1 2017-01-26 00:12:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/b68f898efa09...f89502306dcf
  2 2017-01-26 00:12:38	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142f10f06 15Suhas Daftuar: qa: Increase a sync_blocks timeout in pruning.py
  3 2017-01-26 00:12:38	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f895023 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9628: qa: Increase a sync_blocks timeout in pruning.py...
  4 2017-01-26 00:12:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9628: qa: Increase a sync_blocks timeout in pruning.py (06master...062017-01-longer-pruning-sync) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9628
  5 2017-01-26 00:49:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jtimon opened pull request #9634: Fail in DecodeHexTx if there is extra data at the end (06master...06upstream-fail-decode-tx) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9634
  6 2017-01-26 05:48:21	0|gmaxwell|cfields: re your earlier question-- show me the code. I'm unsure about matt's suggestion because I can read it in ways that wouldn't be good.  E.g. if the recieve for a verack unconditionally set fsuccessfullyconnected true then something that veracked without ever going through version could be successfully connected.
  7 2017-01-26 05:48:32	0|gmaxwell|assuming that it doesn't do anything stupid, it's fine
  8 2017-01-26 05:48:53	0|gmaxwell|and I think it would be fine to clamp down the handshake and require the states be followed as expected...
  9 2017-01-26 05:49:08	0|gmaxwell|not just fine but good: I could imagine us having some uninitlized something as a result of getting that wrong.
 10 2017-01-26 05:50:07	0|gmaxwell|cfields: but I will gladly review whatever comes up when it comes up.
 11 2017-01-26 08:58:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1499464bc 15Suhas Daftuar: net: Consistently use GetTimeMicros() for inactivity checks...
 12 2017-01-26 08:58:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f89502306dcf...3f9f9629cc1e
 13 2017-01-26 08:58:15	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143f9f962 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9606: net: Consistently use GetTimeMicros() for inactivity checks...
 14 2017-01-26 08:58:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9606: net: Consistently use GetTimeMicros() for inactivity checks (06master...062017-01-net-time-comparisons) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9606
 15 2017-01-26 09:16:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145a00659 15Russell Yanofsky: [wallet] Clarify getbalance help string to explain interaction with bumpfee...
 16 2017-01-26 09:16:13	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3f9f9629cc1e...07421cf2a7cf
 17 2017-01-26 09:16:14	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1407421cf 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9613: [wallet] Clarify getbalance help string to explain interaction with bumpfee...
 18 2017-01-26 09:16:47	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9613: [wallet] Clarify getbalance help string to explain interaction with bumpfee (06master...06pr/getbalance-help) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9613
 19 2017-01-26 09:16:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9587: Do not shadow local variable named `tx`. (06master...0620170119_Wshadow_net_processing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9587
 20 2017-01-26 09:31:26	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c36ec71 15Cory Fields: depends: qt: disable printer for all platforms, not just osx...
 21 2017-01-26 09:31:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/10dc58a2aa79...5ac668759ded
 22 2017-01-26 09:31:27	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145ac6687 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9574: [depends] Fix QT build on OSX...
 23 2017-01-26 09:31:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9574: [depends] Fix QT build on OSX (06master...06fix-osx-depends-build) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9574
 24 2017-01-26 09:32:22	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148ff8d21 15Gregory Maxwell: Send final alert message to older peers after connecting....
 25 2017-01-26 09:32:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5ac668759ded...fd7021142a7a
 26 2017-01-26 09:32:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fd70211 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9594: Send final alert message to older peers after connecting....
 27 2017-01-26 09:32:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9594: Send final alert message to older peers after connecting. (06master...06send_final_alert) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9594
 28 2017-01-26 09:42:12	0|gmaxwell|hurrah.
 29 2017-01-26 09:51:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9623: fixing typo in README (06master...06patch-14) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9623
 30 2017-01-26 09:53:38	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14de1ae32 15Alex Morcos: Exclude RBF txs from fee estimation
 31 2017-01-26 09:53:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/fd7021142a7a...9b4d2673b775
 32 2017-01-26 09:53:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149b4d267 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9519: Exclude RBF replacement txs from fee estimation...
 33 2017-01-26 09:53:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9519: Exclude RBF replacement txs from fee estimation (06master...06excludeRBF) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9519
 34 2017-01-26 12:24:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #9637: [Qt] fix transaction details output-index to reflect vout index (06master...062017/01/qt_vout) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9637
 35 2017-01-26 15:02:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #9638: qa: Actually test assertions in pruning.py (06master...06Mf1701-qaPruning_try) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9638
 36 2017-01-26 18:54:19	0|instagibbs|meeting in 6 minutes
 37 2017-01-26 18:54:20	0|jtimon|a fast question before the meeting...I did the gitian builds as described in the manual, but didn't sign them yet, it is expected that I create a new gpg key only to sign gitian builds or that I reuse my own?
 38 2017-01-26 18:54:40	0|instagibbs|jtimon, I don't know if there's expectation, but it's pretty common yeah
 39 2017-01-26 18:54:46	0|instagibbs|make a subkey
 40 2017-01-26 18:55:18	0|achow101|jtimon: I don't think it matters. I have been using my own key
 41 2017-01-26 18:55:19	0|wumpus|I just use my own
 42 2017-01-26 18:55:42	0|sipa|I just use my own
 43 2017-01-26 18:55:47	0|instagibbs|wumpus, o_0 crap I recall you using another key that you've signed. Maybe im delusional
 44 2017-01-26 18:56:18	0|achow101|instagibbs: maybe you are thinking of the release key?
