1 2017-03-20 00:34:04	0|gmaxwell|Nice to confirm that it was actually an OOM at aleast.
  2 2017-03-20 00:44:56	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Has anyone looked into the supposed testnet chain fork at 1094169?
  3 2017-03-20 00:57:48	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Is a two day testnet chain split possible? There definitely seems to be a split according to what a couple of block explorers I have looked at. The blocks were mined 2 days ago
  4 2017-03-20 00:58:03	0|Chris_Stewart_5|I don't have an synced testnet node to look at my own node :/
  5 2017-03-20 01:02:33	0|Lightsword|oh, yeah I’m not at same height as blocktrail, I’ll dump some hashpower on testnet and fix it
  6 2017-03-20 01:04:13	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Lightsword: So basically this is happening because difficulty is so low it is viable to have two competing chains that are that long?
  7 2017-03-20 01:04:41	0|Lightsword|guess someone mined an invalid block and overtook the valid chain
  8 2017-03-20 01:04:58	0|Lightsword|it will reorg when valid gets more work…which should be soon now
  9 2017-03-20 01:07:06	0|Chris_Stewart_5|So IIRC bitcoin core stores invalid blocks on disk too right? Seems weird that block explorers would display a chain built on an invalid block...
 10 2017-03-20 01:07:57	0|Lightsword|no
 11 2017-03-20 01:08:10	0|Lightsword|some block explorers are probably not running full nodes
 12 2017-03-20 01:08:14	0|sipa|it will only store things whose block _headers_ are valid
 13 2017-03-20 01:08:30	0|sipa|it can't know whether the block is fully valid without having all blocks before it
 14 2017-03-20 01:08:42	0|sipa|so it will store potentially invalid blocks if they have valid headers
 15 2017-03-20 01:09:18	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Lightsword: sipa Thanks for the explanations!
 16 2017-03-20 01:12:32	0|Lightsword|so looks like block 000000000000034ba26cee29d86f20d6ead376aa1b868c14fd13bacac54959de is invalid
 17 2017-03-20 01:13:09	0|Lightsword|coinbase tag is “Bitprim Project”
 18 2017-03-20 01:14:58	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Lightsword: What is illegal about that? Can't the coinbase scriptSig be anything as long as it is more than 4 bytes and less than 100 IIRC
 19 2017-03-20 01:15:02	0|gmaxwell|"Bitprim is a 100% compatible BItcoin PRotocol IMplementation."
 20 2017-03-20 01:15:24	0|Lightsword|coinbase sig isn’t what’s invalid I don’t think
 21 2017-03-20 01:15:58	0|Lightsword|probably this is broken :P https://github.com/bitprim/bitprim-mining
 22 2017-03-20 01:16:50	0|Chris_Stewart_5|mmm ok
 23 2017-03-20 01:17:00	0|Lightsword|looks to be libbitcoin based
 24 2017-03-20 01:18:40	0|gmaxwell|I like that there is a commit there with 0 changed files called "some improvements", can't mess with perfection, I guess. :)
 25 2017-03-20 01:19:19	0|talmai|"perfection isn't a fact, it's an opinion"
 26 2017-03-20 01:24:01	0|Chris_Stewart_5|So essentially these block explorers are running nodes -- but skipping some sort of validation i.e. script validation. However these must have some sort of UTXO set
 27 2017-03-20 01:24:43	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: why do they need a utxo set?
 28 2017-03-20 01:24:51	0|sipa|they just show blocks
 29 2017-03-20 01:25:11	0|sipa|oh, to show whether outputs are spent, right
 30 2017-03-20 01:25:28	0|Chris_Stewart_5|https://live.blockcypher.com/btc-testnet/block/000000000000034ba26cee29d86f20d6ead376aa1b868c14fd13bacac54959de/
 31 2017-03-20 01:25:30	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Yeah
 32 2017-03-20 01:25:37	0|sipa|but they need way more than a utxo set... they need a database that says for each output where it is spent even
 33 2017-03-20 01:27:27	0|Chris_Stewart_5|A little scary if this could be executed on main chain, could be used as a scare tactic. I guess we can't figure out how deep the rabbit hole goes since they run custom infrastructure
 34 2017-03-20 01:29:55	0|gmaxwell|Chris_Stewart_5: historically block explorers don't validate (most) stuff.
 35 2017-03-20 01:30:06	0|gmaxwell|because that gets in the way of showing things.
 36 2017-03-20 01:59:42	0|morcos|sdaftuar took a quick look earlier and said it looked like there was a witness commitment in coinbase but at least one tx that needed a witness was missing it .
 37 2017-03-20 07:39:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/10b930dde8f1...5c1a95812411
 38 2017-03-20 07:39:47	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145c1a958 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10027: Set to nullptr after delete...
