1 2017-01-16 00:22:51	0|BlueMatt|ryanofsky: yo
  2 2017-01-16 00:23:03	0|BlueMatt|whats the status of listunspent in #8456
  3 2017-01-16 00:23:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8456 | [RPC] Simplified bumpfee command. by mrbandrews · Pull Request #8456 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  4 2017-01-16 00:31:47	0|BlueMatt|morcos: as pointed out on github, there are some uses for getbalance "*" that I dont think we can break yet (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8183#issuecomment-272598823) so I think this needs fixing in some way for bumpfee
  5 2017-01-16 01:43:11	0|morcos|BlueMatt: I still haven't investigated thoroughly myself yet, but you left a comment on 8456 about getbalance ""?
  6 2017-01-16 01:43:27	0|morcos|Forget about getbalance "", that's done, its been broken since 0.11, got worse in 0.12
  7 2017-01-16 01:43:58	0|morcos|Regardless of bumpfee, it uses GetAccountBalance
  8 2017-01-16 01:44:08	0|morcos|and that is unsupported
  9 2017-01-16 01:50:58	0|morcos|getbalance "*" is a different question, b/c i agree we need a way to return watch only balances..  so i think something should be done..
 10 2017-01-16 01:51:53	0|morcos|so to me it's a question of how much bumpfee messes up getbalance "*"
 11 2017-01-16 02:05:19	0|morcos|BlueMatt: Wait a second...  How does bumpfee change the output of getbalance "*" anyway?
 12 2017-01-16 02:06:02	0|morcos|Are you sure its not just broken for any time you have double spends in your wallet (until one of them is confirmed)
 13 2017-01-16 10:34:21	0|jonasschnelli|Ping BlueMatt luke-jr: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9294
 14 2017-01-16 10:41:42	0|cannon-c|Quick question, I am looking to using bitcoin core in conjunction with ssss (Shamirs secret sharing scheme)
 15 2017-01-16 10:42:08	0|cannon-c|to create fragmented seed backups which can be re-created using pre-defined threshold of number of shares
 16 2017-01-16 10:42:26	0|cannon-c|Does Core already have something like this?
 17 2017-01-16 10:42:37	0|cannon-c|I dont want to duplicate something that already exists
 18 2017-01-16 10:44:49	0|cannon-c|One use case, creating the xpriv on airgap system, with fragmented backup as contingency of access
 19 2017-01-16 10:44:59	0|cannon-c|to family if something happens to me
 20 2017-01-16 10:45:43	0|cannon-c|or great for distributed backups
 21 2017-01-16 11:57:21	0|btcdrak|jonasschnelli: testing
 22 2017-01-16 12:35:03	0|jonasschnelli|btcdrak: thanks!
 23 2017-01-16 13:46:01	0|morcos|wumpus: I think #9380 is *almost* ready for merge, ideally it would be merged in time to keep the translation strings for -blockmintxfee.   I think the only open question is if people prefer a different name for -dustrelayfee.
 24 2017-01-16 13:46:03	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9380 | Separate different uses of minimum fees by morcos · Pull Request #9380 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 25 2017-01-16 14:00:24	0|instagibbs|cannon-c, try #bitcoin
 26 2017-01-16 18:17:35	0|jtimon|morcos: re #9380 I would leave -dustrelayfee, or change to -dustfee maybe, no strong opinion on my part
 27 2017-01-16 18:17:37	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9380 | Separate different uses of minimum fees by morcos · Pull Request #9380 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 28 2017-01-16 18:33:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8a445c5651ed...dd98f0453824
 29 2017-01-16 18:33:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147b1add3 15Alex Morcos: Introduce -incrementalrelayfee
 30 2017-01-16 18:33:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14daec955 15Alex Morcos: Introduce -blockmintxfee
 31 2017-01-16 18:33:41	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14eb30d1a 15Alex Morcos: Introduce -dustrelayfee
 32 2017-01-16 18:33:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9380: Separate different uses of minimum fees (06master...06minfees) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9380
 33 2017-01-16 19:50:38	0|BlueMatt|morcos: the difference is that bumpfee takes us to a world where having "double spends" in your wallet is entirely supported
 34 2017-01-16 19:51:00	0|morcos|It's already supported once we merged BIP 152
 35 2017-01-16 19:51:04	0|morcos|uh
 36 2017-01-16 19:51:05	0|morcos|125
 37 2017-01-16 19:51:07	0|morcos|whatever
 38 2017-01-16 19:51:24	0|BlueMatt|instead of, previously, you'd have to do something unsupported like run your wallet on multiple machines to get it
 39 2017-01-16 19:51:25	0|BlueMatt|hmm?