 45 2017-01-26 18:56:25	0|instagibbs|ah, that might be it
 46 2017-01-26 18:56:51	0|jtimon|well, my gpg key has 2 subkeys for signing already, but they're in yubikey, not in the VM, I guess I can copy my ~/.gnupg to the VM and then see how I can use the yubikey from the VM, thanks everyone
 47 2017-01-26 18:56:53	0|wumpus|though generally it's best to keep things separated, a subkey sounds like the right thing to do, but I haven't got around to figuring out how that gpg functionality works
 48 2017-01-26 18:57:13	0|instagibbs|http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x90C8019E36C2E964 yes the release key
 49 2017-01-26 18:57:27	0|achow101|jtimon: you can copy the assert files out and sign them
 50 2017-01-26 18:57:27	0|wumpus|yes the releases are signed with a different key, that key only signs releases, not git commits or gitian asserts
 51 2017-01-26 18:57:34	0|instagibbs|I had a key on my VM, then managed to lose it, so not really much better :/
 52 2017-01-26 18:57:54	0|wumpus|yes, I do that too, copy the assert files after build and sign them on another machine
 53 2017-01-26 18:58:12	0|instagibbs|achow101, should have thought of that earlier, heh
 54 2017-01-26 18:58:26	0|jtimon|achow101: I guess that's another option, but not running ./bin/gsign --signer $SIGNER --release ${VERSION}-linux --destination ../gitian.sigs/ ../bitcoin/contrib/gitian-descriptors/gitian-linux.yml as in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-process.md#build-and-sign-bitcoin-core-for-linux-windows-and-os-x I assume
 55 2017-01-26 18:58:43	0|instagibbs|does the gsign stuff just point to the right assert file?
 56 2017-01-26 18:59:00	0|instagibbs|ie just copy and do signature like normal, it will validate via gitian script?
 57 2017-01-26 18:59:42	0|wumpus|well you still do gsign, but you pass an option to not do the final gpg stop
 58 2017-01-26 18:59:48	0|achow101|just gpg --detach-sign normally to sign it.
 59 2017-01-26 18:59:57	0|achow101|gsign just makes the assert files AFAIK
 60 2017-01-26 19:00:11	0|MarcoFalke|dingding
 61 2017-01-26 19:00:13	0|sipa|DONG
 62 2017-01-26 19:00:14	0|instagibbs|kk, thanks for explanation, will do for next release
 63 2017-01-26 19:00:16	0|wumpus|I don't know by heart what that option is, it used to be passing a dummy 'true' as gpg parameter
 64 2017-01-26 19:00:22	0|instagibbs|I'll figure it out
 65 2017-01-26 19:00:23	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Jan 26 19:00:21 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
 66 2017-01-26 19:00:23	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
 67 2017-01-26 19:00:23	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
 68 2017-01-26 19:00:35	0|jonasschnelli|hi
 69 2017-01-26 19:00:37	0|instagibbs|(actually would be a useful optional step in gitian guide)
 70 2017-01-26 19:00:39	0|wumpus|and yes on thesigning side you do gpg --detach-sign, no need for gitian there at all
 71 2017-01-26 19:00:57	0|wumpus|yes the gitian guide mentions signing externally but I'm not sure it says how to do that
 72 2017-01-26 19:01:30	0|wumpus|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier jl2012 instagibbs
 73 2017-01-26 19:01:46	0|instagibbs|oops, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/gitian-building.md#signing-externally
 74 2017-01-26 19:01:52	0|instagibbs|jtimon, ^^ ok now meeting sorry
 75 2017-01-26 19:01:57	0|kanzure|hi.
 76 2017-01-26 19:01:59	0|wumpus|proposed topics?
 77 2017-01-26 19:02:17	0|jtimon|instagibbs: np, got good answers already
 78 2017-01-26 19:02:34	0|sipa|if people don't shoot me for it, i'd like to briefly bring up coding style
 79 2017-01-26 19:02:42	0|wumpus|bleh
 80 2017-01-26 19:03:01	0|jtimon|if there's no other topic, I don't see why not
 81 2017-01-26 19:03:04	0|instagibbs|how about just a grazing flesh wound
 82 2017-01-26 19:03:39	0|wumpus|but yes there's no other proposals so go ahead
 83 2017-01-26 19:03:43	0|MarcoFalke|If morcos is around, we could make a short topic on how to get the priority patch merged. (Seems to bit rot fast)
 84 2017-01-26 19:03:51	0|wumpus|#topic coding style
 85 2017-01-26 19:04:37	0|sipa|it seems that we're not really asking people to stick to particular coding style, and that sometimes leads to unclarities "what style should i use here?"
 86 2017-01-26 19:04:40	0|BlueMatt|ugh
 87 2017-01-26 19:04:57	0|morcos|i'm here..  i'm happy to worry about that after 0.14
 88 2017-01-26 19:04:59	0|MarcoFalke|just use clang-format-diff.py *hides*
 89 2017-01-26 19:05:04	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: +1
 90 2017-01-26 19:05:13	0|instagibbs|sipa, I copy the code around me :P
 91 2017-01-26 19:05:16	0|jtimon|the answer is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/.clang-format no?
 92 2017-01-26 19:05:19	0|sipa|and i think that the "mimick the surrounding code" advice we've been following is a bad idea
 93 2017-01-26 19:05:31	0|wumpus|I don't really see the point in spending more energy on this
 94 2017-01-26 19:05:35	0|sipa|it doesn't actually help in making the codebase converge (which i think is goal)
 95 2017-01-26 19:05:44	0|jonasschnelli|I once proposed that, but everyone was against that. A CI check for clang style. We can still accept it... and could be something different then travis.
 96 2017-01-26 19:05:53	0|jtimon|but yeah, since it's not done automatically project wise I often violate it without noticing
 97 2017-01-26 19:05:55	0|MarcoFalke|Just format the diff on every patch and we will converge eventually.
