1 2017-03-01 00:12:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15CryptoManiac opened pull request #9893: [RPC] Just an attemt to save some bandwidth (06master...06rpc_gzip) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9893
  2 2017-03-01 00:20:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15instagibbs opened pull request #9894: remove 'label' filter for rpc command help (06master...06filterrpc) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9894
  3 2017-03-01 00:49:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15CryptoManiac closed pull request #9893: [RPC] Just an attemt to save some bandwidth (06master...06rpc_gzip) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9893
  4 2017-03-01 01:39:42	0|phantomcircuit|wumpus, is there anything blocking 8704 ?
  5 2017-03-01 01:42:02	0|BlueMatt|phantomcircuit: yes, lack of review
  6 2017-03-01 01:43:35	0|phantomcircuit|i can fix that
  7 2017-03-01 01:43:42	0|BlueMatt|not by yourself
  8 2017-03-01 01:44:03	0|phantomcircuit|BlueMatt, plz review 8704
  9 2017-03-01 02:04:10	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15benma opened pull request #9895: Turn TryCreateDirectory() into TryCreateDirectories() (06master...06appinitmain) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9895
 10 2017-03-01 02:17:16	0|phantomcircuit|BlueMatt, you think 8704 needs an rpc test?
 11 2017-03-01 02:17:31	0|BlueMatt|probs
 12 2017-03-01 02:17:48	0|phantomcircuit|im thinking it doesn't beyond something that tests for true/false and 0/1/2 all not returning an error
 13 2017-03-01 02:18:03	0|phantomcircuit|like not something that checks the output more than it's being checked already
 14 2017-03-01 02:18:29	0|BlueMatt|i dunno i havent looked at it
 15 2017-03-01 02:19:27	0|phantomcircuit|the only thing crazy about it is that it's allowing the second parameter to be any of
 16 2017-03-01 02:19:31	0|phantomcircuit|true/false/0/1/2
 17 2017-03-01 02:19:55	0|phantomcircuit|iono
 18 2017-03-01 02:27:39	0|luke-jr|phantomcircuit: 3+ are valid too IIRC? :P
 19 2017-03-01 02:30:17	0|phantomcircuit|luke-jr, true
 20 2017-03-01 02:30:21	0|phantomcircuit|but maybe it shouldnt be?
 21 2017-03-01 02:32:56	0|luke-jr|some day we'll wish we did what I originally suggested with {"block": "description level", "txn": "description level"} ;)
 22 2017-03-01 02:33:10	0|luke-jr|(back in 2012 or something, dead and buried topic now)
 23 2017-03-01 02:38:52	0|phantomcircuit|luke-jr, description level?
 24 2017-03-01 02:39:07	0|phantomcircuit|oh you mean so you can specify how verbose you want an individual transaction to be?
 25 2017-03-01 02:40:39	0|luke-jr|phantomcircuit: iirc it was either "hex" or "object". maybe one other option I forget
 26 2017-03-01 05:28:21	0|cfields|wumpus: for backlog, i re-ran my gitian build until my results matched yours and jonasschnelli's. I've submitted a PR to (I belive) fix the determinism issue. See #9891.
 27 2017-03-01 05:28:23	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9891 | depends: make osx output deterministic by theuni · Pull Request #9891 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 28 2017-03-01 05:29:27	0|cfields|Since everyone is getting one of those two results, I'm going to go ahead and push sigs for one of them. fanquake/achow101, You guys should be able to build a few times and eventually get the same result. Sorry :(. Got to choose one of 'em.
 29 2017-03-01 05:32:15	0|sipa|cfields: so you suggest we don't do an rc4 but instead iterate building until everyone matches?
 30 2017-03-01 05:32:55	0|achow101|cfields: which hash are you using?
 31 2017-03-01 05:33:29	0|cfields|sipa: since everyone's getting one of two results, and that's been the case ever since rc1, I have no problem with calling it deterministic-ish
 32 2017-03-01 05:33:49	0|cfields|sipa: granted, I'd feel much better with confirmation that 9891 actually fixes the issue.
