
 87 2017-01-10 16:31:04	0|cfields|xinxi: need to look at the log, the above doesn't tell much
 88 2017-01-10 16:32:16	0|xinxi|where is the log? no path is shown above.
 89 2017-01-10 16:32:48	0|cfields|xinxi: ./var/build.log
 90 2017-01-10 16:33:17	0|xinxi|there is only var/install.log
 91 2017-01-10 16:33:25	0|xinxi|but it seems not relevant.
 92 2017-01-10 16:34:04	0|achow101|that means that the build hasn't started yet and it was still updating stuff
 93 2017-01-10 16:34:35	0|cfields|xinxi: wait, why did you change ubuntu -> debian?
 94 2017-01-10 16:34:56	0|cfields|xinxi: unknown ubuntu user seems relevant in that case :)
 95 2017-01-10 16:35:01	0|xinxi|I am compiling on debian.
 96 2017-01-10 16:35:24	0|xinxi|let me change back.
 97 2017-01-10 16:35:36	0|cfields|xinxi: doesn't matter, this is creating a vm for you
 98 2017-01-10 16:36:53	0|xinxi|I just changed back and am compiling again. it seems a bit different now.
 99 2017-01-10 16:37:35	0|btcdrak|xinxi: use pastebin/0bin please
100 2017-01-10 16:37:51	0|xinxi|yeah, just noticed it. sorry about that.
101 2017-01-10 16:40:16	0|xinxi|cfields: got a new error: http://pastebin.com/JA4rtscY
102 2017-01-10 16:42:23	0|cfields|xinxi: have you signed the binaries and created detached sigs?
103 2017-01-10 16:42:37	0|xinxi|yeah, I have.
104 2017-01-10 16:43:24	0|xinxi|I got the .assert and .assert.sig files.
105 2017-01-10 16:43:48	0|cfields|xinxi: since this isn't bitcoin related, let's go to pm
106 2017-01-10 16:43:59	0|instagibbs|0.13.1 and other NODE_WITNESS only ask for txn from witness peers, right?
107 2017-01-10 16:45:17	0|sipa|instagibbs: i don't think so, but i forget
108 2017-01-10 16:55:00	0|phantomcircuit|cfields, on 9441 the indentation in ba4cae284f6acac4bbbfe08c89dcb8c2ace5da83 is screwed
109 2017-01-10 16:55:34	0|cfields|phantomcircuit: yea, i left the indentation alone, otherwise the diff would've been a bloodbath
110 2017-01-10 16:55:55	0|cfields|i'll do a whitespace follow-up
111 2017-01-10 16:55:59	0|phantomcircuit|cfields, also please use {} for all if statements
112 2017-01-10 16:56:10	0|phantomcircuit|kind of makes indentation issues less relevant
113 2017-01-10 16:56:32	0|phantomcircuit|the way it is now it looks like nothing will ever run because of the indentation
114 2017-01-10 16:58:01	0|cfields|phantomcircuit: fair enough. where in particular?
115 2017-01-10 16:59:05	0|phantomcircuit|the fDisconnect check mainly
116 2017-01-10 16:59:35	0|phantomcircuit|also probably swap the fDisconnect and !vRecvGetData.empty() checks since ProcessGetData can set fDisconnect
117 2017-01-10 17:00:18	0|phantomcircuit|(left these comments on github too)
118 2017-01-10 17:01:37	0|cfields|phantomcircuit: ah, they make more sense in context. thanks :)
119 2017-01-10 17:05:25	0|phantomcircuit|cfields, it seems like we should disconnect on checksum and header validation issues actually
120 2017-01-10 17:05:34	0|phantomcircuit|(we currently ignore them and go to the next message)
121 2017-01-10 17:05:56	0|cfields|phantomcircuit: there are several things that should change about the behavior there, but i tried to leave as much alone as i could for this PR
122 2017-01-10 17:06:06	0|phantomcircuit|alright
123 2017-01-10 17:06:11	0|phantomcircuit|i'll refrain
124 2017-01-10 17:06:32	0|cfields|phantomcircuit: agreed ofc, btw
125 2017-01-10 17:36:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #9502: [Qt] Add option to pause/resume block downloads (06master...062017/01/autodownload) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9502
126 2017-01-10 17:54:23	0|instagibbs|sipa, oh right, definitely not the case since they wont relay non-std txns in general
127 2017-01-10 17:54:53	0|sipa|indeed
128 2017-01-10 17:57:07	0|jtimon|BlueMatt: it seems #9486 could use a better description, the description seems to only talk about the last commit, which seems trivial and overall unrelated to the rest, certainly I'm missing something
129 2017-01-10 17:57:09	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9486 | Make peer=%d log prints consistent by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9486 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
130 2017-01-10 17:57:23	0|sdaftuar|jtimon: see #9375
131 2017-01-10 17:57:27	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9375 | Relay compact block messages prior to full block connection by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9375 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
132 2017-01-10 17:57:44	0|sipa|jtimon: from the description "Based on #9375"
133 2017-01-10 17:57:47	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9375 | Relay compact block messages prior to full block connection by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9375 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
134 2017-01-10 17:57:53	0|sipa|ah, sdaftuar beat me
135 2017-01-10 17:58:27	0|jtimon|yeah, thanks, reading now, read that and then forgot and tried to exact the leitmotiv from looking at the commits
136 2017-01-10 18:01:12	0|jtimon|does https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9486/commits/e6111b2398ca21f0e38333236abb0be7fa48c95f really need to be based on #9375 ? it seems it could be trivially merged independently
137 2017-01-10 18:01:15	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9375 | Relay compact block messages prior to full block connection by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9375 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
138 2017-01-10 18:27:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15JeremyRubin opened pull request #9503: listreceivedbyaddress Filter Address (06master...06listreceivedbyaddress-filtered) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9503
139 2017-01-10 19:18:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15achow101 opened pull request #9504: [RPC] dumpmasterprivkey command (06master...06dumpmasterprivkey) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9504
140 2017-01-10 19:42:45	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: heh, yea, so extra is worth it as-is, will push the use-less-memory thing for 0.15?
