1 2017-03-16 00:27:10	0|dcousens|I know ZMQ doesn't guarantee your message,  but I'm currently getting a ~1/3 miss rate for hashblock messages,  could hashtx messages just be flooding it too much?
  2 2017-03-16 00:30:16	0|gmaxwell|dcousens: you could try commenting that out and see if it solves it?
  3 2017-03-16 00:33:39	0|dcousens|gmaxwell: ? would you rather I make an issue? Its a genuine question
  4 2017-03-16 00:47:45	0|gmaxwell|I don't have anything useful to suggest other than from my totally ignorant perspective the idea that the flood of tx is contributing to loss sounds plausable to me.
  5 2017-03-16 00:55:23	0|jcorgan|dcousens: there could be a number of issues causing that.  for one, zmq PUB ports are designed to drop msgs to slow listeners, but i don't recall offhand what the boundary conditions are
  6 2017-03-16 00:55:55	0|jcorgan|if you can document it in more detail as an issue, i can take a look at it
  7 2017-03-16 01:02:38	0|dcousens|jcorgan: it appears no ZMQ sequence numbers are being skipped - so I'm going to debug and determine if the issue lies elsewhere in bitcoind or otherwise
  8 2017-03-16 01:08:22	0|dcousens|jcorgan: nevermind,  it appears when a new block comes in with transactions unseen,  the spam causes mass message loss including the hashblock itself
  9 2017-03-16 01:08:35	0|dcousens|I get 2-3000 sequence number differences
 10 2017-03-16 01:08:41	0|jcorgan|eww
 11 2017-03-16 01:09:03	0|jcorgan|you can separate those onto two different ports
 12 2017-03-16 01:12:51	0|dcousens|jcorgan: will check that out,  but cheers for help :)
 13 2017-03-16 01:43:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sdaftuar opened pull request #10006: [0.14 backport] Don't require segwit in getblocktemplate for segwit signalling or mining (060.14...06backport-9955) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10006
 14 2017-03-16 06:31:45	0|gmaxwell|what time is the meeting? my calandar shows unmoved but the US recently went through DST so I think my calandar is wrong.
 15 2017-03-16 06:32:24	0|gmaxwell|though tne entry is set to iceland time.
 16 2017-03-16 06:36:36	0|achow101|gmaxwell: the meeting is 1 hour after whatever the meeting time was for you last week
 17 2017-03-16 06:37:10	0|gmaxwell|what is the scheduled time?
 18 2017-03-16 06:37:31	0|achow101|7 pm utc
 19 2017-03-16 06:37:52	0|gmaxwell|ok good.
 20 2017-03-16 07:13:47	0|Lightsword|what do I have to do to mine directly to a witness address on testnet? I tried setting it to 2NF1bac2Q8CJem1sy95pcZ82kfaMaPBuRhm but the generation transaction address in the block was n3HKtNgumrvBFB2c4RWXLTttAhTPxWPSQo
 21 2017-03-16 07:28:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15NicolasDorier opened pull request #10007: [QT] Remove SendToSelf, and break down its payouts (06master...06watchonlylabel2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10007
 22 2017-03-16 08:08:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #10008: [trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning (06master...06fix-typo-in-default-fee-warning) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10008
 23 2017-03-16 08:11:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15tjps opened pull request #10009: [trivial] Fixing -Wshadow warnings (06master...06tjps_shadowing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10009
 24 2017-03-16 08:25:26	0|sipa|Lightsword: testnet uses different address prefixes, including for p2sh
 25 2017-03-16 08:34:19	0|sipa|Lightsword: addwitnessaddress should work, though, on a testnet node
 26 2017-03-16 08:34:30	0|Lightsword|sipa, oh well guess this is why https://bitbucket.org/ckolivas/ckpool/src/6700c0fae04e2d0fa347dfacd98acf15bd297f51/src/stratifier.c?at=master&fileviewer=file-view-default#stratifier.c-8540:8543 what are all the testnet prefixs or the correct way to do that?
 27 2017-03-16 08:35:06	0|Lightsword|I’m pretty sure that comment is incorrect
 28 2017-03-16 08:35:15	0|Lightsword|since ckpool can generate to mainnet P2SH
 29 2017-03-16 09:36:30	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a3ca43b 15practicalswift: [trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning
 30 2017-03-16 09:36:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ce01e6226ce5...d42729a8fbb6
 31 2017-03-16 09:36:31	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d42729a 15Jonas Schnelli: Merge #10008: [trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning...
 32 2017-03-16 09:36:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli closed pull request #10008: [trivial] Fix a typo (introduced two days ago) in the default fee warning (06master...06fix-typo-in-default-fee-warning) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10008
 33 2017-03-16 10:10:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d42729a8fbb6...ad44438aae31
 34 2017-03-16 10:10:03	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 141eff6c6 15Lawrence Nahum: fix gitian doc example typo
 35 2017-03-16 10:10:03	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ad44438 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10002: fix gitian doc example script typo...
 36 2017-03-16 10:10:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10002: fix gitian doc example script typo (06master...06gitian_typos) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10002
 37 2017-03-16 10:13:52	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b26ea0a 15Mike van Rossum: specify blockchain size & default behaviour (over pruning)
 38 2017-03-16 10:13:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ad44438aae31...8bcf9342b850
 39 2017-03-16 10:13:53	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148bcf934 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9995: [doc] clarify blockchain size and pruning...
 40 2017-03-16 10:14:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9995: [doc] clarify blockchain size and pruning (06master...06update-doc-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9995
 41 2017-03-16 10:22:12	0|MarcoFalke|wumpus: re #9969. bitcoin-qt/gui is sometimes referred to as "wallet"
 42 2017-03-16 10:22:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9969 | 0.14.0 Runtime Error/Out of memory · Issue #9969 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 43 2017-03-16 10:22:37	0|MarcoFalke|I don't think they meant the wallet specifically
 44 2017-03-16 10:24:45	0|wumpus|ah, okay
 45 2017-03-16 10:35:55	0|luke-jr|NicolasDorier: is your PR description outdated then? O.o
 46 2017-03-16 10:36:02	0|NicolasDorier|no
 47 2017-03-16 10:36:09	0|NicolasDorier|what I do is
 48 2017-03-16 10:36:13	0|NicolasDorier|in the case where
 49 2017-03-16 10:36:20	0|NicolasDorier|All input and all output are from me
 50 2017-03-16 10:36:38	0|NicolasDorier|show 1 lines for the debit. Which Label is taken from the first input
 51 2017-03-16 10:36:40	0|luke-jr|each output should get one "send" and one "receive" with the same label based on the output address
 52 2017-03-16 10:36:49	0|luke-jr|inputs don't have labels
 53 2017-03-16 10:37:30	0|NicolasDorier|I take the ScriptPubKey of the first input and use that as the label for the debit
 54 2017-03-16 10:37:37	0|NicolasDorier|then 1 line per output
 55 2017-03-16 10:38:37	0|luke-jr|NicolasDorier: don't do that.
 56 2017-03-16 10:38:45	0|NicolasDorier|the idea is that when you read the transaction log, you can follow where the coin leave and where it go. This is very useful for every 2nd layer protocols because bitcoin core can show that is happening
 57 2017-03-16 10:38:58	0|NicolasDorier|ok so let's take an example with Lightning
 58 2017-03-16 10:39:16	0|NicolasDorier|Imagine that you fund a channel
 59 2017-03-16 10:39:25	0|NicolasDorier|then later you close the channel
 60 2017-03-16 10:39:47	0|NicolasDorier|what you want to see in the log is
 61 2017-03-16 10:39:49	0|luke-jr|the GUI isn't 2nd layers or Lightning.
 62 2017-03-16 10:40:41	0|NicolasDorier|Channel [-1.0]
 63 2017-03-16 10:40:41	0|NicolasDorier|Channel [+1.0]
 64 2017-03-16 10:40:41	0|NicolasDorier|(na) [-1.0]
 65 2017-03-16 10:40:41	0|NicolasDorier|(na) [+1.0]
 66 2017-03-16 10:40:49	0|NicolasDorier|oops
 67 2017-03-16 10:40:51	0|NicolasDorier|I mean
 68 2017-03-16 10:40:57	0|NicolasDorier|no that is correct sorry
 69 2017-03-16 10:41:19	0|NicolasDorier|SendToSelf are only relevant for above layer protocols
 70 2017-03-16 10:41:37	0|NicolasDorier|and this is a way to make the SendToSelf actually usefull to anything
 71 2017-03-16 10:41:43	0|NicolasDorier|on the UI
 72 2017-03-16 10:42:39	0|luke-jr|wallets used to watch L2 stuff simply shouldn't be used directly by end users
 73 2017-03-16 10:43:21	0|NicolasDorier|this is what joinmarket is doing
 74 2017-03-16 10:43:33	0|NicolasDorier|and there is good reason imho
 75 2017-03-16 10:43:35	0|wumpus|well we can try to accomodate for it, but not if it breaks other valid use cases
 76 2017-03-16 10:43:40	0|NicolasDorier|coin tracking is hard.