 98 2017-01-26 19:06:04	0|sipa|i'm not suggesting we go fix everything at once
 99 2017-01-26 19:06:12	0|wumpus|I think mimicing the surrounding code is a good thing, usually, as long as you don't introduce really crappy looking lines well I won't hold up merging on a few code style nits
100 2017-01-26 19:06:22	0|morcos|wumpus: i do think it would be nice if we were at least slowly converging on a common code style... i think we are making small progress..  for instance now i know to always brace my if's and i don't mind if someone points out that i forget it
101 2017-01-26 19:06:30	0|jtimon|MarcoFalke: IIRC there was a python script to do that automatically
102 2017-01-26 19:06:34	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: I'm opposed to a CI check for clang style...I'm in favor of a bot which auto-opens a pr which fixes clang style on recently-broken PRs
103 2017-01-26 19:06:44	0|wumpus|morcos: yes, always using braces makes sense from a security/correctness point of view
104 2017-01-26 19:06:45	0|jtimon|or something similar, but I've never used it
105 2017-01-26 19:06:45	0|MarcoFalke|jtimon: Yes I commited those :)
106 2017-01-26 19:06:46	0|morcos|what is annoying is when you don't know what you're supposed to do, and then something is pointed out to you and you feel like its just a difference in taaste
107 2017-01-26 19:07:08	0|sipa|right - my goal is to make the codebase converge
108 2017-01-26 19:07:11	0|wumpus|but some other things, meh
109 2017-01-26 19:07:16	0|BlueMatt|sipa: yes, that would be nice
110 2017-01-26 19:07:22	0|wumpus|it usually *is* a  difference in taste
111 2017-01-26 19:07:25	0|sipa|not necessarily fast, and not necessarily to whatever my own personal preference is
112 2017-01-26 19:07:33	0|jtimon|MarcoFalke: right, so I think if we all use that, as you say we will eventually converge (or be close enough that is not a big deal to do the remaining stuff all at once)
113 2017-01-26 19:07:40	0|sipa|but i'd like to get an agreement that the goal is converging
114 2017-01-26 19:07:52	0|BlueMatt|bot
115 2017-01-26 19:08:06	0|wumpus|as I said, I don't really see the point of spending much energy on this. There are tons of real issue
116 2017-01-26 19:08:07	0|BlueMatt|that way none of us have to think about it, but it still happens :)
117 2017-01-26 19:08:17	0|morcos|i'm +1 on converging to someone's taste.  i don't much care whose, as long as there is an answer that doesn't depend on who you ask
118 2017-01-26 19:08:22	0|wumpus|I don't want to see even more 'massage around a few characters idly' pulls
119 2017-01-26 19:08:30	0|jtimon|what about just a check in travis or something?
120 2017-01-26 19:08:35	0|wumpus|no.
121 2017-01-26 19:08:40	0|MarcoFalke|jtimon: We don't want travis to fail due to style
122 2017-01-26 19:08:40	0|paveljanik|I'm in favour of slow non-forced (no-CI) convergence.
123 2017-01-26 19:08:48	0|wumpus|travis should check correctness
124 2017-01-26 19:08:54	0|instagibbs|Can we at least have a cultural push towards one? I don't care which.
125 2017-01-26 19:09:00	0|wumpus|if travis fails due to style, it will always be broken, believe me
126 2017-01-26 19:09:01	0|sipa|instagibbs: +1
127 2017-01-26 19:09:03	0|BlueMatt|yes, no travis-says-no-for-garbage-reasons
128 2017-01-26 19:09:16	0|MarcoFalke|But we might add a non-voting other-than-travis ci, if that is possible?
129 2017-01-26 19:09:26	0|wumpus|I don't want to block pulls on stupid style issues
130 2017-01-26 19:09:33	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: yes, very much that
131 2017-01-26 19:09:35	0|wumpus|there are already enough valid reasons to hold up pulls for months
132 2017-01-26 19:09:38	0|wumpus|please
133 2017-01-26 19:09:42	0|wumpus|focus on important stuff
134 2017-01-26 19:09:44	0|jtimon|wumpus: right, it would be only on style on the newly modified code, but yeah, it seems it could fail when we don't want it to
135 2017-01-26 19:10:29	0|gmaxwell|#bitcoin-core-dev Meeting: wumpus sipa gmaxwell jonasschnelli morcos luke-jr btcdrak sdaftuar jtimon cfields petertodd kanzure bluematt instagibbs phantomcircuit codeshark michagogo marcofalke paveljanik NicolasDorier
136 2017-01-26 19:10:41	0|jtimon|anyway, the bot could just nit open prs instead of fixing things by himself
137 2017-01-26 19:10:43	0|BlueMatt|the only coding style issue I'd be ok with travis complaining about is bad indentation
138 2017-01-26 19:10:44	0|morcos|sipa, or anyone else that has an opinon on coding style.. if you'd like to get people to move to your style on any specific thing, i think you need to get your request merged to developer-notes
139 2017-01-26 19:10:47	0|BlueMatt|because that leads to bugs
140 2017-01-26 19:10:59	0|sipa|maybe what i'm after is being able to ask people (as a non-blocking nit, even) to fix style issue, without it being seen as "forcing your personal opinion"
141 2017-01-26 19:11:07	0|wumpus|I say if there's use of coding style that is known to introduce bugs (such as unbraced conditionals) there's a point to pointing it out
142 2017-01-26 19:11:19	0|morcos|if its in there, i think its fair game for pointing out not meeting it...  if its not in there.. well come on
143 2017-01-26 19:11:28	0|BlueMatt|jtimon: people already complain about endless nits when they show up for the first time to contribute...I'm ok with my own prs getting that, but not people trying to do one-offs
144 2017-01-26 19:11:32	0|sipa|morcos: of course, only for things in the style guide
145 2017-01-26 19:11:41	0|wumpus|morcos: yes, it should certainly be documented in that file
146 2017-01-26 19:11:59	0|wumpus|if it's not in there there's no basis for pointing it out
147 2017-01-26 19:12:12	0|morcos|we are all talking about NEW code...  but jtimon brings up a good point...
148 2017-01-26 19:12:27	0|sipa|a move-only commit should probably not change style
149 2017-01-26 19:12:36	0|morcos|for instance i have a couple of recent PR's that add braces without changing indentation....
150 2017-01-26 19:12:45	0|sipa|about that:
151 2017-01-26 19:12:49	0|wumpus|eh, indeed, that makes it harder to check whether it's mov only
152 2017-01-26 19:13:00	0|sipa|git diff -w, git blame -w, git show -w, ...
153 2017-01-26 19:13:05	0|morcos|i thought thats what people preferred...  but i'm happy to add the indentation if people can figure out how to ignore the white space changes
154 2017-01-26 19:13:06	0|gmaxwell|changing style though should result in the same object files.
155 2017-01-26 19:13:17	0|sipa|and even github supports whitespace ignoring diffs, add ?w=1 to the URL
156 2017-01-26 19:13:20	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: definitely
157 2017-01-26 19:13:24	0|morcos|ok... good wiht me.. i just thought people wanted differently b/c of similar examples in the codebase
158 2017-01-26 19:13:25	0|BlueMatt|sipa: you meant -b
159 2017-01-26 19:13:32	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: that means adding/removing no empty lines though
160 2017-01-26 19:13:38	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: because line numbers
161 2017-01-26 19:13:54	0|instagibbs|do we have a style guide already?
162 2017-01-26 19:13:59	0|instagibbs|"if" braces even
163 2017-01-26 19:14:01	0|wumpus|instagibbs: you don't know?