 39 2017-03-20 07:39:47	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d93b97f 15practicalswift: Set to nullptr after delete
 40 2017-03-20 07:40:08	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10027: Set to nullptr after delete (06master...06set-to-nullptr-after-delete) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10027
 41 2017-03-20 08:21:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15keystrike opened pull request #10037: Trivial: Fix typo in help getrawtransaction RPC (06master...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10037
 42 2017-03-20 09:12:37	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #10038: Add mallocinfo mode to `getmemoryinfo` RPC (06master...062017_03_meminfo) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10038
 43 2017-03-20 09:45:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1405a9f22 15James Evans: Trivial: Fix typo in help getrawtransaction RPC
 44 2017-03-20 09:45:24	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 147c7ddd9 15MarcoFalke: Merge #10037: Trivial: Fix typo in help getrawtransaction RPC...
 45 2017-03-20 09:45:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5c1a95812411...7c7ddd9ead99
 46 2017-03-20 09:45:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #10037: Trivial: Fix typo in help getrawtransaction RPC (06master...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10037
 47 2017-03-20 12:12:12	0|kitsu|Does the client support skipping validation of the incoming txs?
 48 2017-03-20 12:23:40	0|luke-jr|of course not? what would even be the point?
 49 2017-03-20 12:32:31	0|kitsu|luke-jr: just care about world climate
 50 2017-03-20 12:33:08	0|paveljanik|-blocksonly? ;-)
 51 2017-03-20 12:33:45	0|luke-jr|kitsu: skipping validation of your incoming txs would have basically no effect
 52 2017-03-20 12:34:07	0|paveljanik|faster ban from your peers...
 53 2017-03-20 12:34:58	0|wumpus|kitsu: then blocksonly is even better, as your client will request not to receive transactions at all
 54 2017-03-20 12:35:25	0|kitsu|yeah, that probably what I'm searching
 55 2017-03-20 12:35:26	0|kitsu|thanks!
 56 2017-03-20 12:35:29	0|wumpus|if you're going to not validate them anyway that's preferable
 57 2017-03-20 12:46:07	0|afk11|I was in here last week asking about the same.. eventually someone put some hashrate back on and v0.12 nodes were in sync with v0.13+ testnet nodes. just unfortunate they didn't upgrade on time. I assume it's due to spending a witness output?
 58 2017-03-20 13:05:16	0|Lightsword|afk11, fork seems to an alternative full node “Bitprim”
 59 2017-03-20 13:05:47	0|Lightsword|I dumped some hashpower on testnet and killed the invalid chain
 60 2017-03-20 13:25:05	0|Chris_Stewart_5|afk11: Apparently sdaftuar looked into it and said it was it due to a missing witness :/
 61 2017-03-20 13:28:27	0|NicolasDorier|I have a super weird problem with the tests
 62 2017-03-20 13:28:40	0|NicolasDorier|2017-03-20 13:27:12.242000 TestFramework (INFO): Initializing test directory /tmp/testqdhumvh3/10058
 63 2017-03-20 13:28:40	0|NicolasDorier|: No such file or directory
 64 2017-03-20 13:28:40	0|NicolasDorier|root@698392db6811:/home/bitcoin/bitcoin# python3 qa/rpc-tests/hdwatchonly.py
 65 2017-03-20 13:28:40	0|NicolasDorier|root@698392db6811:/home/bitcoin/bitcoin# qa/rpc-tests/hdwatchonly.py
 66 2017-03-20 13:28:52	0|NicolasDorier|oh
 67 2017-03-20 13:29:02	0|NicolasDorier|it smell CRLF
 68 2017-03-20 13:30:19	0|wumpus|hm
 69 2017-03-20 13:31:09	0|NicolasDorier|ha yes
 70 2017-03-20 13:31:14	0|NicolasDorier|sorry was that indeed
 71 2017-03-20 13:31:30	0|NicolasDorier|basically could not execute the file, needed to add python3
 72 2017-03-20 13:31:49	0|NicolasDorier|CRLF messup
 73 2017-03-20 13:31:53	0|wumpus|no #! at the start?
 74 2017-03-20 13:32:08	0|NicolasDorier|there was, but apparently it also need a LF
 75 2017-03-20 13:32:14	0|wumpus|sometimes I forget that and it executes the python script in the shell instead of python. oops.
 76 2017-03-20 13:32:15	0|NicolasDorier|at the end
 77 2017-03-20 13:32:41	0|NicolasDorier|my fault, I pulled on windows instead of on my docker
 78 2017-03-20 14:06:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14d34995a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #10038: Add mallocinfo mode to `getmemoryinfo` RPC...
 79 2017-03-20 14:06:34	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e141aa4 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Add mallocinfo mode to `getmemoryinfo` RPC...