 77 2017-03-16 10:43:43	0|NicolasDorier|coin selection is hard
 78 2017-03-16 10:43:52	0|NicolasDorier|I do not want to code this stuff myself
 79 2017-03-16 10:43:58	0|NicolasDorier|I will mess it up
 80 2017-03-16 10:44:33	0|wumpus|I think we should try to help projects like joinmarket and lightning where possible
 81 2017-03-16 10:45:26	0|NicolasDorier|I am trying to use SendToSelf which is not relevant to other valid use case than upper layer stuff (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10007)
 82 2017-03-16 10:45:36	0|wumpus|if a simple change in how pay to self entries are shown is useful, well , I don't see why not. Normally they don't appear anyway.
 83 2017-03-16 10:46:21	0|luke-jr|coin tracking is not something the GUI should try to do
 84 2017-03-16 10:46:32	0|luke-jr|wumpus: it's a complete layer violation
 85 2017-03-16 10:46:35	0|NicolasDorier|shit power is running out. Will try to be there for dev meeting today to talk about it. (it is at 4am in japan so kind of hard)
 86 2017-03-16 10:46:41	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14fb6f90a 15Patrick Strateman: Initialize nRelockTime
 87 2017-03-16 10:46:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8bcf9342b850...c49355c7170a
 88 2017-03-16 10:46:42	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c49355c 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9993: Initialize nRelockTime...
 89 2017-03-16 10:46:43	0|luke-jr|it's "from address" nonsense all over again
 90 2017-03-16 10:46:53	0|NicolasDorier|luke-jr: I do not see "from address"
 91 2017-03-16 10:47:01	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9993: Initialize nRelockTime (06master...062017-03-14-cwallet-nrelocktime-init) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9993
 92 2017-03-16 10:47:06	0|luke-jr|NicolasDorier: it's exactly what you're describing doing
 93 2017-03-16 10:47:14	0|NicolasDorier|I do not show from addresses
 94 2017-03-16 10:47:21	0|NicolasDorier|I show labels in transactions windows
 95 2017-03-16 10:47:28	0|luke-jr|labels are associated with addresses
 96 2017-03-16 10:47:46	0|NicolasDorier|shit no power, come back a bit later
 97 2017-03-16 10:48:59	0|MarcoFalke|ryanofsky: Mind to rebase #9701 in the next couple of days?
 98 2017-03-16 10:49:01	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9701 | Make bumpfee tests less fragile by ryanofsky · Pull Request #9701 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 99 2017-03-16 10:49:59	0|wumpus|what is the goal? if the goal is isolation between different 'pools' of coins then I agree labels are not the right way to go
100 2017-03-16 10:50:20	0|wumpus|that's what multiwallet would be for
101 2017-03-16 10:50:39	0|wumpus|which I indended to work on this week but shit happened
102 2017-03-16 10:59:23	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c9bd0f6 15John Newbery: Fix RPC failure testing (2 of 2)...
103 2017-03-16 10:59:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c49355c7170a...598ef9c44b3e
104 2017-03-16 10:59:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14598ef9c 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9842: Fix RPC failure testing (continuation of #9707)...
105 2017-03-16 10:59:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9842: Fix RPC failure testing (continuation of #9707) (06master...06rpctestassert2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9842
106 2017-03-16 11:03:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/598ef9c44b3e...8b789d814199
107 2017-03-16 11:03:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1425da1ee 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: cleanup: define MSG_DONTWAIT/MSG_NO_SIGNAL locally...
108 2017-03-16 11:03:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c459d50 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: Probe MSG_DONTWAIT in the same way as MSG_NOSIGNAL...
109 2017-03-16 11:03:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a4d1c9f 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: compat: use `unsigned int` instead of `u_int`...
110 2017-03-16 11:03:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9921: build: Probe MSG_DONTWAIT in the same way as MSG_NOSIGNAL (06master...062017_03_cloudabi_netcompat) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9921
111 2017-03-16 11:03:47	0|luke-jr|wumpus: I guess his goal is to display L2 semantics in the GUI without the GUI knowing L2 stuff. Not sure.
112 2017-03-16 11:16:25	0|MarcoFalke|maybe a good time to clear the release notes on the 0.14 branch
113 2017-03-16 11:17:09	0|NicolasDorier|wumpus: The goal is to make it possible to follow the coins from L2 transfers from the Bitcoin qt interface
114 2017-03-16 11:17:13	0|NicolasDorier|for lightning
115 2017-03-16 11:17:17	0|NicolasDorier|for example
116 2017-03-16 11:17:26	0|NicolasDorier|if the channel get open then closed
117 2017-03-16 11:17:29	0|NicolasDorier|you would like to see
118 2017-03-16 11:17:38	0|wumpus|NicolasDorier: aren't we missing the metadata for that?
119 2017-03-16 11:17:49	0|wumpus|MarcoFalke: yes, good idea
120 2017-03-16 11:17:53	0|NicolasDorier|"Channel X" -1 BTC
121 2017-03-16 11:17:53	0|NicolasDorier|"Channel X" +1 BTC
122 2017-03-16 11:18:12	0|NicolasDorier|labels being submitted by the Layer 2 process
123 2017-03-16 11:18:25	0|wumpus|ok, sounds fair enough to me
124 2017-03-16 11:18:49	0|NicolasDorier|in the PR I gave an example with tumble bit where the coins flow internally through 3 different transactions
125 2017-03-16 11:19:15	0|NicolasDorier|and I would like users to see something like
126 2017-03-16 11:19:17	0|NicolasDorier|Escrow    [-1.0]
127 2017-03-16 11:19:17	0|NicolasDorier|Escrow    [1.0]
128 2017-03-16 11:19:17	0|NicolasDorier|Offer       [-1.0]
129 2017-03-16 11:19:17	0|NicolasDorier|Offer       [1.0]
130 2017-03-16 11:19:17	0|NicolasDorier|Tumbler  [1.0]
131 2017-03-16 11:19:18	0|NicolasDorier|(n/a)        [-1.0]
132 2017-03-16 11:19:37	0|NicolasDorier|so you can see your money go to the escrow, to the offer, then ultimately to the tumbler
133 2017-03-16 11:20:33	0|wumpus|I guess tumbler, offer and escrow are separate pools of coins which shouldn't mix? how is this enforced?
134 2017-03-16 11:20:44	0|NicolasDorier|not pools of coins
135 2017-03-16 11:20:45	0|wumpus|when they're all in one wallet
136 2017-03-16 11:20:59	0|NicolasDorier|there is no pool of coins that should not mix
137 2017-03-16 11:21:13	0|wumpus|what if the user does a spend from bitcoin core?
138 2017-03-16 11:21:49	0|NicolasDorier|he can. The way tumbler bit work now is to drain the bitcoin core wallet until empty to the tumbler
139 2017-03-16 11:21:57	0|wumpus|the coin selection algorithm can pick from all of those utxos, despite being allocated to something (as "send to self") by L2 software
140 2017-03-16 11:22:00	0|NicolasDorier|for coin separation I want the multi wallet
141 2017-03-16 11:22:07	0|wumpus|right.
142 2017-03-16 11:22:24	0|NicolasDorier|but right now yes, the user share the same pool of coins
143 2017-03-16 11:22:48	0|NicolasDorier|the idea is that he receive money to the bitcoin core and tumblebit passively send it through the tumbler
144 2017-03-16 11:23:09	0|NicolasDorier|if he does not want all the coins drained then he need separate wallet
145 2017-03-16 11:23:39	0|NicolasDorier|But basically I am labelling the escrow, offer, and tumbler addresses. So that the user can see that the money does not get lost
146 2017-03-16 11:25:02	0|wumpus|yes it makes sense to have some way of displaying that in the wallet GUI
147 2017-03-16 11:25:24	0|wumpus|doesn't it need more metadata than just send-to-self though?
148 2017-03-16 11:26:31	0|wumpus|I guess it needs some way to mark transactions, for example through RPC?