 33 2017-03-01 05:34:57	0|cfields|achow101: !Hash(achow101)
 34 2017-03-01 05:35:10	0|achow101|cfields: I can probably have my machine just run the build 50 times with 9891 applied and see what the results are
 35 2017-03-01 05:35:24	0|achow101|which hash? I got both of them.
 36 2017-03-01 05:35:28	0|cfields|oh, heh
 37 2017-03-01 05:35:29	0|achow101|both are "mine"
 38 2017-03-01 05:35:58	0|cfields|achow101: 05edd35d4b119ec92ecedde3b2da6a69078161741421da8ed039908a8e223405
 39 2017-03-01 05:36:10	0|cfields|achow101: yea, that would be fantastic if you could
 40 2017-03-01 05:37:31	0|sipa|cfields: demideterminstic :)
 41 2017-03-01 05:37:51	0|cfields|achow101: see the commit message. I managed to produce differing results while manually hammering ld over and over. The change fixed it for me. If I found the right issue, it's basically tied to the amount of cpu's in your machine
 42 2017-03-01 05:38:30	0|cfields|achow101: it was a social engineering trick to find out what hardware everyone's running. The fact that I always got the same result is sad for me, i guess :)
 43 2017-03-01 05:38:43	0|cfields|sipa: hah
 44 2017-03-01 05:39:10	0|achow101|cfields: so you have hardware with less cpu :)
 45 2017-03-01 05:40:37	0|cfields|achow101: it's not the size of the cpu, it's the tdp...
 46 2017-03-01 05:42:47	0|cfields|achow101: obviously if you build a branch with that commit you won't match either result, but as long as it's self-consistent, that's enough
 47 2017-03-01 05:44:33	0|achow101|ok. I'll pull it into another branch and just run it overnight and see what the results are
 48 2017-03-01 05:45:01	0|cfields|achow101: that would be really helpful. Thanks!
 49 2017-03-01 05:57:29	0|cfields|gitian builders: detached sigs for 0.14.0rc3 have been pushed. Note that there are 2 possible build results for osx. A PR has been submitted to (hopefully) fix that.
 50 2017-03-01 05:57:48	0|cfields|just repeating in case anyone missed the above. Headed to bed, nnite.
 51 2017-03-01 06:02:20	0|fanquake|cfields nice job figuring that out!
 52 2017-03-01 06:03:57	0|luke-jr|^ +1
 53 2017-03-01 07:03:10	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15benma opened pull request #9897: AppInitMain: split initialization of Connman into a new function (06master...06connman) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9897
 54 2017-03-01 09:04:12	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fa89670 15Pieter Wuille: Add SHA512 tree hash to merge commits
 55 2017-03-01 09:04:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/11049f4fe626...be8ba2cfa44a
 56 2017-03-01 09:04:13	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14be8ba2c 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9871: Add a tree sha512 hash to merge commits...
 57 2017-03-01 09:04:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9871: Add a tree sha512 hash to merge commits (06master...06merge_sha512) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9871
 58 2017-03-01 09:10:37	0|wumpus|cfields: thanks!
 59 2017-03-01 09:10:59	0|wumpus|rc3 executables up: https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.14.0/test.rc3/
 60 2017-03-01 09:12:53	0|wumpus|should probably send a notification to the mailing list this time
 61 2017-03-01 09:16:14	0|wumpus|for rc2 I didn't bother as there was a critical issue so soon after tagging it
 62 2017-03-01 09:25:56	0|luke-jr|I assume we'll have a rc4 with the determinism fixed (and ideally manpages too)?
 63 2017-03-01 09:26:44	0|wumpus|just fixing the determinism doesn't require a rc4 imo, as it just normalizes what some gitian builders were already doing
 64 2017-03-01 09:27:20	0|wumpus|not sure what you mean about manpages, is there an issue open about that?