141 2017-01-10 19:44:27	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: seems like it.
142 2017-01-10 19:44:32	0|BlueMatt|cool
143 2017-01-10 20:02:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15JeremyRubin opened pull request #9505: Prevector Quick Destruct (06master...06prevector-quick-destruct) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9505
144 2017-01-10 20:06:33	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #9506: RFC: Improve style for if indentation (06master...06newstyle) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9506
145 2017-01-10 20:33:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #9507: Fix use-after-free in CTxMemPool::removeConflicts() (06master...06fix-mempool-useafterfree) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9507
146 2017-01-10 20:34:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9508: [gardening] Remove unused Python imports (06master...06remove-unused-python-import) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9508
147 2017-01-10 20:58:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #9509: build: fix qt distdir builds (06master...06out-of-tree-build) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9509
148 2017-01-10 21:48:40	0|instagibbs|what's the functional/use difference between CCoinsViewCache::GetCoins and CCoinsViewCache::AccessCoins?
149 2017-01-10 21:49:05	0|sipa|the latter is much faster
150 2017-01-10 21:49:12	0|sipa|as it doesn't copy
151 2017-01-10 21:49:35	0|sipa|so why would you use the first? AccessCoins only exists in CCoinsViewCache, while GetCoins exists in every CCoins implementation
152 2017-01-10 21:49:42	0|sipa|*every CCoinsView
153 2017-01-10 21:50:21	0|instagibbs|thanks, let me see if that explains its various uses to me
154 2017-01-10 21:56:10	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9510: [gardening] Fix typos in comments (06master...06fix-typos-in-comments) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9510
155 2017-01-10 22:00:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15morcos opened pull request #9511: Don't overwrite validation state with corruption check (06master...06ATMPstate) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9511
156 2017-01-10 22:13:15	0|gmaxwell|sipa: BlueMatt has a nit on #9472
157 2017-01-10 22:13:17	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9472 | Disentangle progress estimation from checkpoints and update it by sipa · Pull Request #9472 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
158 2017-01-10 22:15:00	0|BlueMatt|are we gonna try to merge that for 14 too?
159 2017-01-10 22:15:27	0|gmaxwell|sure, it's done its ... has about zero potential to break anything.
160 2017-01-10 22:15:55	0|sipa|it would be nice to say that we're only using checkpoints for avoiding a memory-bloating low-difficulty header attack
161 2017-01-10 22:16:03	0|sipa|it would be even nicer to say we're not using them at all anymore
162 2017-01-10 22:16:51	0|gmaxwell|yes, well... we could have been there, but
163 2017-01-10 22:17:53	0|gmaxwell|I don't have a solution for that which doesn't need something which is technically a consensus rule change.
164 2017-01-10 22:18:48	0|gmaxwell|https://github.com/gmaxwell/bitcoin/commit/09cef642e7d7866cb7b7026a453e1c791c191ddf
165 2017-01-10 22:18:56	0|gmaxwell|oops wrong commit
166 2017-01-10 22:19:03	0|gmaxwell|https://github.com/gmaxwell/bitcoin/commit/2db190b183c5204da23191ca642c7f6cad412ae3
167 2017-01-10 23:17:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #9512: Fix various things -fsanitize complains about (06master...06sanitize) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9512
168 2017-01-10 23:36:58	0|dcousens|can prioritisetransaction work on txids that aren't yet in the mempool?
169 2017-01-10 23:37:18	0|dcousens|I assume no,  in which case,  it might an idea to allow that as an option or maybe allow sendrawtransaction to have a feedelta field?
170 2017-01-10 23:37:29	0|dcousens|(uh,  a 'virtual fee' field)
171 2017-01-10 23:40:04	0|sipa|yes, it can
172 2017-01-10 23:40:59	0|dcousens|sipa: awesome :)
173 2017-01-10 23:42:10	0|gmaxwell|dcousens: it writes it into mapDeltas.