149 2017-03-16 11:27:12	0|NicolasDorier|you do not mark transactions
150 2017-03-16 11:27:16	0|NicolasDorier|you mark addresses
151 2017-03-16 11:27:36	0|NicolasDorier|wumpus: the layer 2 instruct which address to watchonly
152 2017-03-16 11:27:41	0|NicolasDorier|with their label
153 2017-03-16 11:28:05	0|NicolasDorier|despite the UI show label as one per transaction, in reality it is one per addresse
154 2017-03-16 11:28:07	0|wumpus|ok, metadata for the address then
155 2017-03-16 11:28:27	0|NicolasDorier|on my side I do not need more metadata to show correctly
156 2017-03-16 11:28:44	0|NicolasDorier|the PR I have done show quite well the flow of money through the different stages
157 2017-03-16 11:28:55	0|wumpus|but it may interfere with other uses of send-to-self which should not be shown like this
158 2017-03-16 11:29:57	0|NicolasDorier|a proposition that luke-jr would be fine with I think is if I do not add one entry for debits so instead of
159 2017-03-16 11:30:07	0|NicolasDorier|8:19 PM Escrow    [-1.0]
160 2017-03-16 11:30:07	0|NicolasDorier|8:19 PM Escrow    [1.0]
161 2017-03-16 11:30:07	0|NicolasDorier|8:19 PM (n/a)        [-1.0]
162 2017-03-16 11:30:07	0|NicolasDorier|8:19 PM Offer       [-1.0]
163 2017-03-16 11:30:07	0|NicolasDorier|8:19 PM Offer       [1.0]
164 2017-03-16 11:30:07	0|NicolasDorier|Tumbler  [1.0]
165 2017-03-16 11:30:10	0|NicolasDorier|it would be
166 2017-03-16 11:30:18	0|wumpus|in that case you'd need some special flag in the address metadata, instead of treating all of them the same
167 2017-03-16 11:30:20	0|wumpus|okay
168 2017-03-16 11:30:29	0|NicolasDorier|8:19 PM Escrow    [1.0]
169 2017-03-16 11:30:29	0|NicolasDorier|8:19 PM Offer       [1.0]
170 2017-03-16 11:30:29	0|NicolasDorier|Tumbler  [1.0]
171 2017-03-16 11:30:47	0|NicolasDorier|but I think it is not very clear
172 2017-03-16 11:30:57	0|NicolasDorier|but indeed
173 2017-03-16 11:31:14	0|NicolasDorier|for the debit entries, I just use the address of the first input
174 2017-03-16 11:31:24	0|NicolasDorier|which might not work for all cases
175 2017-03-16 11:31:50	0|luke-jr|NicolasDorier: the send+receive should always use the same label, with the current wallet structure
176 2017-03-16 11:32:32	0|NicolasDorier|not sure what you nmean here
177 2017-03-16 11:32:34	0|wumpus|luke-jr: but if it is *to self* that's kind of hard to define
178 2017-03-16 11:32:58	0|luke-jr|wumpus: if the goal is to eliminate "send to self", it leaves just a send and a receive both with the same address
179 2017-03-16 11:34:16	0|NicolasDorier|luke-jr: so how would you show ?
180 2017-03-16 11:34:40	0|NicolasDorier|coming back soon
181 2017-03-16 11:35:00	0|luke-jr|NicolasDorier: for each output, 1 send, and 1 receive, both with the same label/address
182 2017-03-16 12:04:25	0|NicolasDorier|luke-jr: I think it is ugly and does not really help user to understand where his money go
183 2017-03-16 14:48:07	0|jonasschnelli|Would be great if we could merge #9294
184 2017-03-16 14:48:11	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
185 2017-03-16 14:48:20	0|jonasschnelli|I think the performance can be optimized later
186 2017-03-16 16:38:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15prusnak opened pull request #10010: util: rename variable to avoid shadowing (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10010
187 2017-03-16 16:41:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #10011: build: Fix typo s/HAVE_DONTWAIT/HAVE_MSG_DONTWAIT (06master...062017_03_typo_dontwait) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10011
188 2017-03-16 16:49:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15raze182 opened pull request #10012: [UI] Update splash screen (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10012
189 2017-03-16 16:50:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10012: [UI] Update splash screen (06master...06master) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10012
190 2017-03-16 16:53:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #10013: Fix shutdown hang with >= 8 -addnodes set (0.14 backport) (060.14...062017-03-exit-with-addnode-13) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10013
191 2017-03-16 17:14:43	0|cfields|wumpus: grr, sorry for missing that in review
192 2017-03-16 17:30:49	0|wumpus|cfields: hah yes we should have caught that one
193 2017-03-16 17:31:52	0|wumpus|bah we're swamped in Wshadow pulls, exactly what we feared has happened, about every PR is followed by one that 'fixes' its shadow warnings
194 2017-03-16 17:33:24	0|wumpus|until a sneaky bug gets introduced in an oversight while renaming variables
195 2017-03-16 17:37:24	0|ryanofsky|probably been discussed before, but could this problem be avoided by enabling -Werror in travis?
196 2017-03-16 17:37:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10009: [trivial] Fixed -Wshadow warnings (06master...06tjps_shadowing) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10009
197 2017-03-16 17:38:30	0|wumpus|no, it can not
198 2017-03-16 17:38:45	0|wumpus|the problem is that different compilers have different perceptions of shadowing
199 2017-03-16 17:39:04	0|wumpus|there is always someone with a compiler that shows more shadowing warnings than you
200 2017-03-16 17:39:20	0|wumpus|clang shows fairly few, gcc 5 shows more, some gcc 4.x versoins go all out crazy
201 2017-03-16 17:41:07	0|ryanofsky|oh, ok. still seems like it could be useful as mitigation, but maybe there are other reasons not to do it
202 2017-03-16 17:41:48	0|wumpus|the reason not to do it would be that it causes a lot of extra overhead and irritation
203 2017-03-16 17:42:09	0|wumpus|you say it is useful as mitigation, but are you helping review -Wshadow pulls? making sure they don't introduce bugs?
204 2017-03-16 17:43:28	0|wumpus|anything that introduces so much ancillary diff noise is a risk in itself, what if something gets renamed wrongly. It was a bad idea to enable it by default.
205 2017-03-16 17:43:45	0|ryanofsky|i have not, but would be happy to review and add some acks
206 2017-03-16 17:44:01	0|wumpus|we hardly have enough reviewers for the pulls that actually add features or fix serious bugs
207 2017-03-16 17:44:23	0|ryanofsky|oh i agree it's a dumb warning. sorry, i don't know whatever discussion happened previously around this issue
208 2017-03-16 17:45:01	0|cfields|wumpus: i agree. It seemed like something that would eventually settle down and we could stick -Werror on it, but it's turned out to be very different in practice :(. It's not worth the pain it's causing
209 2017-03-16 17:45:06	0|ryanofsky|was just suggesting the travis change as a way of shifting the burden of dealing with the warning from maintainers to contributors
210 2017-03-16 17:45:57	0|cfields|ryanofsky: the discussion was triggered by a bug a long time ago that this would've caught, but the signal/noise is just too bad for it to be helpful
211 2017-03-16 17:46:12	0|gmaxwell|What happened to the suggestion I made of tuning -Wshadow with the arguments?
212 2017-03-16 17:46:27	0|gmaxwell|not successful and restricting it to things that compilers are consistent about?
213 2017-03-16 17:47:09	0|wumpus|ryanofsky: the problem is that you'd have to run it against N different compiers in travis then, which would be good in itself, but another problem is that the turnaround cycle of travis is pretty slow - so you get one bucketload of warnings, fix it, travis complains about another. But sure, it'd certainly be much better to catch them before they're merged.
214 2017-03-16 17:47:27	0|cfields|gmaxwell: from what i saw, the options available end up hiding the only useful warning
215 2017-03-16 17:49:58	0|cfields|ryanofsky: for context, this started the discussion: #8102
216 2017-03-16 17:49:59	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8102 | Bugfix: use global ::fRelayTxes instead of CNode in version send by sipa · Pull Request #8102 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
217 2017-03-16 17:50:15	0|cfields|oh, i started the fire :(
218 2017-03-16 17:51:07	0|wumpus|cfields: we didn't know better at the time
219 2017-03-16 17:52:22	0|wumpus|I mean for C it would be clearly defined. It's just with C++ and all its nested scopes and global namespace symbols that compilers start to diverge on it
220 2017-03-16 17:52:57	0|gmaxwell|cfields: ah, I thought one of them warned only about shadowing in the same function. Which sounded basically like the primary place where shadowing is possible in C, and still sometimes finds some bugs.
221 2017-03-16 17:53:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15starinacool opened pull request #10014: 0.14 with 2Mb block size (060.14...060.14) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014
222 2017-03-16 17:53:14	0|gmaxwell|libsecp256k1 is -Wshadow never been an issue.
223 2017-03-16 17:53:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10014: 0.14 with 2Mb block size (060.14...060.14) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014
224 2017-03-16 17:53:49	0|ryanofsky|cfields, thanks for context
225 2017-03-16 17:55:36	0|wumpus|secp256k1 also is smaller, and has a lot fewer dependencies, that helps with having not too much cruft in namespaces that can overlap. Though C/C++ probably makes the biggest difference.
226 2017-03-16 17:56:14	0|gmaxwell|(of course, I've similarly not had problems in other C librarys... I really think it's just C vs C++ that is an issue here.)
227 2017-03-16 17:56:19	0|cfields|gmaxwell: i suppose that doesn't hurt. Though, I was more interested in catching accidental global shadowing. Those are really rough to catch in review.