164 2017-01-26 19:14:06	0|jtimon|yeah, regarding CheckTxInputs I believe I was asked to wait after moving it for indenting ages ago or something, but yeah, didn't know -w and that's more reason not to wait for anything (specially moves that may never happen)
165 2017-01-26 19:14:11	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: I think lots of people dont...
166 2017-01-26 19:14:12	0|gmaxwell|I think we should avoid changing indents spairingly. And then fix it not long after.
167 2017-01-26 19:14:15	0|sipa|instagibbs: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/developer-notes.md
168 2017-01-26 19:14:16	0|instagibbs|wumpus, I'm here to ask the dumb questions
169 2017-01-26 19:15:02	0|gmaxwell|the developer nodes style guide isn't much of a style guide (not a complaint), and its more of one recently, but I don't normally consider it the place to go to figure out how to format something. :)
170 2017-01-26 19:15:15	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: we refer to it in CONTRIBUTING.md, which automatically gets linked if you submit a PR
171 2017-01-26 19:15:39	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: it's not supposed to have a lot of formatting guidelines, just basic ones
172 2017-01-26 19:15:41	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i'm perfectly fine restricting my style nits to things that are in that file
173 2017-01-26 19:15:42	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: I believe only for issues - I've never seen it for PRs
174 2017-01-26 19:15:48	0|BlueMatt|but, ok, fair
175 2017-01-26 19:16:15	0|wumpus|it mentions the "always use braces" though
176 2017-01-26 19:16:24	0|jtimon|right, I believe we should try to avoid style nits that we don't have documented
177 2017-01-26 19:16:47	0|wumpus|definitely. In general please try to not cloud out serious discussion with lots of style nits
178 2017-01-26 19:16:55	0|BlueMatt|agree with them, but annoying
179 2017-01-26 19:17:00	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: thats a very good point
180 2017-01-26 19:17:03	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: that's my point ^^
181 2017-01-26 19:17:05	0|jtimon|and by documented I'm fine counting https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/.clang-format
182 2017-01-26 19:17:11	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: yes, just agreeing, I suppose :)
183 2017-01-26 19:17:29	0|MarcoFalke|We should just raise awareness that there is a script to do the formatting for you.
184 2017-01-26 19:17:32	0|sipa|yeah, no point in "add braces here" and "and here!" and "and here also!" comments all over the place, i guess
185 2017-01-26 19:17:37	0|MarcoFalke|No need to spam pull requests
186 2017-01-26 19:17:40	0|gmaxwell|Peopel should say if it bothers them, but my expirence is that small things like that improve moral in development teams.  It's an oppturnity to help each other which is very easy and clear. Not "please totally redesign your patch". :)
187 2017-01-26 19:17:53	0|gmaxwell|people*
188 2017-01-26 19:18:13	0|jtimon|MarcoFalke: right, althought the bot that runs the script for you and complains in your PR sounds like a good idea to me
189 2017-01-26 19:18:23	0|gmaxwell|At least I find it gratifying to go, fixed, fixed, fixed, fixed.. and now the patch is awesome hurray and thanks for your help. :)
190 2017-01-26 19:18:28	0|sipa|enough said on the topic, as far as i'm concerned
191 2017-01-26 19:18:32	0|instagibbs|sipa, feel free to propose a "non blocking, non-nitting" style
192 2017-01-26 19:18:37	0|instagibbs|:P
193 2017-01-26 19:18:41	0|MarcoFalke|#action PSA Use clang-format-diff.py before submitting a patch, whenever possible.
194 2017-01-26 19:18:59	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: sure, as long as it's not overly pedantic, and doesn't continue time after time. e.g. you're just about to merge something and a new screenful of style nits appears
195 2017-01-26 19:19:10	0|gmaxwell|MarcoFalke: is there instructions on that? also does it know about our new brace requirements?
196 2017-01-26 19:19:27	0|wumpus|morcos: good advice I suppose, should go into CONTRIBUTING.md
197 2017-01-26 19:19:32	0|sipa|wumpus: so how about treating style always as non-blocking (for the person deciding to merge)
198 2017-01-26 19:19:35	0|MarcoFalke|#action fix clang-format https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9506#issuecomment-271727718
199 2017-01-26 19:19:47	0|jtimon|we can always ignore the bot in certain cases if it makes sense
200 2017-01-26 19:19:54	0|MarcoFalke|gmaxwell: There should be a doc in /contrib/dev-tools, no?
201 2017-01-26 19:20:14	0|wumpus|yes there is documentation on how to use it
202 2017-01-26 19:20:38	0|gmaxwell|MarcoFalke:  I dunno, never used that tool before. it's not mentioned in contributing.md.
203 2017-01-26 19:20:39	0|wumpus|I mean in how clang-format formats
204 2017-01-26 19:21:05	0|jtimon|right, we need to use the same version
205 2017-01-26 19:21:12	0|gmaxwell|yea, I'm willing to install a specific version of clang for this-- as most of us should be... but just something to keep in mind for random contributors from the interwebs.
206 2017-01-26 19:21:17	0|MarcoFalke|wumpus: Last time I checked there were no diffs, but it was a year ago or so.
207 2017-01-26 19:21:58	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: well it's very possible that it stabilized, it's less important for format-patch than when requiring a reformat of the whole source, then it will oscillate :p
208 2017-01-26 19:22:04	0|MarcoFalke|But it should not matter for 99.9% of the code.
209 2017-01-26 19:22:37	0|wumpus|anyhow, other topics?
210 2017-01-26 19:23:17	0|sipa|how are we on 0.14 bugs?
211 2017-01-26 19:23:46	0|gmaxwell|All bugs are features, hurray.
212 2017-01-26 19:23:55	0|morcos|i have one more that needs tagging 0.14.. and i think sdaftuar has 1-2 coming
213 2017-01-26 19:24:15	0|wumpus|#topic bug-fixing for 0.14
214 2017-01-26 19:24:19	0|morcos|they are all kind of minor fixups for bumpfee or replacement type stuff... mostly edge cases.. nothing serious
215 2017-01-26 19:24:33	0|MarcoFalke|morcos: I think the one you want to tag is more a feature than a bug fix. At some point we need to draw the line and release.