 80 2017-03-20 14:06:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/7c7ddd9ead99...d34995a7bac6
 81 2017-03-20 14:06:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #10038: Add mallocinfo mode to `getmemoryinfo` RPC (06master...062017_03_meminfo) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10038
 82 2017-03-20 15:45:05	0|afk11|Chris_Stewart_5, sounds about right
 83 2017-03-20 16:53:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15ryanofsky opened pull request #10039: Fix compile errors with Qt 5.3.2 and Boost 1.55.0 (06master...06pr/jessie) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10039
 84 2017-03-20 16:59:49	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1441b8821 15Pieter Wuille: Add updating of chainTxData to release process
 85 2017-03-20 16:59:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/d34995a7bac6...0c17afcbe73e
 86 2017-03-20 16:59:50	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140c17afc 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9734: Add updating of chainTxData to release process...
 87 2017-03-20 17:00:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9734: Add updating of chainTxData to release process (06master...06chaintxnotes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9734
 88 2017-03-20 18:49:03	0|Victorsueca|is there a way to make the rest API ignore the rpcallowip? I was hoping to make the rest API on my node public while only allowing my IPs to connect to the JSON-RPC
 89 2017-03-20 18:50:24	0|sipa|you shouldn't
 90 2017-03-20 18:50:36	0|sipa|it's likely trivial to DoS a system through the rest interface
 91 2017-03-20 18:52:27	0|Victorsueca|right... hmmm
 92 2017-03-20 18:54:08	0|Victorsueca|not my case, but maybe we should stop assuming that the machine that is running bitcoin core doesn't have it's own DoS protection service and is ready to deal with it
 93 2017-03-20 18:54:29	0|sipa|??
 94 2017-03-20 18:55:33	0|sipa|if you have your own DoS protection service (whatever that means, any decent one will need application specific logic), it'll need to proxy the calls somewhere anyway
 95 2017-03-20 18:55:55	0|sipa|so you'd configure rpcallowip to include the service
 96 2017-03-20 18:56:02	0|sipa|still not expose it to the public
 97 2017-03-20 18:56:20	0|Victorsueca|right then, now it makes sense, thanks
 98 2017-03-20 19:26:19	0|BlueMatt|jonasschnelli: hmm, looks like you signed d42729a8fbb60510322d2d80ef5fa302189318c8 with the wrong subkey (sha1 sig)
 99 2017-03-20 21:25:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15rat4 opened pull request #10040: wallet: don't leak height of local chain during inital sync (06master...06patch) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10040
100 2017-03-20 22:16:19	0|adiabat|sipa: yayyyyy base32 address spec!
101 2017-03-20 22:20:13	0|adiabat|sipa: will start work on a golang implementation
102 2017-03-20 22:21:51	0|gmaxwell|adiabat: make sure you implement the tests too! :P (and perhaps contribute some more tests)
103 2017-03-20 22:27:26	0|sipa|adiabat: i'll gladly include it in the repo/BIP if it's moderately readable and passes the tests
104 2017-03-20 22:44:08	0|phantomcircuit|sipa, your vps seems to be offline
105 2017-03-20 22:48:06	0|sipa|works fine here
106 2017-03-20 22:49:52	0|sipa|oh, are you having the same blackholing issue as matt has?
107 2017-03-20 22:49:58	0|sipa|for some reason he can't reach my vps
108 2017-03-20 22:50:28	0|phantomcircuit|im on att wireless
109 2017-03-20 22:50:28	0|phantomcircuit|maybe
110 2017-03-20 22:50:42	0|phantomcircuit|which probably means that ip is blackholed by a significant number of providers
111 2017-03-20 22:51:12	0|sipa|that's... unfortunate (and surprising, i'd expect much more frequent reports in that case)
112 2017-03-20 22:52:21	0|phantomcircuit|oh no it's ipv6 issue
113 2017-03-20 22:52:37	0|phantomcircuit|wait what my tethering has an ipv6 address??
114 2017-03-20 22:53:26	0|TD-Linux|sipa, your web server is not listening on ipv6
115 2017-03-20 22:53:54	0|TD-Linux|phantomcircuit, yeah first thing I checked, most mobile connections have ipv6 (or in fact are ipv6 only)
116 2017-03-20 22:54:11	0|TD-Linux|with 6to4 or whatever
117 2017-03-20 22:55:04	0|phantomcircuit|-_- i cant turn this off with network manager apparently
118 2017-03-20 22:55:36	0|TD-Linux|sipa should just delete his AAAA record or listen on ipv6
119 2017-03-20 22:55:44	0|phantomcircuit|ah there hax
120 2017-03-20 22:55:56	0|phantomcircuit|yeah
121 2017-03-20 23:01:13	0|sipa|TD-Linux: done, moved it to bitcoin6.sipa.be (though it may take a few hours)
122 2017-03-20 23:13:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 6 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0c17afcbe73e...3192e5278abc
123 2017-03-20 23:13:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1400902c4 15John Newbery: Rename qa directory to test
124 2017-03-20 23:13:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c28ee91 15John Newbery: Rename rpc-tests directory to functional
125 2017-03-20 23:13:33	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a9bd622 15John Newbery: Rename test/pull-tester/rpc-tests.py to test/functional/test_runner.py
126 2017-03-20 23:13:52	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9956: Reorganise qa directory (06master...06reorganise_qa) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9956