228 2017-03-16 17:56:39	0|cfields|(ofc those are the ones that cause all the trouble here)
229 2017-03-16 17:56:43	0|gmaxwell|It's still surprising to me that the C++ compilers can't be reliable in this, how the hell do they resolve the symbols if they can't find them. :P
230 2017-03-16 17:58:27	0|wumpus|hehe I'm sure they can find them, it's just that they have different concepts of what is reported as a shadowing warning. May be something of a compiler vendor opinion as well, you can both blame clang for underreporting and gcc for overreporting.
231 2017-03-16 18:02:51	0|wumpus|(FYI bitcoin core master compiles without WShadow warnings with clang 4.0 pre-something apart from one in db.cpp)
232 2017-03-16 18:11:49	0|gmaxwell|I also worry about this constant fix stream causing us to introduce real bugs. :(  and also undermining the utility of the warning.
233 2017-03-16 18:12:17	0|cfields|jnewbery: ping
234 2017-03-16 18:12:46	0|jnewbery|cfields: pong
235 2017-03-16 18:13:04	0|cfields|jnewbery: got a sec to talk about the test movement?
236 2017-03-16 18:13:12	0|jnewbery|sure
237 2017-03-16 19:00:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #10015: Wallet should reject long chains by default (06master...06walletrejectlongchains) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10015
238 2017-03-16 19:01:10	0|Chris_Stewart_5|meeting? Or are my time zones off?
239 2017-03-16 19:01:20	0|achow101|meeting
240 2017-03-16 19:01:22	0|wumpus|#meetingstart
241 2017-03-16 19:01:27	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Mar 16 19:01:26 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
242 2017-03-16 19:01:27	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
243 2017-03-16 19:01:27	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
244 2017-03-16 19:02:03	0|jnewbery|suggested topic: running rpc tests as part of `make check`
245 2017-03-16 19:02:12	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
246 2017-03-16 19:02:29	0|cfields|hi
247 2017-03-16 19:02:35	0|jonasschnelli|hi
248 2017-03-16 19:02:36	0|instagibbs|hello
249 2017-03-16 19:02:50	0|sipa|oi
250 2017-03-16 19:02:58	0|wumpus|proposed topics?
251 2017-03-16 19:03:05	0|jtimon|mhmm
252 2017-03-16 19:03:11	0|morcos|i haven't been reading channel last few days but was there discussion on 10015 (just above)
253 2017-03-16 19:03:19	0|wumpus|#10015
254 2017-03-16 19:03:21	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10015 | Wallet should reject long chains by default by jnewbery · Pull Request #10015 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
255 2017-03-16 19:03:22	0|morcos|i felt like we discussed that ad nauseum the first time around
256 2017-03-16 19:03:32	0|instagibbs|yes
257 2017-03-16 19:03:42	0|sipa|i don't remmeber the reason for it not being default
258 2017-03-16 19:03:53	0|wumpus|yes I remember we already had long discussions about that
259 2017-03-16 19:04:15	0|jnewbery|#9262
260 2017-03-16 19:04:16	0|instagibbs|The idea being that now that we actually rebroadcast normally, and return txid, it wasn't required in general.
261 2017-03-16 19:04:18	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9262 | Prefer coins that have fewer ancestors, sanity check txn before ATMP by instagibbs · Pull Request #9262 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
262 2017-03-16 19:04:31	0|morcos|sipa: the reasoning is its a very reasonable use case that you'd just want the tx to go out as soon as some of its parents get confirmed..
263 2017-03-16 19:04:54	0|morcos|it seems somewhat likely that it would be tricky to have anything smarter than that happen manually anyway
264 2017-03-16 19:04:54	0|sipa|but the resulting behaviour seems very unexpected to users
265 2017-03-16 19:05:00	0|gmaxwell|I don't see the reason for rejecting. Seems like a useless loss of functionality in most cases.
266 2017-03-16 19:05:15	0|morcos|but the solution to that could be better informing them of the new behaviour
267 2017-03-16 19:05:18	0|jnewbery|I can understand the use case, but user experience is terrible (hence already two issues opened by different users)
268 2017-03-16 19:05:27	0|gmaxwell|What does it matter to you if your transaction 20 steps deep hasn't actually been announced yet? it will be announced when it can.
269 2017-03-16 19:05:28	0|sipa|many reports of people who see their balance going down
270 2017-03-16 19:05:46	0|sipa|and get scared
271 2017-03-16 19:05:49	0|gmaxwell|Their balance is going down.
272 2017-03-16 19:05:56	0|morcos|hmm...
273 2017-03-16 19:06:15	0|sipa|gmaxwell: it is, but don't you think it's better to reject by default, so they know why it is going down?
274 2017-03-16 19:06:19	0|morcos|gmaxwell: i assume he means they have a 10 BTC input, they spend 0.1 BTC and their balance goes down by 10
275 2017-03-16 19:06:33	0|sipa|so they can re-enable it when they understand the effect
276 2017-03-16 19:06:43	0|morcos|b/c the change isn't in mempool so it doesn't count towards balance
277 2017-03-16 19:06:49	0|gmaxwell|morcos: okay now that is a bad effect, I didn't reaize it was doing that.
278 2017-03-16 19:07:02	0|gmaxwell|realize*
279 2017-03-16 19:07:05	0|jnewbery|see #10004 for good description of what the user sees
280 2017-03-16 19:07:06	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10004 | After max chain of unconfirmed change transactions, last tx is missing from memory until rescan · Issue #10004 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
281 2017-03-16 19:07:17	0|gmaxwell|jnewbery: or  #9752 for the alternative
282 2017-03-16 19:07:18	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9752 | Max unconfirmed chainlength · Issue #9752 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
283 2017-03-16 19:07:19	0|morcos|i briefly recall discussing that but i agree its bad so don't know why we just left it that way.. maybe b/c its not easy to do anything smarter?
284 2017-03-16 19:07:44	0|gmaxwell|The balance being goofy is an issue, but I think that should be considered a seperate issue.
285 2017-03-16 19:08:02	0|gmaxwell|I agree it shouldn't be left with the balance doing inexplicable things.
286 2017-03-16 19:08:05	0|sipa|gmaxwell: you think we should include txn crediting the wallet that are not in the mempool?
287 2017-03-16 19:08:18	0|sipa|gmaxwell: that would bring back all malleability craziness
288 2017-03-16 19:08:30	0|gmaxwell|sipa: if it's the users own output? I think so.
289 2017-03-16 19:08:45	0|gmaxwell|(and it's not conflicted.)
290 2017-03-16 19:08:59	0|morcos|perhaps there needs to be a new category of pending txs
291 2017-03-16 19:08:59	0|sipa|the conflict can be outside of the mempool
292 2017-03-16 19:09:07	0|sipa|s/mempool/wallet/
293 2017-03-16 19:09:40	0|morcos|The pending balance can include both the debit and the credit
294 2017-03-16 19:10:01	0|morcos|But could get complicated
295 2017-03-16 19:10:18	0|jonasschnelli|I tend to like this approach.
296 2017-03-16 19:10:28	0|sipa|which approach?
297 2017-03-16 19:10:37	0|jonasschnelli|pending txs cat
298 2017-03-16 19:11:07	0|sipa|morcos: it's very hard to not double count things in the pending balance if they're spending from malleated versions of the same transaction
299 2017-03-16 19:11:38	0|gmaxwell|I am dubious that your own mempool is actually that strong a protection here.
300 2017-03-16 19:12:32	0|jnewbery|- it should be behind an explicit option
301 2017-03-16 19:12:32	0|jnewbery|my view: simplest experience is best. Default should be to reject too-long-chain transaction from wallet and mempool. If the user wants to have long chains in wallet, that's fine but:
302 2017-03-16 19:12:32	0|jnewbery|- user should understand that it could have unexpected impacts on things like getbalance()
303 2017-03-16 19:13:11	0|gmaxwell|Transactions simply failing to create due to inexplicable internal things that the user does not understand and cannot easily understand is not a good expirence at all.
304 2017-03-16 19:13:17	0|morcos|well look, this thing is an option, so its kind of ridiculous to spend this much time discussing the default.  The solution no matter whether we change the default or not is more announcing of the effects in either case
305 2017-03-16 19:13:36	0|gmaxwell|We were already getting complaints about inexplicable failures before.
306 2017-03-16 19:13:57	0|gmaxwell|Many people do not have adequate error handling to deal with a sendtoaddress failing when the balance was sufficient.
307 2017-03-16 19:13:58	0|morcos|But too long a chain, try again later is explicable
308 2017-03-16 19:14:13	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i think seeing your balance going down inexplicably is worse than inexplicably failing to create a transaction (at least there can be an explanation message)
309 2017-03-16 19:14:32	0|gmaxwell|I agree the balance is screwed up. But _that_ is the issue, not the rest.