216 2017-01-26 19:24:42	0|morcos|please tag #9615
217 2017-01-26 19:24:44	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9615 | Wallet incremental fee by morcos · Pull Request #9615 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
218 2017-01-26 19:24:54	0|MarcoFalke|But the one that is tagged right now should be merged as bug fix
219 2017-01-26 19:25:11	0|achow101|I have a bug-fix (I think) for decoderawtx rpc
220 2017-01-26 19:25:14	0|morcos|MarcoFalke: well its a bug fix b/c if we ever do a release without having a more conservative wallet incremental fee, then we are screwed for ever incrementing it
221 2017-01-26 19:25:23	0|morcos|this has bit us in the past with dust fees
222 2017-01-26 19:25:25	0|wumpus|tagged
223 2017-01-26 19:25:40	0|jtimon|reminder, there's currently 6 open prs for 0.14.0: 9638 9626 9622 9609 9589 9108
224 2017-01-26 19:25:40	0|morcos|its also really simple
225 2017-01-26 19:26:34	0|morcos|i also mention in there that i think we should increase the incremental fee... that coudl be a topic.. but i realize people might not want to do it this close to release, but at least worth discussing it as a general idea and why..
226 2017-01-26 19:26:55	0|BlueMatt|but they should all be minor/trivial
227 2017-01-26 19:27:09	0|gmaxwell|:-/
228 2017-01-26 19:27:13	0|morcos|but given that it might already be close to needing to be raised, we have to do 9615
229 2017-01-26 19:27:20	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #9370: Fix fundrawtransactions address-reuse problem (06master...062016/12/fix_frt_cop) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9370
230 2017-01-26 19:27:35	0|MarcoFalke|What if we want to increment it to 6000 satoshis in two years, then 0.14 will "fall off" regardless.
231 2017-01-26 19:27:54	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: if there are helgrind results I am doubtful that sprinking atomics everywhere is usually the right solution. For some things like flags it can be... but if we're hitting helgrind errors it means we've gotten the locking wrong.
232 2017-01-26 19:28:02	0|cfields|whoops, lost track of time. here.
233 2017-01-26 19:28:11	0|MarcoFalke|But I get your point, I just think it is not a blocker. It could also go into 0.14.1
234 2017-01-26 19:28:25	0|morcos|MarcoFalke: yes.. but that is something we will keep in mind if ever changing the default... is how many old versions will become less than optimal..  i don't know any better way to do it... there is a tradeoff
235 2017-01-26 19:28:41	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: shit like CNode::copyStats...should be trivial, is only used in (effectively) debug info, doesnt matter much
236 2017-01-26 19:28:51	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: but, yes, otherwise agreed
237 2017-01-26 19:28:53	0|morcos|but if it goes in 0.14.1 then 0.14.0 could become broken for bumpfee within a few months...  that seems bad!
238 2017-01-26 19:28:56	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: tend to agree, doesn't seem like making everything atomic is the proper way to solve concurrency issues - it just shuts up the warnings, without addressing the root cause
239 2017-01-26 19:29:26	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: thats why I never did a pile of PRs to do it :p
240 2017-01-26 19:29:39	0|gmaxwell|morcos: oh incremental is just the thing that bumpfee uses but not the acceptance policy (behind on the naming since the split)
241 2017-01-26 19:29:47	0|wumpus|that's like putting (unsigned) everywhere to shut up comparisons between signed/unsigned errors without looking at the ranges
242 2017-01-26 19:30:18	0|MarcoFalke|gmaxwell: Yes, the goal is to split the wallet default and the relay default.
243 2017-01-26 19:30:19	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: yes for statistics it seems harmless
244 2017-01-26 19:30:21	0|instagibbs|morcos, I didn't expect people to button-mash bumpfee, but maybe I'm wrong on usage patterns
245 2017-01-26 19:30:23	0|morcos|gmaxwell: incremental is the policy,  #9615 introduces a wallet incremental which is higher than the default incremental to future-proof...  not configurable, but maxed with actual incremental
246 2017-01-26 19:30:26	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9615 | Wallet incremental fee by morcos · Pull Request #9615 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
247 2017-01-26 19:30:41	0|gmaxwell|I would agree that bumpfees behavior should be more conservative. (IMO bumpfee should always increase at least multiple of the prior feerate, not just the incremental, in order to give log() bumps at worst)
248 2017-01-26 19:30:48	0|cfields|wumpus: many are net things that have been around forever (CNodeStats). I have some ideas in mind for fixing them post-0.14, but I think the changes will end up being too big for 0.14
249 2017-01-26 19:30:53	0|cfields|(re atomics)
250 2017-01-26 19:30:56	0|instagibbs|In the case of "I just did it, or est feerate is same, I just want higher" this concern seems real
251 2017-01-26 19:31:11	0|wumpus|cfields: right
252 2017-01-26 19:31:27	0|morcos|instagibbs: i think its reasonable to expect stuck transaction problems might get considerably worse over the next 6 months...   an improved fee estimation is definitely needed...  but its certainly possible bumpfee will be important.
253 2017-01-26 19:31:30	0|wumpus|cfields: forgot for a minute that the topic is fixes for 0.14 :)
254 2017-01-26 19:31:52	0|cfields|wumpus: yes, otherwise i'd be yelling about s/int/atomic_int/ too, for sure :)
255 2017-01-26 19:32:16	0|morcos|gmaxwell: it by default does a new estimatefee...  it just max's that with a multiple of the increment above to make sure it will pass policy
256 2017-01-26 19:33:50	0|gmaxwell|morcos: right, I think it should also max with a e.g. 10% increase... so that you don't ever have the issue of needing hundreds of bumps to span a plausable range.  I'm in the weeds here though.
257 2017-01-26 19:33:59	0|morcos|this is the first time we're releasing bumpfee... i think we've come up with a lot of minor improvements recently and i know its a lot to keep track of..  but it doesn't make sense to me to release it for the first time with sub-optimal behavior if there are known simple fixes
258 2017-01-26 19:35:08	0|morcos|gmaxwell: yeah.. maybe..   but that could be an improvement for the future... i just want to make it so the old version doesn't run into a problem where its txs aren't even accepted by peers mempools if we change default policy  (which i think should be another topic)
259 2017-01-26 19:35:44	0|wumpus|well, I'm happy that at least we've merged it for 0.14, makes sense to improve it where possible before the release, if we have clear ideas of course
260 2017-01-26 19:35:58	0|gmaxwell|(well the observation that a multiplictive increase is necessary and sufficient to span an arbitary range with log() bumps is not a new observation. ... I believe it's mentioned in the RBF FAQ.)