 65 2017-03-01 09:30:39	0|wumpus|anyhow if no new critical issues come up with rc3 I'd be strongly for marking it 0.14.0 final
 66 2017-03-01 09:35:01	0|wumpus|we've spend too much work crunching to fix issues last minute for this release, and we can almost make the projected March 1 release date, it'd be a waste to let it slip on small issues
 67 2017-03-01 09:38:21	0|wumpus|I mean the network issues were looking quite hopeless at some point and we managed to squash them all in time, that's neat
 68 2017-03-01 09:39:46	0|luke-jr|wumpus: I mean #9892, not a huge thing
 69 2017-03-01 09:39:48	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9892 | Bugfix: Only install manpages for built programs by luke-jr · Pull Request #9892 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 70 2017-03-01 09:42:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149e4d842 15Cory Fields: depends: make osx output deterministic...
 71 2017-03-01 09:42:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/be8ba2cfa44a...3fabae742567
 72 2017-03-01 09:42:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143fabae7 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9891: depends: make osx output deterministic...
 73 2017-03-01 09:42:42	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9891: depends: make osx output deterministic (06master...06fix-osx-link-determinism) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9891
 74 2017-03-01 09:42:58	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 14eff783a 15Cory Fields: depends: make osx output deterministic...
 75 2017-03-01 09:42:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/eff783a0fe7b9eaaba9eef6539bdf0f62ce9f07e
 76 2017-03-01 09:47:40	0|wumpus|luke-jr: indeed it's not, just a makefile change and only affecting the selection of files to be installed at that - it will have zero influence on the packages as there we install everything. seems like something we can slip in without a new rc
 77 2017-03-01 11:22:40	0|wumpus|things are never simple are they... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9898
 78 2017-03-01 11:25:51	0|luke-jr|:<
 79 2017-03-01 11:34:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 14a80dc94 15Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Only install manpages for built programs...
 80 2017-03-01 11:34:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/a80dc94554e7ec9ea810ce341ac7b5ad3fd66a88
 81 2017-03-01 11:38:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/1ce7ec2a4f28...cbdb4732f10c
 82 2017-03-01 11:38:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1448faf0b 15Pieter Wuille: Abstract out BlockAssembler options
 83 2017-03-01 11:38:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14277b472 15Pieter Wuille: Run miner_tests with fixed options
 84 2017-03-01 11:38:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14cbdb473 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9868: Abstract out the command line options for block assembly...
 85 2017-03-01 11:38:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9868: Abstract out the command line options for block assembly (06master...06assembleroptions) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9868
 86 2017-03-01 11:42:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 5 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/cbdb4732f10c...d19d45a1e6a4
 87 2017-03-01 11:42:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14224e6eb 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: util: Specific GetOSRandom for Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD...
 88 2017-03-01 11:42:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14aa09ccb 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: squashme: comment that NUM_OS_RANDOM_BYTES should not be changed lightly
 89 2017-03-01 11:42:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147cad849 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: sanity: Move OS random to sanity check function...
 90 2017-03-01 11:42:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9821: util: Specific GetOSRandom for Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD (06master...062017_02_osrandom) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9821
 91 2017-03-01 12:18:33	0|cfields|wumpus: heh.. i wonder if that's somehow related to travis and the aws outage
 92 2017-03-01 12:19:03	0|cfields|considering that travis was happy with it in the PR, and gitian builds are fine
 93 2017-03-01 12:19:23	0|wumpus|yes exactly, the PR was fine
 94 2017-03-01 12:19:47	0|wumpus|is the qt compilation somehow dependent on the architecture it's compiled on? (would be unlikely, but ok)
 95 2017-03-01 12:20:18	0|wumpus|I don't understand where the avr mess suddenly comes from. Could also be that trusty updated their compiler/toolchains
 96 2017-03-01 12:20:26	0|wumpus|avx*
 97 2017-03-01 12:20:35	0|cfields|wumpus: yea, it does cpu detection, and there were bugs up until 5.8 about using the wrong toolchain for that
 98 2017-03-01 12:21:08	0|wumpus|I hope we override the cpu detection for gitian, at least?