310 2017-03-16 19:14:45	0|jnewbery|take this discussion offline? I'm happy to receive feedback in #10015
311 2017-03-16 19:14:46	0|instagibbs|Either way we can buff up the error messages to be far less scary, especially in this case.
312 2017-03-16 19:14:47	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10015 | Wallet should reject long chains by default by jnewbery · Pull Request #10015 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
313 2017-03-16 19:15:15	0|gmaxwell|sipa: how about we remove all ability to sends funds entirely, then there never will be balance confusion?
314 2017-03-16 19:15:21	0|sipa|gmaxwell: come on
315 2017-03-16 19:15:25	0|morcos|well i wasn't implying we shouldn't discuss here, its kind of hard to have this discussion on a PR
316 2017-03-16 19:16:00	0|morcos|gmaxwell: the balance issue is not easy to solve
317 2017-03-16 19:16:33	0|sipa|sure, if balance was redefined completely we may be able to avoid that issue, but i don't even know where to start
318 2017-03-16 19:16:46	0|morcos|i just see both choices as non-optimal and i think we should pick one and try to make it as clear to users as possible
319 2017-03-16 19:16:54	0|gmaxwell|This is a sign that our current definition is just broken. It should not be so tightly coupled to the mempool.
320 2017-03-16 19:16:57	0|morcos|i thought that previously we had picked, and maybe failed at the making it clear
321 2017-03-16 19:17:20	0|jonasschnelli|I'd say lets pick what serves more user... and the default = true seems to be the better choice...but I don't have numbers to proof that.
322 2017-03-16 19:17:21	0|bsm1175322|One could create a RBF replacement transaction instead of a chain...
323 2017-03-16 19:17:36	0|gmaxwell|(like how is the software even supposted to be usable to people that don't have a mempool? -- this is a supported configuration!)
324 2017-03-16 19:17:37	0|sipa|gmaxwell: even if it is not tightly coupled with the mempool, we need a means of estimating whether it could confirm
325 2017-03-16 19:17:48	0|morcos|yep, our time would be better spent extending bumpfee to work on chains
326 2017-03-16 19:18:13	0|gmaxwell|or finding a way to eliminate the chain limit.
327 2017-03-16 19:18:26	0|jnewbery|morcos: if the default is false (accept long chains) then it's very difficult to communicate to the user what the problem is. If we reject long chains then at least we can send a helpful error to the user
328 2017-03-16 19:18:31	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i'm not convinced the chain limit itself is the only problem here
329 2017-03-16 19:18:36	0|morcos|i suppose i do agree with gmaxwell thought that i always just took our balance calculation as gospel, but maybe it is kind of silly
330 2017-03-16 19:19:13	0|gmaxwell|sipa: clearly not, because apparently we'll report a balance way off if you don't have a mempool! :)
331 2017-03-16 19:19:15	0|jtimon|suggested topic: what's the current state on finally removing accounts?
332 2017-03-16 19:19:16	0|luke-jr|bsm1175322: +1
333 2017-03-16 19:19:31	0|gmaxwell|(er it's clearly not the only problem!)
334 2017-03-16 19:20:19	0|sipa|gmaxwell: if you don't rely on the mempool, it's not that hard i think to make the wallet double count
335 2017-03-16 19:20:56	0|wumpus|right, the wallet can't detect conflicting transactions itself
336 2017-03-16 19:20:57	0|sipa|that would be great to fix, but i don't know how
337 2017-03-16 19:21:08	0|gmaxwell|good thing there aren't any wallets in the bitcoin system without mempools.
338 2017-03-16 19:21:22	0|wumpus|so if it sends a transaction, and someone malleates it and it would receive the malleated version back, it'd count that double
339 2017-03-16 19:21:23	0|morcos|sipa: but a better balance calculation would be to evaluate net changes on a per tx basis
340 2017-03-16 19:21:29	0|sipa|gmaxwell: wallets that don't spend unconfirmed change don't have this problem
341 2017-03-16 19:21:31	0|morcos|and not consider the debits and credits separately
342 2017-03-16 19:21:33	0|wumpus|it would work if it wouldn't count unconfirmed transactions
343 2017-03-16 19:21:47	0|sipa|morcos: oh, you mean like the account system? *ducks*
344 2017-03-16 19:21:54	0|wumpus|exactly, we have an option for that already
345 2017-03-16 19:22:02	0|gmaxwell|sipa: no such wallet exists in the wild. (beyond bitcoin core users who have changed their settings and a few industrial users)
346 2017-03-16 19:23:08	0|morcos|sipa: sigh.. no i mean properly..  there is no reason to assume a sent tx not in your mempool should debit your input but not credit your change output.  thats just broken.
347 2017-03-16 19:23:13	0|morcos|at worst it should do both
348 2017-03-16 19:23:21	0|morcos|only gets complicated if its a mixed debit tx
349 2017-03-16 19:23:59	0|gmaxwell|well it's showing a worse case balance, which is a thing you can rationally choose to do... but it's confusing to users esp with no other information available elsewhere.
350 2017-03-16 19:24:06	0|sipa|gmaxwell: i don't know how to give an accurate unconfirmed balance without a mempool
351 2017-03-16 19:24:10	0|morcos|actually, maybe gmaxwell is right.. maybe we can just fix that in our existing system?
352 2017-03-16 19:24:32	0|morcos|gmaxwell: how is that worst case, how is that balance even achievable?
353 2017-03-16 19:24:38	0|gmaxwell|Unfortunately, malleablity is still a thing.
354 2017-03-16 19:25:16	0|gmaxwell|morcos: It's not achievable. But the estimation pattern of including non-mempool debits but not credits is a worst case estimator generally.
355 2017-03-16 19:25:17	0|morcos|yes, but you can't end up with the debit and not the credit.. you can end up with the debit and you're momentarily confused how to spend the credit, but it's still your credit
356 2017-03-16 19:25:20	0|sipa|without malleability maybe this problem becomes easier
357 2017-03-16 19:25:32	0|gmaxwell|sometimes you have a non-mempool debit which will still go through.
358 2017-03-16 19:25:51	0|luke-jr|sipa: are you including the wallet's storage of txs as "mempool"?
359 2017-03-16 19:25:57	0|sipa|luke-jr: no
360 2017-03-16 19:26:30	0|gmaxwell|I think any change estimation issue goes away if you assume non-malleablity and no concurrent use of the same keys.
361 2017-03-16 19:26:43	0|gmaxwell|er balance estimation.
362 2017-03-16 19:27:20	0|sipa|luke-jr: i mean a mempool which is kept consistent with the block chain - i guess you can simulate that inside the wallet, but it risks missing things that depend on unconfirmed transactions which don't involve you
363 2017-03-16 19:27:34	0|gmaxwell|I find it hard to believe that the current behavior won't cause wildly wrong balances in other cases.  In particular, what happens to your balance when you pay something that falls out of the mempool due to low fees? same deal.
364 2017-03-16 19:27:53	0|gmaxwell|Chaning the behavior for long chains will do nothing for that, just covers up the fundimentally bad behavior.
365 2017-03-16 19:28:35	0|sipa|right, the expected behaviour there is that you use abandontx to correct the balance
366 2017-03-16 19:28:38	0|gmaxwell|maybe it's not reasonably possible to fix completely in the presence of malleablity. The best thing with malleablity still around might be presenting a pending balance.
367 2017-03-16 19:28:42	0|jtimon|sipa: but there will still be malleability for old txs, no? I don't undesrtand the discussion well enough...
368 2017-03-16 19:29:11	0|sipa|gmaxwell: maybe people just don't hit the "falls out of mempool" case, and only hit chain length limits
369 2017-03-16 19:29:16	0|gmaxwell|sipa: well you can use abandon in this case too. (though thats a pretty bad expirence, spend a cent, then hours later 100 btc vanishes from your balance? )
370 2017-03-16 19:29:28	0|jonasschnelli|jtimon: The main user issue is described here: #9752
371 2017-03-16 19:29:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9752 | Max unconfirmed chainlength · Issue #9752 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
372 2017-03-16 19:29:37	0|sipa|maybe we should have some form of automatic abandoning...
373 2017-03-16 19:29:47	0|morcos|sipa: noooooooooooo
374 2017-03-16 19:29:48	0|gmaxwell|sipa: we previously had reports about txn falling out of the mempool.
375 2017-03-16 19:29:55	0|sipa|or at least automatically stop counting as debit at some point
376 2017-03-16 19:29:57	0|gmaxwell|sipa: AutoFraud(tm)
377 2017-03-16 19:30:26	0|jonasschnelli|I agree with sipa, especially the non sendto* (or Qt) ones.
378 2017-03-16 19:30:40	0|wumpus|fee bump is a better alternative to abandoning
379 2017-03-16 19:30:49	0|gmaxwell|wumpus++
380 2017-03-16 19:31:04	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: yes. but adding new outputs would be a requirement then.