261 2017-01-26 19:36:17	0|morcos|yes to be clear i'm not opposed to anyone else doing gmaxwell's idea before release.. i jsut want to do at least what i've suggested
262 2017-01-26 19:36:37	0|gmaxwell|Someone should take a look at what green address and electrum are doing here to see if they've caught anything we've missed-- both have bumping in production. I volunteer to check greenaddress.
263 2017-01-26 19:36:48	0|morcos|i mean this ties into my other topic
264 2017-01-26 19:37:18	0|morcos|when i heard petertodd talking about how he just presses bumpfee in a loop (or maybe he does his own version, but in the future other people might just press bumpfee)
265 2017-01-26 19:37:35	0|morcos|it occurred to me we are allowing WAY too much relay for 1 tx being mined
266 2017-01-26 19:38:34	0|morcos|so gmaxwell is right that there are 2 ways to improve upon this... 1) raise incremental relay rate required...  and 2) make it so the behavior of our own code doesn't cause this ridiculous relay iteration by default if people want to do periodic bumping to get confirmed
267 2017-01-26 19:39:05	0|gmaxwell|minrelayfee is minrealy fee, replacement is orthorgonal--  you can use X bytes of relay for exposing yourself to Y fee either way.
268 2017-01-26 19:39:08	0|morcos|i don't know if it's important to do 1 or 2 before 0.14..  i don't care strongly..   but i do think they are probably both needed improvements
269 2017-01-26 19:39:39	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: that is no longer true (I mean it is in principal, but not in code)
270 2017-01-26 19:39:52	0|BlueMatt|min relay fee is min(minRelayFee, minReplacementFee)
271 2017-01-26 19:40:32	0|gmaxwell|the fact that my mempool is sitting at 14MB of data right now suggest the relay fee is not too low, though I wish it were.
272 2017-01-26 19:40:50	0|morcos|that's only b/c of good behavior
273 2017-01-26 19:41:02	0|gmaxwell|uh what? the whole security design of RBF is based on the replacement being the actual in-use min-relay fee.
274 2017-01-26 19:41:46	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: ok, hold on...there is still a min relay fee which is used for bumping, that didnt go away, its just a different CLI flag name now
275 2017-01-26 19:41:47	0|morcos|so gmaxwell the new design is that incrementalrelayfee is the number that you feel like should be the minimum cost to relay
276 2017-01-26 19:41:57	0|gmaxwell|morcos: the operative question is would increasing it cut of transactions that would otherwise confirm in a not crazy amount of time. And it would, I think?
277 2017-01-26 19:42:02	0|morcos|definitely every byte transmitted one way or the other would have to pay at least that
278 2017-01-26 19:42:20	0|morcos|minrelaytxfee in initparamaterinteraction has to be at least that.. but could optionally be higher
279 2017-01-26 19:43:27	0|morcos|but my point is that number is actually really really low if you compare it to the "useful" relay rate which is much closer to 50 sat/ byte  (as opposed to 1)     and allowing somoene to relay 50 times just to keep bumping from 1 to 50, kind of sucks
280 2017-01-26 19:44:45	0|gmaxwell|I don't see why you're talking about bumping.
281 2017-01-26 19:44:46	0|morcos|gmaxwell: i mean i guess if we raised it from 1 to 5, then yes some small amount of txs that paid between 2-5 would have to now pay 5...   but raising it to 2 would basically harm nothing  and cut down on the potential to relay lots and lots of times for fun
282 2017-01-26 19:45:36	0|gmaxwell|They can also relay 50 transactions, the bumping is orthorgonal.  I would say 50 that probably won't confirm, even avoiding the fee, but thats not actually true.  (or if it's true and I didn't notice, then yes sure we should up the increment)
283 2017-01-26 19:46:09	0|gmaxwell|okay, I haven't measured carefully, if 2 is the realistic floor what what gets confirmed then thats what the value should be.
284 2017-01-26 19:46:30	0|morcos|btwn 1-2 might not ever confirm.  my best guess is you have 1 chance in 3 ...   >2 would i agree eventually confirm
285 2017-01-26 19:46:52	0|gmaxwell|sounds like at a very minimum we should make an estimate now of what will realistically confirm and make the wallet do that.
286 2017-01-26 19:47:42	0|morcos|anyway this is the next topic..  (topic: are we charging adequately for relay)  i just wanted to start a discussion about it.   i don't feel it has to be changed for 0.14.      but the fact that its even a consideration is why i want to future-proof the wallet for 0.14  (the change made in #9615)
287 2017-01-26 19:47:44	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9615 | Wallet incremental fee by morcos · Pull Request #9615 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
288 2017-01-26 19:48:30	0|wumpus|#topic are we charging adequately for relay?
289 2017-01-26 19:48:55	0|gmaxwell|morcos: we should change wallet behavior in advance of changing relay behavior.
290 2017-01-26 19:49:36	0|gmaxwell|so if we think relay behavior should change to 2-3 we should change wallet to that now. these are all insignificant amounts.
291 2017-01-26 19:49:58	0|morcos|i think we might be done with that topic too... i think greg's point is if someting close to the low end of relay fee can still get confirmed a non-trivial amount of the time.. then relay cost isn't too high.  i agree this seems to be true.. maybe we could raise from 1 to 2..  but it seems insufficiently motivated to push through now
292 2017-01-26 19:50:35	0|gmaxwell|2s/b is a half cent for a median size txn at $1000/btc.
293 2017-01-26 19:50:36	0|morcos|gmaxwell: yes...  wallet change in 9615 is to pay at least 5 greater than transaction it is replacing... small enough not to hurt but enough to be in advance of future changes
294 2017-01-26 19:52:13	0|BlueMatt|(not proposing we lower it, but blocks are very often not full at all)
295 2017-01-26 19:52:18	0|gmaxwell|as far as what gets confirmed, I think we have hangover legacy of many miners having turned up minrelay fee before there was mempool limiting and before createnewblock was fast.
296 2017-01-26 19:54:30	0|gmaxwell|So it may be prudent to first rename the arguments to cause people to reconsider or go back to the defaults... before concluding that 1s/b will not confirm. doubly so with the fact that segwit may well put the fee behavior back in a disfunctional state (though perhaps thats also an argument to increase the default minimum relay fee in advance of it.)