 99 2017-03-01 12:21:15	0|cfields|wumpus: not saying that's the cause for sure, only that it's possible
100 2017-03-01 12:21:59	0|wumpus|...I'm sure we do already, otherwise we'd have different gitian results based on the CPU it's compiled on
101 2017-03-01 12:22:33	0|cfields|wumpus: the tests are just for what extensions (intrinsics) the compiler understands, they're still tested at runtime regardless
102 2017-03-01 12:22:58	0|wumpus|ohh it checks what the compiler understands, not what the cpu understands
103 2017-03-01 12:23:05	0|wumpus|yes, thanks, that makes it seem sane again :)
104 2017-03-01 12:23:09	0|cfields|right
105 2017-03-01 12:24:21	0|wumpus|I imagining something like -march=native, that would be a good way to mess up gitian determinism
106 2017-03-01 12:24:32	0|cfields|(i can't see the travis log now, it won't load. that's why i'm just speculating instead of trying to fix it :)
107 2017-03-01 12:24:48	0|cfields|ah, heh
108 2017-03-01 12:28:47	0|cfields|grr... is 1/2 of the net still down due to aws? Or travis just backlogged and wonky?
109 2017-03-01 13:03:10	0|cfields|wumpus: ooh, i see. Those are just configure checks. They're supposed to fail. The error there was just that the build took too long.
110 2017-03-01 13:04:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #9899: Add jonasschnellis new NIST-P 256 signing key (06master...062017/03/key) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9899
111 2017-03-01 13:42:48	0|achow101|cfields: it looks deterministic. All 50 builds resulted in the same hash
112 2017-03-01 13:44:07	0|cfields|achow101: great news, thanks for testing!
113 2017-03-01 18:53:29	0|cfields|BlueMatt: have you been able to reproduce your qt crash at all?
114 2017-03-01 18:53:41	0|BlueMatt|not since that night
115 2017-03-01 18:54:38	0|cfields|BlueMatt: and you didn't have any tx's that had confirmed within ~a day?
116 2017-03-01 18:55:10	0|gmaxwell|what a bizarre question.
117 2017-03-01 18:55:12	0|BlueMatt|no, no relevant txn at all
118 2017-03-01 18:55:34	0|cfields|gmaxwell: eh?
119 2017-03-01 18:56:24	0|sipa|what does 'having a transaction' mean?
120 2017-03-01 18:56:32	0|sipa|in the mempool?
121 2017-03-01 18:59:13	0|cfields|sipa: yea
122 2017-03-01 19:00:23	0|cfields|just trying to decide if i should keep poking the mempool reload theory, i don't have much else to go on
123 2017-03-01 19:02:58	0|MarcoFalke|BlueMatt: I need to add my new subkey to trusted-keys, it seems?
124 2017-03-01 19:03:04	0|BlueMatt|MarcoFalke: no
125 2017-03-01 19:03:11	0|BlueMatt|shouldnt need to
126 2017-03-01 19:03:24	0|MarcoFalke|hmm, it fails locally.
127 2017-03-01 19:03:46	0|MarcoFalke|Any pull that is ready for merge right now. :P
128 2017-03-01 19:04:13	0|BlueMatt|verify-commits.sh fails locally?
129 2017-03-01 19:04:22	0|BlueMatt|are you sure you're signing with the right subkey?
130 2017-03-01 19:04:28	0|MarcoFalke|Ahg, my mistake. I delkey the old one.
131 2017-03-01 19:17:09	0|jonasschnelli|BlueMatt, MarcoFalke: so I think is then remove my NIST-P key and make a RSA4096... to bad.
132 2017-03-01 19:17:23	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: i did the same
133 2017-03-01 19:17:50	0|jonasschnelli|I though NIST-P would be the more-broad-usable method then Ed25519... but seems we still need to stick with RSA
134 2017-03-01 19:17:51	0|sipa|seems support for EC keys in GPG isn't sufficiently rolled out yet
135 2017-03-01 19:18:23	0|jonasschnelli|I though to have one of many keys that is new/different shouldn't matter... but if the verification fails,.. this is probably not ideal
136 2017-03-01 19:18:38	0|sipa|it's just a question of EC or not, I think P256 and Ed25519 were introduced at the same time in GPG
137 2017-03-01 19:18:42	0|sipa|in 2.1.0
138 2017-03-01 19:18:49	0|jonasschnelli|No current available bitcoin HWW supports RSA,... NISP-2 and Ed25519 is supported though,...