381 2017-03-16 19:31:12	0|sipa|but if you stop counting as debit, while still excluding from unspent outputs, you risk even worse unexpected behaviour
382 2017-03-16 19:31:17	0|BlueMatt|yes, better to not auto-abandon and do what other wallets are doing now - if you try to send with too low a fee, nag the user really loudly to make it rbf-able
383 2017-03-16 19:31:19	0|morcos|i'd be happy to discuss another time whether we can make some slight improvements to our balance estimation..  i guess i think it wouldn't be that hard... next time i have time i'll look closer
384 2017-03-16 19:31:33	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: yes, what electrum does is reasonable there.
385 2017-03-16 19:31:52	0|wumpus|abandoning is dangerous, there is no guarantee that everyone forgot the transaction, so the user may send the tx again with different outputs and then it goes through twice oops
386 2017-03-16 19:32:22	0|jonasschnelli|The reminds me of the problem that BIP125 doesn't explicit mention a recommended nSequence nr. Electrum was using 0, Core intmax-2. (privacy)
387 2017-03-16 19:32:30	0|sipa|right, i take back my suggestion to auto-abandom
388 2017-03-16 19:32:47	0|BlueMatt|auto-bump, otoh.....
389 2017-03-16 19:32:54	0|sipa|yeah...
390 2017-03-16 19:33:08	0|wumpus|sipa: from a viewpoint of the user it's what they want, for the transaction to 'just disappear', bitcoin just makes that very difficult
391 2017-03-16 19:33:17	0|morcos|yeah auto bump should be 0.15 priority
392 2017-03-16 19:33:30	0|gmaxwell|precomputed bumps with locktimes were always an idea I liked... doesn't really do great with spending unconfirmed change.
393 2017-03-16 19:33:39	0|jonasschnelli|morcos: with plenty of pre-signed transactions?
394 2017-03-16 19:34:19	0|morcos|spending unconfirmed change is doable i think...  complicated, but you just stop bumping the first and start bumping the 2nd with CPFP calculations
395 2017-03-16 19:34:23	0|BlueMatt|esp given miners can freely malleate it out from under you
396 2017-03-16 19:34:42	0|gmaxwell|without malleablity basically none of these change handling issues would exist, I think.
397 2017-03-16 19:35:05	0|gmaxwell|as you'd never have a case where you might double count your own funds.
398 2017-03-16 19:35:32	0|wumpus|unfortunately we're stuck with malleability
399 2017-03-16 19:35:43	0|morcos|not if we use flextrans
400 2017-03-16 19:35:49	0|morcos|(sorry)
401 2017-03-16 19:35:50	0|sipa|right, no from-self transaction in your wallet could credit you without you having signed for it
402 2017-03-16 19:35:52	0|gmaxwell|hah
403 2017-03-16 19:35:56	0|jonasschnelli|heh
404 2017-03-16 19:35:59	0|wumpus|flextrans, lol
405 2017-03-16 19:36:07	0|BlueMatt|trolol
406 2017-03-16 19:36:10	0|gmaxwell|morcos: I made the remove all sending ability quip above!
407 2017-03-16 19:36:49	0|gmaxwell|well we really haven't pushed to get malleablity fixed as a group... just put the fix out there.
408 2017-03-16 19:37:24	0|morcos|ok... we're going off the rails. now.. maybe next topic.. and we revisit this in a week after thinking through both avenues
409 2017-03-16 19:37:27	0|sipa|ok
410 2017-03-16 19:37:31	0|BlueMatt|ack
411 2017-03-16 19:37:32	0|gmaxwell|Sounds great.
412 2017-03-16 19:37:35	0|jnewbery|yep
413 2017-03-16 19:37:43	0|jonasschnelli|While we are touching the wallet... can we make progress on #9294?
414 2017-03-16 19:37:44	0|wumpus|#topic status of removal of account system
415 2017-03-16 19:37:46	0|gmaxwell|Sorry for being a PITA. :)
416 2017-03-16 19:37:47	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
417 2017-03-16 19:37:53	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: okay.
418 2017-03-16 19:37:55	0|wumpus|can be really short there: no advances since last time we've discussed that
419 2017-03-16 19:38:06	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: that sounds like a should-review-this-week
420 2017-03-16 19:38:08	0|wumpus|I should really pick up https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7729
421 2017-03-16 19:38:24	0|BlueMatt|wumpus: yes, this should definitely happen for 0.15, imo
422 2017-03-16 19:38:27	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: do we have a project setup to track things that change the wallet format in incompatible ways?
423 2017-03-16 19:38:34	0|wumpus|as we need a label API first before even thinking about deprecating accounts
424 2017-03-16 19:38:45	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: not yet.
425 2017-03-16 19:38:47	0|wumpus|BlueMatt: I agree, though multiwallet has higher priority for me
426 2017-03-16 19:39:04	0|gmaxwell|multiwallet++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++divide by zero error
427 2017-03-16 19:39:06	0|wumpus|I intended to pick up multiwallet this week, but eh shit happened
428 2017-03-16 19:39:18	0|BlueMatt|ok, so lets list reviews to prioritize this week?
429 2017-03-16 19:39:34	0|sipa|my focus will be leveldb mempool reduction
430 2017-03-16 19:39:45	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: mentioned 9294, I'm still super blocked on 9725
431 2017-03-16 19:40:11	0|wumpus|#8694
432 2017-03-16 19:40:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8694 | Basic multiwallet support by luke-jr · Pull Request #8694 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
433 2017-03-16 19:40:15	0|sipa|#9294 #9725
434 2017-03-16 19:40:18	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
435 2017-03-16 19:40:19	0|jonasschnelli|9294 would need direction if the performance drawback is acceptable. IMO yes.
436 2017-03-16 19:40:20	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9725 | CValidationInterface Cleanups by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9725 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
437 2017-03-16 19:40:23	0|BlueMatt|yea, was just looking for that one wumpus
438 2017-03-16 19:40:39	0|wumpus|that's the next step toward multiwallet, though luke-jr and I have some disagreement about specifics about implementation
439 2017-03-16 19:40:40	0|stevenroose|My btcd testnet node recently got a softfork deployment on versionbit 28. Is that this dummy deployment from bitcoind?
440 2017-03-16 19:40:40	0|stevenroose|v
441 2017-03-16 19:40:41	0|gmaxwell|sipa: you mean the "make defaults work on odroid c2 again" problem?
442 2017-03-16 19:40:41	0|stevenroose|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L190
443 2017-03-16 19:40:42	0|jonasschnelli|I'd like to continue with HD restore... but 9294 seems to be required first
444 2017-03-16 19:40:45	0|wumpus|but that it needs to happen is clear
445 2017-03-16 19:41:02	0|jtimon|wumpus: oh, right, we need 7729 first
446 2017-03-16 19:41:05	0|sipa|gmaxwell: no, i mean fix the silly continuous allocation of leveldb memory
447 2017-03-16 19:41:14	0|gmaxwell|stevenroose: that is likely doofsus still signling 'bip 109' on testnet. (even though nothing implements it anymore)
448 2017-03-16 19:41:43	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: yes the HD chain split *defnitely* needs to be in 0.15
449 2017-03-16 19:41:48	0|gmaxwell|sipa: so memory reduction not mempool reduction.
450 2017-03-16 19:41:50	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: it's sad it missed 0.14
451 2017-03-16 19:42:06	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: merging sooner should allow more perofmance improvemnts before 0.15.
452 2017-03-16 19:42:07	0|sipa|gmaxwell: lol. yes
453 2017-03-16 19:42:21	0|jonasschnelli|*performance improvements
454 2017-03-16 19:42:22	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: you can still implement lookahead scanning without the split.
455 2017-03-16 19:42:30	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: agree, will take a look at it
456 2017-03-16 19:42:33	0|stevenroose|gmaxwell, yeah I read about bip109 as well when I googled the versionbit. So that means that 95% of testnett blocks the last few weeks were mined by people trolling about bip109?
457 2017-03-16 19:42:40	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: Yes. But I don't want to go to the rebase-hell. :)
458 2017-03-16 19:42:48	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: at some point we should merge something so that it can be improved
459 2017-03-16 19:43:07	0|wumpus|right, it's frustrating to keep non-trivial things up to date with all the code churn
460 2017-03-16 19:43:25	0|luke-jr|wumpus: I don't necessarily disagree with your points, just that they're factoring unrelated to multiwallet itself IMO
461 2017-03-16 19:43:26	0|achow101|stevenroose: not now or here. ask in #bitcoin-dev, there's a meeting going on here right now
462 2017-03-16 19:43:28	0|jtimon|I wouldn't mind some re-reviews on #8855 (previously #6907), it's simple
463 2017-03-16 19:43:30	0|gmaxwell|stevenroose: no, it got 'activated' eons ago. then the miner signaling it mined BIP109 invalid blocks (because their implementation was broken) and forked classic off (until classic ripped out 109)
464 2017-03-16 19:43:30	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8855 | Use a proper factory for creating chainparams by jtimon · Pull Request #8855 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
465 2017-03-16 19:43:31	0|jonasschnelli|But multiwallet will be also my prio for 0.15. I start reviewing more soon.