 40 2017-01-16 19:51:29	0|morcos|actually it was supported even before that
 41 2017-01-16 19:51:38	0|BlueMatt|only abandon transaction supported it?
 42 2017-01-16 19:51:41	0|BlueMatt|well, you generating them, that is
 43 2017-01-16 19:51:44	0|BlueMatt|you receiving them maybe
 44 2017-01-16 19:51:50	0|morcos|yeah exactly
 45 2017-01-16 19:52:06	0|BlueMatt|but now we are actively supporting you generating them
 46 2017-01-16 19:52:09	0|BlueMatt|which is a huge difference
 47 2017-01-16 19:52:18	0|BlueMatt|(is getbalance "*" broken for receiving double spends, too?)
 48 2017-01-16 19:52:35	0|morcos|and previously you could generate them yourself also...
 49 2017-01-16 19:52:42	0|BlueMatt|manually, sure
 50 2017-01-16 19:52:52	0|BlueMatt|but "unsupported, might break getbalance" is perfectly reasonable in that case
 51 2017-01-16 19:53:03	0|morcos|the only thing stopping you from doing it automatically would be if your mempool had your original spend
 52 2017-01-16 19:53:07	0|morcos|so the coins didn't show up
 53 2017-01-16 19:53:28	0|morcos|so if it came out of your mempool for any reason...  expired after 3 days for instance
 54 2017-01-16 19:53:53	0|BlueMatt|hmm? we re-add your txn to mempool?
 55 2017-01-16 19:53:55	0|morcos|nothing stopping you from double spending...  with 0.12, we made it so you had to abandon it first but that wasn't a requirement before that
 56 2017-01-16 19:54:03	0|BlueMatt|so only abandon would stop it?
 57 2017-01-16 19:54:31	0|morcos|i'm saying if you automatically created tx A, then A was evicted from your mempool, never made it in, or was expired
 58 2017-01-16 19:54:32	0|BlueMatt|i mean sure, if you manually createrawtransaction/signrawtransaction you could doublespend easily
 59 2017-01-16 19:54:42	0|BlueMatt|if it was expired it would be re-added
 60 2017-01-16 19:54:46	0|morcos|nothing would prevent you from doing an sendtoaddress and creating A' doublespend
 61 2017-01-16 19:54:51	0|morcos|no it wouldn't
 62 2017-01-16 19:54:53	0|morcos|we just added that
 63 2017-01-16 19:54:54	0|BlueMatt|oh?
 64 2017-01-16 19:54:57	0|BlueMatt|wait, what?
 65 2017-01-16 19:55:07	0|BlueMatt|we've always re-announced transactions on a regular basis?
 66 2017-01-16 19:55:21	0|morcos|reannounce txs already in your mempool
 67 2017-01-16 19:55:48	0|BlueMatt|I mean to be clear, I'm fine with some documentation noting that getbalance "*" is broken, and should not be used, and is made worse with bumpfee
 68 2017-01-16 19:55:49	0|morcos|i'm inflating my argument slightly, since before mempool limiting, things didn't really fall out of your mempool very much
 69 2017-01-16 19:55:51	0|BlueMatt|really?
 70 2017-01-16 19:56:03	0|BlueMatt|yea, ok, i suppose thats why
 71 2017-01-16 19:56:28	0|morcos|See #9290
 72 2017-01-16 19:56:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9290 | Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9290 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 73 2017-01-16 19:56:39	0|BlueMatt|ahh
 74 2017-01-16 19:57:28	0|morcos|Anyway, i guess my point is its not fair to accept a bumpfee PR to take on fixing years of broken code just b/c it might lead to the bugs being exposed more...