139 2017-03-01 19:19:02	0|jonasschnelli|And I don't want to use one of these crappy CCID smart cards
140 2017-03-01 19:19:34	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: I have chosen P256 over Ed25519 because of the github support.. but meh
141 2017-03-01 19:19:55	0|sipa|jonasschnelli: well i assume github doesn't support P256 either
142 2017-03-01 19:19:58	0|sipa|i didn't mean to be specific
143 2017-03-01 19:20:01	0|jonasschnelli|sipa: it does
144 2017-03-01 19:20:03	0|sipa|oh
145 2017-03-01 19:20:17	0|jonasschnelli|But not secp256k1 (while GPG does) and not Curve25519
146 2017-03-01 19:21:10	0|jonasschnelli|Or at leat github accepted my P256 key while my Seck256k1 and Ed25519 key was rejected during upload
147 2017-03-01 19:21:32	0|jonasschnelli|(and they state to have ECDSA an EdDSA support)
148 2017-03-01 19:23:46	0|sipa|good to know
149 2017-03-01 19:25:40	0|MarcoFalke|jonasschnelli: Maybe not revoke the old key, if you planned to do that.
150 2017-03-01 19:26:27	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: I have no plans to revoke them,... just not to have them in the main Bitcoin Core repository anymore... because it seems that they are no longer relevant for newer releases.
151 2017-03-01 19:27:13	0|MarcoFalke|I think as long as your root key is in the repo, there won't be any added security/trust by updating in the repo.
152 2017-03-01 19:27:49	0|MarcoFalke|Sure, we need to add all keys at least once, but after that there is no harm in fetching from keyservers.
153 2017-03-01 19:28:05	0|MarcoFalke|Only maybe when you prefer not to connect to the net
154 2017-03-01 19:28:52	0|jonasschnelli|MarcoFalke: Yes. My stupid thinking was that we can verify new binaries within the old binaries without GPG.. but this would require everyone at least provide a secp256k1 key and sig for gitian... which we are far away from,.
155 2017-03-01 19:56:03	0|sipa|https://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20170301-tg.htm#e20170301-tg_wlog-10
156 2017-03-01 20:08:44	0|gmaxwell|man, github could have avoided this snafu by adding some simple language "to the maximum extent that the uploader is legally able", rather than leaving the document in a state where the TOS appears to require users to do things they can't do.
157 2017-03-01 20:49:19	0|Micheal_PVR|Hello everyone, is there anyone that can help me with the core secp256k1 lib? I'm trying to generate the key pair, but can't seem to find the API for private key generation.
158 2017-03-01 20:53:01	0|sipa|secp256k1_ec_pubkey_create
159 2017-03-01 20:53:36	0|sipa|or secp256_ec_seckey_verify
160 2017-03-01 20:53:41	0|sipa|pass it a random 32 bytes
161 2017-03-01 20:53:49	0|sipa|if it succeeds, it's a valid private key
162 2017-03-01 20:53:58	0|sipa|otherwise, generate another and try again
163 2017-03-01 20:55:19	0|Micheal_PVR|Awesome, thanks.
164 2017-03-01 20:58:51	0|Micheal_PVR|Sorry for my lack of understanding, but in order for it to then go on to be imported as a mainnet bitcoin wallet, I would have to add a 5 infront?
165 2017-03-01 20:59:29	0|Micheal_PVR|basically concatenate the string so that it is in the proper format for import?
166 2017-03-01 20:59:37	0|waxwing|Micheal_PVR: this is for core development, use #bitcoin or maybe #bitcoin-dev
167 2017-03-01 20:59:55	0|Micheal_PVR|Will do.
168 2017-03-01 21:25:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #9899: Add jonasschnellis new NIST-P 256 signing key (06master...062017/03/key) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9899
169 2017-03-01 21:33:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15Rav3nPL opened pull request #9900: Ban "invalid messagestart" nodes (06master...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9900