466 2017-03-16 19:43:33	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6907 | Chainparams: Use a regular factory for creating chainparams by jtimon · Pull Request #6907 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
467 2017-03-16 19:43:43	0|jonasschnelli|The whole Qt part is unsolved IMO.
468 2017-03-16 19:44:00	0|jonasschnelli|The general concept of switching/opening/closing/creating wallets
469 2017-03-16 19:44:06	0|stevenroose|achow101, my apologies
470 2017-03-16 19:44:07	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: no, I have a branch for that
471 2017-03-16 19:44:10	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: I'd be happy to have it in JSONRPC already
472 2017-03-16 19:44:11	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: it's 2 PRs away
473 2017-03-16 19:44:20	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: no need to block anything on GUI support
474 2017-03-16 19:44:23	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: great!
475 2017-03-16 19:44:31	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: Sure...
476 2017-03-16 19:44:48	0|jonasschnelli|But in general the low level stuff should conceptually fits the UI goals
477 2017-03-16 19:44:55	0|wumpus|even small steps forward are worthwhile in this regard
478 2017-03-16 19:44:59	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: sure
479 2017-03-16 19:45:13	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. Multiwallet was hold back long enought... I'm happy with every simple babystep
480 2017-03-16 19:45:19	0|luke-jr|jonasschnelli: Knots has actually included multiwallet since 0.13, FWIW
481 2017-03-16 19:45:35	0|jonasschnelli|luke-jr: Never used Knots. I probably should try it at least.
482 2017-03-16 19:46:47	0|wumpus|ok, other topics?
483 2017-03-16 19:47:01	0|jnewbery|running python rpc tests from `make check`?
484 2017-03-16 19:47:08	0|kanzure|was someone asking about nulldummy versionbit?
485 2017-03-16 19:47:22	0|luke-jr|isn't nulldummy deployed with segwit?
486 2017-03-16 19:47:34	0|sipa|yes
487 2017-03-16 19:48:25	0|achow101|I've been getting some reports about people's nodes running out of memory. perhaps we need to publish a "minimum spec" so people know what to expect if they don't meet that
488 2017-03-16 19:48:34	0|cfields|jnewbery: +1. we were discussing this a few min ago. That makes "make check" dependent on python3 though (apparently). Not sure if wumpus is ok with that
489 2017-03-16 19:48:47	0|wumpus|cfields: I don't mind
490 2017-03-16 19:49:03	0|wumpus|cfields: the only thing I worry about is the slowness of the RPC tests
491 2017-03-16 19:49:43	0|jonasschnelli|What's the benefits of adding the rpc's to `make check`?
492 2017-03-16 19:49:46	0|wumpus|'make check' should ideally do fairly quick checks, some of the RPC tests classify as that, but the whole suite takes maybe too long
493 2017-03-16 19:49:58	0|gmaxwell|make check is currently not quick at all.
494 2017-03-16 19:50:09	0|gmaxwell|I think on my system it actually takes similar time to the whole rpc checks.
495 2017-03-16 19:50:09	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: secp256k1 is part of that :p
496 2017-03-16 19:50:19	0|gmaxwell|let me revise.
497 2017-03-16 19:50:21	0|cfields|wumpus: same. But lately I've been coming around to gmaxwell's point that they're a bulk of our tests, so it's kinda a disservice for people to assume that "make check" and all is good
498 2017-03-16 19:50:32	0|gmaxwell|the unit tests themselves take almost as long as the rpc tests.
499 2017-03-16 19:50:37	0|gmaxwell|and are _far_ less useful.
500 2017-03-16 19:50:37	0|jonasschnelli|Indeed. Adding another 20min rpc test will result in nobody running make check anymore
501 2017-03-16 19:50:38	0|wumpus|it does the extensive tests for secp256k1, which take quite a while
502 2017-03-16 19:50:49	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: Does anyone but us run make check now? :P
503 2017-03-16 19:50:50	0|cfields|wumpus: also, this would parallelize the tests. So the boost tests and rpc would run at the same time
504 2017-03-16 19:50:50	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: that's certainly not true here
505 2017-03-16 19:50:52	0|jtimon|jnewbery: I would prefer a diferent target, you could still do make check tests, or only make check or only make tests
506 2017-03-16 19:50:56	0|luke-jr|I'd rather `make check` be comprehensive than quick tbh. the default RPC test suite seems like an okay compromise.
507 2017-03-16 19:50:58	0|wumpus|yes, I run make check a lot
508 2017-03-16 19:51:01	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: I hope so... but i doubt.
509 2017-03-16 19:51:12	0|wumpus|cfields: ok that's pretty cool
510 2017-03-16 19:51:15	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: the secp256k1 tests are adjustable and can basically take as little or as much time as you like, we could make it arbitarily fast.
511 2017-03-16 19:51:29	0|jnewbery|I could select a subset of fast rpc tests if you think the standard list is too slow
512 2017-03-16 19:51:39	0|jonasschnelli|I guess not even the gitian system runs make check
513 2017-03-16 19:51:43	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: though I'd like to move some more of the secp256k1 tests to runtime, it isn't like distributors actually make check. :(
514 2017-03-16 19:51:47	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: I dont think running the secp256k1 tests thoroughly is a bad idea at all
515 2017-03-16 19:51:53	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: helps catch compiler bugs and such
516 2017-03-16 19:51:56	0|jonasschnelli|though a bit more complex because of the platforms.
517 2017-03-16 19:51:56	0|jtimon|wumpus: maybe the tests to run with make should be all but excluding prunning.py?
518 2017-03-16 19:52:14	0|gmaxwell|yes, I think they're important, though we could move some of that to simple startup time. The most critical checks are very fast.
519 2017-03-16 19:52:38	0|wumpus|e.g. broken signing is very, very bad
520 2017-03-16 19:52:44	0|gmaxwell|I worry a lot about compiler bugs, our current make check is woefully inadequate (except the libsecp256k1 part, granted. :P )
521 2017-03-16 19:52:51	0|jtimon|cfields: but the unittests themelseves don't run in parallel like the rpc/py tests, right?
522 2017-03-16 19:53:07	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: (similar to how I nagged you to make those rng tests runtime and you did...)
523 2017-03-16 19:53:11	0|gmaxwell|(thank you)
524 2017-03-16 19:53:11	0|jonasschnelli|jtimon: not that i know
525 2017-03-16 19:53:22	0|wumpus|jtimon: parallelism at multiple levels doesn't make much sense, there's only so many cores to go around
526 2017-03-16 19:53:24	0|jtimon|also, make check tests -j10 should pass -j10 down to the rpc-tester, right?
527 2017-03-16 19:53:36	0|cfields|jtimon: correct, we'd never survive that
528 2017-03-16 19:53:40	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: we could probably define a subset of rpc tests that are fast and more useful than the unit tests.
529 2017-03-16 19:53:43	0|cfields|jtimon: ooh yes, that'd be really nice
530 2017-03-16 19:54:00	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: yup. don't know if you saw the clang fsafe-stack issue that messes up deterministic signing
531 2017-03-16 19:54:04	0|jtimon|wumpus: well, current make check could be faster, I compile very fast, but then it gests stuck at 1 core running the tests
532 2017-03-16 19:54:26	0|jtimon|half the time I wait more for the unittests than to compile
533 2017-03-16 19:54:40	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: I didn't.
534 2017-03-16 19:54:45	0|wumpus|jtimon: but cfields proposes running (some of) the qa tests at the same time
535 2017-03-16 19:54:48	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: let me dig it up
536 2017-03-16 19:54:58	0|gmaxwell|Has anyone recently 'profiled' the tests to see where time is being spent?
537 2017-03-16 19:55:13	0|gmaxwell|I bet we have cases where 20% of the time is checking if addition works or something. :P
538 2017-03-16 19:55:14	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: unit or rpc?
539 2017-03-16 19:55:16	0|jnewbery|gmaxwell: unit tests or rpc tests
540 2017-03-16 19:55:17	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/issues/445
541 2017-03-16 19:55:20	0|gmaxwell|jnewbery: both.
542 2017-03-16 19:55:33	0|jnewbery|I've profiled rpc tests. A lot of time is spent in stopnode()
543 2017-03-16 19:55:38	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: holy fuck!