 75 2017-01-16 19:57:36	0|morcos|the bugs are exposed more by allowing double spends
 76 2017-01-16 19:57:40	0|morcos|we've already crossed that bridge
 77 2017-01-16 19:58:00	0|morcos|its stupid to say we won't make it easier for you b/c our code is broken in some ways reporting on them
 78 2017-01-16 19:58:16	0|BlueMatt|well i believe the bugs are only currently exposed if you're doing something entirely unsupported (or, in the case fixed by #9290 by bugs which we need to/did fix)
 79 2017-01-16 19:58:18	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9290 | Make RelayWalletTransaction attempt to AcceptToMemoryPool. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9290 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 80 2017-01-16 19:58:41	0|morcos|i don't really feel strongly about merging bumpfee for 0.14..   thats not really what i'm arguing about.. and i think your last minute concerns are a good reflection that it seems a bit rushed trying to get it in
 81 2017-01-16 19:58:45	0|BlueMatt|considering its deprecated I dont see why we cant just put a note in the docs and say "this is broken"
 82 2017-01-16 19:59:05	0|BlueMatt|(bumpfee "*", that is)
 83 2017-01-16 19:59:11	0|morcos|i just don't think that when we decide it is ready to merge we should be weighing it down with the responsiblity of fixign eveyrthing else
 84 2017-01-16 19:59:42	0|morcos|why don't you think bugs are exposed if you receive a double spend?
 85 2017-01-16 19:59:46	0|BlueMatt|agreed, totally get that, but in this case I do think we are exposing bugs which were only previously exposed if the user was doing something insane
 86 2017-01-16 19:59:51	0|morcos|a BIP 125 compatible one
 87 2017-01-16 19:59:57	0|BlueMatt|though, really, if bumpfee slips 0.14, we should just remove accounts for 0.14
 88 2017-01-16 19:59:59	0|morcos|thats not insance at all
 89 2017-01-16 20:00:04	0|BlueMatt|then bumpfee isnt exposing shit :p
 90 2017-01-16 20:00:28	0|BlueMatt|are the bugs exposed if you receive a bumpfee from someone else? I havent thought that far into it
 91 2017-01-16 20:00:56	0|morcos|ah
 92 2017-01-16 20:01:00	0|morcos|perhaps not...
 93 2017-01-16 20:01:05	0|BlueMatt|no, asking, i have no idea
 94 2017-01-16 20:01:15	0|BlueMatt|not saying i dont think they are, just havent looked
 95 2017-01-16 20:01:28	0|morcos|well the issue is 0-confirm things reduce your balance, regardless of whether they are in the mempool or not
 96 2017-01-16 20:01:49	0|morcos|if its a tx from someoen else, it won't add to yoru balance if its 0 confirm period...
 97 2017-01-16 20:02:21	0|morcos|but i bet getbalance "*" 0 is broken if you receive a double spend
 98 2017-01-16 20:03:06	0|BlueMatt|could see that, but getbalance "*" 1 can go negative with bumpfee, I believe
 99 2017-01-16 20:03:16	0|morcos|anyway... i just don't think bumpfee CHANGES anything about this...
100 2017-01-16 20:03:37	0|BlueMatt|or maybe not?
101 2017-01-16 20:04:10	0|morcos|lets just agree it shouldn't be fixed on the bumpfee PR...  i'll argue less (or none) about saying we shouldn't do a release with bumpfee before its fixed
102 2017-01-16 20:04:23	0|BlueMatt|if I'm right (and might not be), during normal use of the wallet, getbalance "*" 1 is (probaboy, I think?) correct, and is currently the only way to get your balance if you include watchonly
103 2017-01-16 20:04:28	0|BlueMatt|with bumpfee, I believe, this changes
104 2017-01-16 20:04:32	0|BlueMatt|so it is no longer correct
105 2017-01-16 20:05:37	0|BlueMatt|unrelatedly, did we document the listunspent changes for bumpfee?