297 2017-01-26 19:55:17	0|instagibbs_|5 minutes
298 2017-01-26 19:55:48	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: thats fair
299 2017-01-26 19:55:56	0|BlueMatt|I'm not against renaming the relay fee options
300 2017-01-26 19:56:32	0|morcos|There is basically no reason to use minrelaytxfee at all anymore...
301 2017-01-26 19:56:46	0|morcos|in fact in my remove priority PR i make it so you can set it to 0
302 2017-01-26 19:57:05	0|wumpus|no conceptual problems with ti, but it's too late to make option changes for 0.14
303 2017-01-26 19:57:18	0|morcos|but incrementalrelayfee controls cost of relay and blockmintxfee controls orphan risk
304 2017-01-26 19:57:44	0|morcos|so we can just advise in the 0.14 release notes that it is not a necessary DoS protection to set minrelaytxfee at all any more
305 2017-01-26 19:57:52	0|gmaxwell|I doubt its much correlated with orphan risk at all now due to Fibre and BIP152.
306 2017-01-26 19:57:53	0|morcos|(not to mention mempool limiting and the mempool min fee)
307 2017-01-26 19:57:58	0|instagibbs_|People will have to intervene to turn on walletrbf, I don't think a default tweak is a bridge too far as well.
308 2017-01-26 19:58:25	0|gmaxwell|Lets announce in the release notes that the option will be renamed, and encourage people to remove it.
309 2017-01-26 19:58:30	0|BlueMatt|if you're using FIBRE (some pools still arent), there is 0 correlation....
310 2017-01-26 19:58:39	0|wumpus|+1 gmaxwell
311 2017-01-26 19:58:45	0|morcos|gmaxwell: sounds good.
312 2017-01-26 19:59:55	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: not for 0.14 but someone really ought to implement the createnewblock tweak to skip very recently recieved low fee txn.. which does have a relationship to orphan risk. I think doing something fairly dumb would still be a big improvement.
313 2017-01-26 19:59:56	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-26-19.00.log.html
314 2017-01-26 19:59:56	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Jan 26 19:59:55 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
315 2017-01-26 19:59:56	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-26-19.00.html
316 2017-01-26 19:59:56	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-01-26-19.00.txt
317 2017-01-26 19:59:56	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
318 2017-01-26 20:01:12	0|instagibbs_|gmaxwell: do you think this is part of the unseen transactions that CB misses from mempool?
319 2017-01-26 20:01:32	0|sipa|i assume so
320 2017-01-26 20:02:24	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: yea, i think we've talked about this before...needs to happen
321 2017-01-26 20:02:33	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs_: oh absolutely, with the extra pool there should only be two remaining sources of misses--  things that just didn't propagate yet (those), and miners with 'priority service'.
322 2017-01-26 20:02:34	0|morcos|gmaxwell: -blockrecenttxminfee ?
323 2017-01-26 20:02:42	0|morcos|I would like a baker's dozen min fees
324 2017-01-26 20:02:54	0|instagibbs_|gmaxwell: yes OOB was my other thought
325 2017-01-26 20:02:59	0|instagibbs_|wasn't sure of proportion
326 2017-01-26 20:03:24	0|instagibbs_|high fee not prop vs low fee not prop vs low fee + OOB
327 2017-01-26 20:03:28	0|sipa|or a conversion factor between time and feerate... higher fee things may be worth taking a slight propagation risk for
328 2017-01-26 20:03:33	0|gmaxwell|morcos: sounds fine to me. could be set pretty high, my perspective is that the only reason to not deny very recent txn completely is that someone may notice themselves missing a large fee and feel regret. :)
329 2017-01-26 20:04:22	0|gmaxwell|I collected data for that, measuring the mempool consistency between a node in europe, califorina, and au.  Somewhere I have graphs.
330 2017-01-26 20:04:38	0|instagibbs_|miners may be willing to miss out on a single reasonble fee tx, but maybe not a 150BTC one ;)
331 2017-01-26 20:04:45	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs_: dunno the propotion but we can't do anything about OOB.
332 2017-01-26 20:05:27	0|sdaftuar|we could prefill the compact block
333 2017-01-26 20:06:00	0|gmaxwell|yea, I don't want to create an incentive to go rip out or deactivate a good feature because you missed a 1BTC fee.  anyways, I did math on a orphaning mediated rational setting and came up with some number that was significantly higher than typical fees at the time, but I think actually lower than typical fees now.
334 2017-01-26 20:06:56	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: yes, 0.15 feature, we needed extra in first-- since the best scheme I'm aware of for prefill is to use what missed on transmission to you... it was important to get your own logic as smart as possible first.
335 2017-01-26 20:07:29	0|sdaftuar|sure, makes sense
336 2017-01-26 20:08:01	0|sdaftuar|these createnewblock changes are just hard to reason about without real-world data on the various tradeoffs
337 2017-01-26 20:08:57	0|gmaxwell|well I collected data that IIRC basically said everyone was consistent after about 10 seconds. I don't even think never including transactions until you've had them for 10 seconds would be bad... except for the risk that it might enrage someone due to missing a high fee txn.
338 2017-01-26 20:09:54	0|gmaxwell|so my thought was just having a dumb limit, ignore txn newer to you than ten seconds unless the fee rate is 'high'.  ten seconds is an insigificant enough delay to mostly not care about it.
339 2017-01-26 20:10:03	0|gmaxwell|new measurements should be performned I guess.
340 2017-01-26 20:10:24	0|sdaftuar|ok, maybe that is simple enough to just do then
341 2017-01-26 20:10:59	0|sdaftuar|my initial thought was, maybe we should include a small recent medium fee tx that we can prefill without eg using more packets on the wire for the compact block
342 2017-01-26 20:11:06	0|sdaftuar|but taht's definitely too complicated :)
343 2017-01-26 20:11:22	0|gmaxwell|yea, and who cares that you delay a typical fee by ten seconds? you'll include another typical fee instead. :)
344 2017-01-26 20:11:27	0|sdaftuar|right
345 2017-01-26 20:11:34	0|instagibbs_|gmaxwell: is your thought to also prefill(after complete misses) the extra pool hits if space allowed?
346 2017-01-26 20:12:18	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs_: no, I would propose we see how many we missed, if it's too many do no prefill. If it's not, prefill only our misses... assumption is that the peers mempool is the same as ours.