544 2017-03-16 19:55:54	0|wumpus|both frameworks measure the time spent in every test, so profiling at that level is easy
545 2017-03-16 19:55:58	0|jtimon|wumpus: well, I suggest a different target, but if they don't depend on each other, I guess they would run "at the same time"
546 2017-03-16 19:56:07	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: good for tests. (but as I said, we should make some of those runtime too)
547 2017-03-16 19:56:08	0|wumpus|I don't remember by heart which ones, though
548 2017-03-16 19:56:13	0|morcos|i believe the rpc tests could also be made faster if tx relay had a different poisson distribution for regtest or something... i seem to remember that being an issue
549 2017-03-16 19:56:17	0|cfields|wumpus: whoa. Isn't that default for clang now? Or proposed, at least?
550 2017-03-16 19:56:51	0|gmaxwell|regardless of the specific example, compiler bugs are a real thing.
551 2017-03-16 19:57:06	0|cfields|jnewbery: i'd be interested in your findings there
552 2017-03-16 19:57:06	0|wumpus|cfields: I think it's going to be more widely enabled, yes, though AFAIK not yet. I only caught it because cloudabi already has it as default
553 2017-03-16 19:57:07	0|gmaxwell|(though seeing them in rather boring C code is depressing)
554 2017-03-16 19:57:48	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: in any case thats the best news all day! I've complained many times that our tests must suck because we've not found any miscompliation bugs.
555 2017-03-16 19:57:49	0|wumpus|(test_bitcoin -log_level=test_suite shows which unit tsts take so long. most are really fast! )
556 2017-03-16 19:58:11	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: finally some evidence that our tests are potentially okay. :P
557 2017-03-16 19:58:12	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: heh
558 2017-03-16 19:58:32	0|jnewbery|ok, sounds like there's no fundamental objection to at least doing some rpc tests in make check. I'll open a PR and we can continue discussion there.
559 2017-03-16 19:58:54	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: and yes doing some quick secp256k1 tests at runtime would make a lot of sense
560 2017-03-16 19:59:03	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: basic sanity is fairly easy to check
561 2017-03-16 19:59:07	0|gmaxwell|jnewbery: yes, and we should look at time measurements and rebalance the tests to be more useful.
562 2017-03-16 19:59:12	0|jnewbery|also, once 9956 is merged we can stop calling them rpc tests!
563 2017-03-16 19:59:27	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: I have a branch somewhere that adds some runtime selftests, but I think I got a bit carried away and put it aside. :P
564 2017-03-16 19:59:28	0|jonasschnelli|jnewbery: Yes. I'd like to see that merged.
565 2017-03-16 19:59:32	0|wumpus|jnewbery: no, no fundamental objection. Just about speed but that doesn't depend on the language/framework
566 2017-03-16 19:59:41	0|wumpus|jnewbery: +1
567 2017-03-16 20:00:01	0|jtimon|jnewbery: I still heard no reason against adding a new target instead of reusing check
568 2017-03-16 20:00:10	0|wumpus|some of the qa tests are really fast, some of the unit tests really slow, indeed should rebalance testing bang for buck
569 2017-03-16 20:00:20	0|gmaxwell|https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/217  (but I'd probably toss that and take a somewhat different approach now)
570 2017-03-16 20:00:23	0|wumpus|it's time
571 2017-03-16 20:00:27	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Mar 16 20:00:27 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
572 2017-03-16 20:00:27	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
573 2017-03-16 20:00:28	0|gmaxwell|thanks all!
574 2017-03-16 20:00:28	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-16-19.01.log.html
575 2017-03-16 20:00:28	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-16-19.01.html
576 2017-03-16 20:00:28	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-03-16-19.01.txt
577 2017-03-16 20:00:45	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: If you run with wallet, you have a basic EC sanity check over VerifyPubKey().
578 2017-03-16 20:01:04	0|jonasschnelli|But we should probably extend it and add call it from non-wallet init parts
579 2017-03-16 20:01:06	0|jnewbery|jtimon: I like the idea of `make tests` for the full suite, but I think `make check` should include some rpc tests
580 2017-03-16 20:01:18	0|jtimon|jnewbery: oh, I had missed 9956, thanks for pointing it out
581 2017-03-16 20:01:44	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: a special test function could get a much more comprehensive test in not much time.
582 2017-03-16 20:01:52	0|cfields|jnewbery: do you happen to still have any of those profiles showing slow stopnode() ?
583 2017-03-16 20:02:16	0|jtimon|jnewbery: mhmm, why not make tests includes some python tests (maybe most of them) but make check none of them?
584 2017-03-16 20:02:32	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: I really wonder now why we haven't added a simple runtime EC sanity test...
585 2017-03-16 20:02:36	0|jnewbery|jtimon: I've got some nits from cfields to address on 9956. Very happy for other people to review after that
586 2017-03-16 20:03:07	0|jnewbery|cfields: I believe I have them lying around somewhere. Let me dig them out
587 2017-03-16 20:03:13	0|jonasschnelli|I mean coffee machines do "runtime tests" and a faulty EC subsystem can cause far more troubles
588 2017-03-16 20:03:36	0|cfields|jnewbery: thanks. I would assume that it's just waiting for the threads to stop. But I'm curious to see what they're spinning on
589 2017-03-16 20:04:38	0|jtimon|so no answer? everybody seems to prefer reusing make check with some tests, but nobody seem to be able to explain why...
590 2017-03-16 20:05:19	0|jnewbery|cfields: I think it just takes a long time (a few seconds) to stop a node. They're synchronous calls and stopnodes() will stop nodes in series rather than parallel. Some tests also do multiple stop-starts. It adds up.
591 2017-03-16 20:05:20	0|jonasschnelli|The crazy think with the SafeStack issue in LLVM4.0 is that they are not willing to fix it for 4.0. It will be fixed for 4.0.1.
592 2017-03-16 20:06:39	0|jnewbery|jtimon: patience :) I have no particular objection to either. What do you think the different use-cases are for `make check` and `make tests`? (ie under what circumstances should users *not* want to run a few quick python tests)
593 2017-03-16 20:06:46	0|cfields|jnewbery: oh wait, you mean profiling on the python side?
594 2017-03-16 20:07:10	0|jtimon|jnewbery: mostly giving the user more control on how much time he wants to spend running tests
595 2017-03-16 20:07:38	0|jnewbery|yes. Oh, sorry you want profiling of the node's doing as it stops? I don't have that.
596 2017-03-16 20:07:51	0|cfields|jnewbery: sorry, CConnman::Stop() used to be StopNode(). I thought that's what you were referencing.
597 2017-03-16 20:07:56	0|jtimon|maybe it is the unittests they don't want to run for whatever reason
598 2017-03-16 20:08:29	0|instagibbs|jtimon, some people don't know the rpc tests exist, or think that rpc tests run when you call it
599 2017-03-16 20:08:49	0|jnewbery|`make check` currently runs the unit tests. You'd change that so it doesn't run unit tests either? What would there be left for it to do?
600 2017-03-16 20:09:22	0|jnewbery|cfields: sorry name collision
601 2017-03-16 20:16:31	0|jtimon|instagibbs: and those people run make check?
602 2017-03-16 20:16:54	0|instagibbs|jtimon, this happened just last week, so yes
603 2017-03-16 20:17:27	0|instagibbs|from someone I expected knew this
604 2017-03-16 20:17:29	0|jtimon|jnewbery: no, I mean those people could run "make tests" and run only the python tests, or "make check" only the unitttests or "make check tests" to run both
605 2017-03-16 20:17:34	0|instagibbs|(n = 1 and all that)
606 2017-03-16 20:19:11	0|jtimon|instagibbs: I think this can be fixed with docuentation about the new test target and the current check one instead of change check to match their expectations (which I assume was that all python tests were run with check, something nobody seems to be proposing)
607 2017-03-16 20:19:52	0|jtimon|I just don't see the advantage in giving the user less control, sorry
608 2017-03-16 20:20:01	0|jnewbery|jtimon: I think the shorter form `make check` (ie the one that most people will type) should run a cross section of all types of test (ie all unit plus some python). I'm not opposed to having other forms that run just the unit tests or just the python tests.
609 2017-03-16 20:21:20	0|jtimon|make check is not shorter than make test, but whatever, why not think of another name for the new functionality and leave the option that only run unittests (if we're going to have one) with its current name?
610 2017-03-16 20:21:46	0|instagibbs|jtimon, I don't really care a lot, just saying this problem does actually seem to exist
611 2017-03-16 20:21:52	0|jtimon|anyway, I guess this is not so important to disccuss it so much
612 2017-03-16 20:22:06	0|jnewbery|I also don't care too much on what we call it :)
613 2017-03-16 20:22:18	0|jnewbery|but I'll make sure there's a way to just run unit tests
614 2017-03-16 20:22:26	0|jtimon|instagibbs: just stating my preferred solution
615 2017-03-16 20:23:24	0|jtimon|jnewbery: cool
616 2017-03-16 21:33:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #10017: [POC] combine_logs.py - aggregates log files from multiple bitcoinds during functional tests. (06master...06log_aggregator) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10017