106 2017-01-16 20:05:47	0|BlueMatt|I do think that needs documentation, if no code changes
107 2017-01-16 20:06:20	0|morcos|yeah.. i actually think we should probably just return the txs in listunspent
108 2017-01-16 20:06:36	0|BlueMatt|both of them?
109 2017-01-16 20:06:37	0|BlueMatt|that seems shit
110 2017-01-16 20:06:44	0|morcos|its trivial to do b/c listunspent already passes a fOnlyConfirmed bool set to fallse to AvailableCoins that no other uses of it do
111 2017-01-16 20:06:53	0|BlueMatt|(does it currently return abandoned tx or tx not in mempool?)
112 2017-01-16 20:07:00	0|morcos|i think so
113 2017-01-16 20:07:14	0|morcos|i don't know let me check
114 2017-01-16 20:07:54	0|BlueMatt|no, it just calls AvailableCoins
115 2017-01-16 20:08:02	0|BlueMatt|so only if its "trusted" and in mempool
116 2017-01-16 20:08:16	0|morcos|no it doesn't check IsTrusted
117 2017-01-16 20:08:21	0|morcos|but you are right it checks the mempool
118 2017-01-16 20:08:22	0|BlueMatt|wait, no, wtf is fOnlyConfirmed
119 2017-01-16 20:08:31	0|BlueMatt|oh, yes, you're right
120 2017-01-16 20:08:47	0|morcos|which maybe is exactly what we want?
121 2017-01-16 20:09:36	0|BlueMatt|I think if we add an fOnlyConfirmed to both of the replaces/replaced checks that would be least-surprising to users
122 2017-01-16 20:09:45	0|morcos|agreed
123 2017-01-16 20:09:46	0|BlueMatt|but, frankly, I'm open to anything that is documented
124 2017-01-16 20:10:44	0|BlueMatt|would you like me to go finish review assuming that gets fixed? if we feel it could still be merged for 0.14 I'm happy to
125 2017-01-16 20:10:54	0|BlueMatt|not sure how wumpus or sipa feel about it now
126 2017-01-16 20:12:12	0|morcos|ehh...  if it was me, i'd put it in 0.14..  but i'm not going to advocate for it...   maybe gmaxwell feels strongly?
127 2017-01-16 20:12:33	0|morcos|i think #9294 is maybe higher priority
128 2017-01-16 20:12:36	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
129 2017-01-16 20:12:37	0|BlueMatt|I mean the way i have left to review this is to literally go read all of wallet and rpcwallet
130 2017-01-16 20:12:49	0|BlueMatt|is that still waiting on fixes?
131 2017-01-16 20:12:58	0|BlueMatt|oh, no, ok, will review that one at least
132 2017-01-16 20:13:05	0|morcos|i don't know.. i just started reading BIP 32..   ha
133 2017-01-16 20:14:25	0|sdaftuar|if we're concerned about bumpfee for 0.14, i think we could merge it and mark it as experimental?  i'm also ok with merging after the 0.14 split and use the 0.15 release cycle as time to get the bugs out while it simmers in master
134 2017-01-16 20:14:31	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: you around?
135 2017-01-16 20:15:05	0|sdaftuar|i'd be concerned about holding it up further though for unreleated walelt bugs that it exposes
136 2017-01-16 20:15:26	0|BlueMatt|sdaftuar: well the only thing I found so far that really is a problem, I think, is listunspent
137 2017-01-16 20:15:49	0|BlueMatt|the getbalance "*" thing I really hate, but am not sure is a reasonable fix
138 2017-01-16 20:16:40	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9561 | Wake message handling thread when we receive a new block by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9561 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
139 2017-01-16 20:16:41	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
140 2017-01-16 20:16:43	0|BlueMatt|but it seems like no one is around today :(
141 2017-01-16 20:16:47	0|BlueMatt|damn holidays
142 2017-01-16 20:16:51	0|BlueMatt|always getting in the way
143 2017-01-16 20:17:41	0|sdaftuar|yeah i think listunspent could be a fix-by-documentation, at least for now.  makes more sense if we indicate bumpfee is an experimental feature?