347 2017-01-26 20:12:49	0|instagibbs_|you're also assuming there that extra pool is same(maybe right)
348 2017-01-26 20:12:50	0|gmaxwell|if we missed too many, assumption is they're going to take a RTT regardless, don't waste bandwidth on prefill that the're going to get three copies of.
349 2017-01-26 20:13:14	0|gmaxwell|instagibbs_: I am. well extra pool unlike mempool is actually convergent.. (or at least ignoring its size limit it is)
350 2017-01-26 20:13:39	0|gmaxwell|e.g. given time extra pools become more similar while due to rbf-acceptance-threshold and doublespends the mempool is not.
351 2017-01-26 20:13:46	0|morcos|wait, so it won't count as a miss if it was in our extrapool right
352 2017-01-26 20:13:58	0|gmaxwell|Yes.
353 2017-01-26 20:14:01	0|instagibbs_|correct
354 2017-01-26 20:14:32	0|gmaxwell|We could expirement with things but "peer is the same as us" is a really good first approximation that will be hard to beat.
355 2017-01-26 20:15:28	0|gmaxwell|it's also important to not overdo the prefill: the prefill is in the same message as the CB so any size added to the prefill adds delay to the CB even if the peer could perform a prefill-less reconstruction.
356 2017-01-26 20:15:31	0|sdaftuar|huh, i hadn't thought about extrapool convergence before.  will it really converge, given that we don't relay the things in it?  or are you saying that extrapool+mempool taken together should converge?
357 2017-01-26 20:15:56	0|gmaxwell|sdaftuar: extrapool+mempool will converge where mempool alone will not.
358 2017-01-26 20:16:05	0|instagibbs_|sdaftuar: you relayed them in the past tho
359 2017-01-26 20:16:13	0|sdaftuar|instagibbs_: not orphans
360 2017-01-26 20:16:25	0|gmaxwell|Subject to all sorts of messy bits of reality...
361 2017-01-26 20:16:40	0|instagibbs_|sdaftuar: mm yes
362 2017-01-26 20:16:44	0|gmaxwell|but once you have a conflict in your mempool you'll never accept the alternative no matter how many times it gets given to you.
363 2017-01-26 20:17:08	0|instagibbs_|that's an arg to prefil orphans
364 2017-01-26 20:17:28	0|gmaxwell|extrapool isn't like that. :) "Give me your tired, your poor,
365 2017-01-26 20:17:29	0|gmaxwell|Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
366 2017-01-26 20:17:33	0|instagibbs_|but maybe same peers are passing to you, *shrug*
367 2017-01-26 20:19:00	0|gmaxwell|in any case before BIP152 spec was done, I tested prefill based on misses and it cut the rount trip rate by a ton... but it was on a dumb test network.  debug=mempool logs enough to let you make the measurement with existing nodes.
368 2017-01-26 20:19:34	0|gmaxwell|e.g. if there are IIRC <5 missing it logs the missed txids.  so you can compare that on a pair of nodes to see how many RT it would eliminate.
369 2017-01-26 20:20:47	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: that was with an infinte extrapool, no?
370 2017-01-26 20:20:56	0|BlueMatt|(well, effectively infinite by looking back through debug.log)
371 2017-01-26 20:21:48	0|instagibbs_|how do you specify two debug flags, mempool and cmpctblock?
372 2017-01-26 20:21:50	0|instagibbs_|btw
373 2017-01-26 20:21:56	0|instagibbs_|without doing debug=1
374 2017-01-26 20:22:09	0|sipa|-debug=mempool -debug=cmpctblock ?
375 2017-01-26 20:22:13	0|BlueMatt|-debug=mempool -debug=cmpctblock
376 2017-01-26 20:22:17	0|sipa|same as with all multiarg
377 2017-01-26 20:22:36	0|BlueMatt|it is confusing that some of our args are multiarg some of them are replace-last-arg
378 2017-01-26 20:23:06	0|instagibbs_|oh mapmultiArgs, yes
379 2017-01-26 20:23:16	0|instagibbs_|should have tried
380 2017-01-26 20:27:35	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: yes.
381 2017-01-26 20:58:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #9640: Bumpfee: bugfixes for error handling and feerate calculation (06master...062017-01-bumpfee-error-cleanup) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9640
382 2017-01-26 22:54:42	0|ptk|hi
383 2017-01-26 22:55:43	0|ptk|can you help me?
384 2017-01-26 22:55:52	0|ptk|# Build the library and install to our prefix cd db-4.8.30.NC/build_unix/ #  Note: Do a static build so that it can be embedded into the executable, instead of having to find a .so at runtime ../dist/configure --enable-cxx --disable-shared --with-pic --prefix=$BDB_PREFIX make install
385 2017-01-26 22:56:00	0|ptk|This don't work
386 2017-01-26 22:56:15	0|ptk|Ask me for the doc
387 2017-01-26 23:02:34	0|ptk|#join inversores
388 2017-01-26 23:34:34	0|jtimon|mhmm, reading https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoin-devwiki/wiki/0.14.0-Release-notes#opt-into-full-rbf-when-sending
389 2017-01-26 23:34:52	0|jtimon|I thought full RBF was the original version without opt-in or anything
390 2017-01-26 23:42:25	0|luke-jr|indeed, that should be rephrased
391 2017-01-26 23:45:14	0|sipa|jtimon, luke-jr: agree it may be confusing, but that's the name that has always been used (see BIP 125, even)
392 2017-01-26 23:45:43	0|luke-jr|sipa: is it any worse if we leave off "full"?
393 2017-01-26 23:45:46	0|sipa|it's full RBF as opposed to condition RBF (which is only replacing things when all outputs are maintained)
394 2017-01-26 23:46:00	0|jtimon|oh, I see
395 2017-01-26 23:46:01	0|sipa|luke-jr: i think we can drop the 'full', yes
396 2017-01-26 23:46:16	0|sipa|just pointing out the history behind it
397 2017-01-26 23:47:37	0|jtimon|yeah, thanks, and ack on dropping the full, it may confuse someone else and it reads well without it
398 2017-01-26 23:49:28	0|gmaxwell|need to stop saying RBF and just start saying BIP125 replacable. So much more clear. :P
399 2017-01-26 23:51:17	0|jtimon|right