144 2017-01-16 20:18:19	0|BlueMatt|im fine with that
145 2017-01-16 20:18:52	0|BlueMatt|though I think the above-discussed fix might also be sufficient
146 2017-01-16 20:20:27	0|BlueMatt|would just need a quick pass to check all the other places fOnlyConfirmed is set in callers
147 2017-01-16 20:28:58	0|morcos|BlueMatt: i already did that, only set by listunspent
148 2017-01-16 20:29:11	0|BlueMatt|cool
149 2017-01-16 20:29:51	0|morcos|what about #9499, that is a pretty big win if you ask me... especially without multiple block downloads
150 2017-01-16 20:29:53	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9499 | Use recent-rejects, orphans, and recently-replaced txn for compact-block-reconstruction by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9499 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
151 2017-01-16 20:30:27	0|BlueMatt|yes, and probably has enough review to get a merge, I'd say
152 2017-01-16 20:33:12	0|sipa|BlueMatt: i'll do another pass today
153 2017-01-16 20:33:17	0|sipa|now meeting ethan
154 2017-01-16 20:33:18	0|BlueMatt|thanks
155 2017-01-16 20:33:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/b0819c7e9b428631b806d97ff19beb2e218df31f
156 2017-01-16 20:33:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b0819c7 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: periodic translations update
157 2017-01-16 20:33:29	0|BlueMatt|cool, tell him i said hi
158 2017-01-16 20:47:26	0|sipa|he says hello
159 2017-01-16 21:13:24	0|instagibbs|9499 is def ready
160 2017-01-16 21:30:11	0|sipa|#9499
161 2017-01-16 21:30:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9499 | Use recent-rejects, orphans, and recently-replaced txn for compact-block-reconstruction by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9499 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
162 2017-01-16 21:30:18	0|sipa|#9561
163 2017-01-16 21:30:20	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9561 | Wake message handling thread when we receive a new block by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9561 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
164 2017-01-16 21:30:25	0|sipa|agree
165 2017-01-16 21:31:36	0|instagibbs|oops, I meant 9535
166 2017-01-16 21:31:50	0|instagibbs|for my attempted review...
167 2017-01-16 21:32:23	0|sipa|#9535
168 2017-01-16 21:32:24	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
169 2017-01-16 21:38:47	0|cfields|agree on all of those
170 2017-01-16 21:39:40	0|BlueMatt|#9484 obv
171 2017-01-16 21:39:43	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9484 | Introduce assumevalid setting to skip validation presumed valid scripts. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9484 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
172 2017-01-16 21:40:49	0|cfields|ah right, i need to sync up and ack the hash
173 2017-01-16 21:41:05	0|cfields|(i'm sure it's fine :)
174 2017-01-16 21:42:18	0|sipa|no, you should not be sure it is fine
175 2017-01-16 21:42:38	0|sipa|(i, however, am)
176 2017-01-16 21:44:15	0|BlueMatt|I did validate that hash prior to ack
177 2017-01-16 21:49:39	0|BlueMatt|if we're willing to push a day, I think both #9294 and #8456 could make it, but not sure they're gonna make it today
178 2017-01-16 21:49:42	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
179 2017-01-16 21:49:44	0|BlueMatt|well, maybe two days
180 2017-01-16 21:49:46	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8456 | [RPC] Simplified bumpfee command. by mrbandrews · Pull Request #8456 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
181 2017-01-16 21:49:58	0|BlueMatt|but i do think they're both super close
182 2017-01-16 22:07:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b0819c7e9b42...812714fd80e9
183 2017-01-16 22:07:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147b5e3fe 15John Newbery: Add assumevalid testcase...
184 2017-01-16 22:07:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e440ac7 15Gregory Maxwell: Introduce assumevalid setting to skip presumed valid scripts....
185 2017-01-16 22:07:58	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14812714f 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #9484: Introduce assumevalid setting to skip validation presumed valid scripts....
186 2017-01-16 22:08:10	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #9484: Introduce assumevalid setting to skip validation presumed valid scripts. (06master...06script_elide_verified) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9484
187 2017-01-16 22:58:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #9566: threading: use std::chrono for timestamps (06master...06nuke-boost-chrono2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9566